[PEN-L:12001] Re: Jubilee 2000 critique -- worm's eye view

[Robert Naiman]

I never challenged that Kevin Watkins is a well-informed researcher. Clearly he is.

But analysis is one thing, and advocacy another.

And one should distinguish between two types of advocacy: rhetorical, and specific 
policy.

I agree that Oxfam is fine at the level of general rhetoric. So is Clinton and so, 
now, the IMF, which has now renamed the "Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility" to 
the "Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility."

But as Uncle Whiskers said, "Every shopkeeper knows the difference between what men 
are, and what they say they are. But our bourgeois historians have not yet won even 
this most trivial insight."

The claim that the new ESAF will be different from the old has three legs.

1. The name has changed.

I regard this argument as beneath discussion.

2. There is a new "policy framework paper."

This argument really should be beneath discussion. Suffice it to say that 1) NGO 
analysis -- even by the weak NGOs -- shows that this document does not clarify what 
change, if any, can be expected in the existing IMF conditionality, only that there 
will be additional "poverty" conditionality; and 2) (more importantly) documents can 
be ignored, and they are, if no-one has the ability and willingness to force them to 
be honored.

3. Now ESAF will be jointly managed by the Fund and the Bank, and agreements will be 
subject to Bank approval.

This is all there is in terms of real change. So whether you think there is a change 
depends on whether you trust the Bank to be able/willing to force change. Not 
something one should be sanguine about, when you consider the Bank's record.

Skeptical? The only leverage that has made any difference is unwillingness to fund 
ESAF. A skeptical approach would be: the change in rhetoric is welcome, let's see the 
practical result, and then we'll give you more money. The Oxfam approach is to support 
the money now in exchange for rhetoric. The history of exchanging money for IFI 
rhetoric is: no real change. Why should it be any different now? If Oxfam has its way, 
the IFIs will get the money now, and a few years from now everyone will be complaining 
that the IMF didn't follow through, when the Jubilee 2000 North groups may have left 
the scene. Why give away the only real leverage that people have outside the 
institutions, precisely when they are most vulnerable? Why undercut everyone who has 
been campaigning against ESAF?

And the foregoing discussion completely ignores the most fundamental question. Do 
people in the South really want increased IMF conditionality, to ratify the expansion 
of the IMF into managing "development"?

If Kevin Watkins is so great, let him agree to a public debate with someone chosen by 
Jubilee 2000 South, on whether the IMF should get out. For that matter, let him agree 
to a public debate with Jeff Sachs, who is more progressive on these issues. But 
perhaps he is too shrewd for that.

As for

>I am sure in moral principle many of the more radical criticisms in the
>South are correct. It would be idealist to think that the massive economic
>privileges of the populations of the north are not a drag anchor on the
>ability of northern campaigners to promote more radical solutions. With a
>thirty fold gradient in wage rates across the world a world economic
>development programme promoting average remuneration would involve a
>cataclysmic reduction in the living standards of the population of the
>advanced countries. When for example would our dear pets ever be able to
>eat tinned meat again?

I can't speak for the UK, but I hardly think this is the problem in the US. If there 
were a popular referendum in the U.S. on whether the IMF should continue to receive US 
funding, we would win handily. If the vote were held among Oxfam type NGOs the vote 
would go the other way.

I rather think the problem is that many of the debt campaigners in the north have 
class origins and class positions which dispose them to be less radical than the 
general population on economic issues, particularly when it comes to Western economic 
imperialism.

At 10:39 PM 9/28/99 +0100, you wrote:
>At 13:28 28/09/99 -0400, Robert Naiman wrote:
>
>>One element I would add to the J2000 critique, which folks in the South
>are only starting to get an inkling of. And that's how totally co-opted,
>unaccountable, and deceitful some of the Northern NGOs are.
>>
>>One can say that the call of debt cancellation for the 52 poorest
>countries does not go far enough. But I think that it is a bigger scandal
>that some of the most influential groups in the Northern campaigns,
>especially Oxfam UK, Oxfam International, Oxfam US, Catholic Relief
>Services, Bread [Crumbs] for the World, Presbyterian Church USA, etc. don't
>actually support what they claim to support. In other words, if these
>groups acted as if they really supported debt cancellation for the poorest
>countries, it would be a huge step forward.
>>
>>But they don't. They support structural adjustm

[PEN-L:12000] Re: Eurocentrism and Malaysia

[Michael Hoover]

> Wallerstein and Frank's approach is greatly appreciated
> by intellectuals who are trying to defend clowns masquarading in
> nationalist costumes, like the great leader of Malaysia.  Any criticisms
> of their 'nationalism' is, conveniently, labelled "Eurocentric" (or
> racist...), end of discussion.  For, after all, the clown is a leader of a
> "Periphery" nation, battling a "Core" or "Western"  nation...Before Henry
> left, one of his last posts was such a call for support for
> Mahathir...
> Steve

Come on, what could you use possibly have against Mohamad Mahathir?  
After all, his government has used of class, gender, and ethnic politics 
to maintain workplace stability by opposing national electronics union,
terrorizing and imprisoning labor organizers, and playing Malay workers
against Chinese workers.   The political grouping that he heads (United 
Malays National Organization/UNMO) has functioned as a holding company 
for many of large domestic firms and join ventures with transnational
capital.  Since coming to power in 1981, Mahathir regime's 'bureaucratic 
authoritarianism' has furthered interests of political state, local 
capital, and foreign investors while forcing working people to bear the 
brunt of its 'developmentalist integration' with regional and global 
economy.  I can think of more appropriate word than "clown' to describe 
him.   Michael Hoover

[PEN-L:11996] Re: RE: Re: New biography of Marx

[Michael Hoover]

> One of my all-time favorite quotes from Marx comes from a letter to Arnold
> Ruge in 1841 (I believe but correct me if this is incorrect):
> "If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not
> our task, all the more certain is what me must accomplish in the present. I
> mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being
> ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears
> conflict with the powers-that-be." (quotation from memory so excuse any
> errors from the orginal).
> Jim C.

For what very little it's worth: above is from 1843...  Michael Hoover

[PEN-L:11995] Re: "Aid" to Indonesia

[Michael Hoover]

Michael Keaney:
> Times Higher Education Supplement, 10 September, 1999
> Ex-US president Jimmy
> Carter, now working for the UN, said of East Timor: "The Indonesian military
> and other government agencies are supporting, directing and arming
> pro-integration militias to create a climate of fear and intimidation." 
> Donald Hagger is the administrator of the Sterling Group of universities.
> >From 1980 to 1987 he was a World Bank-funded adviser to the Indonesian
> government.

Jimmy 'human rights' Carter's hypocrisy is in time-honored US tradition 
of Dwight Eisenhower's warning about military-industrial complex in his 
farewell presidential address, Robert MacNamara's crocodile tears for 
starving in Third World at press conference announcing that he was 
leaving World Bank, and Hyman Rickover's concern about danger of nuclear 
weapons upon his resignation as Naval chief who built nuclear navy.

Carter administration increased US weapons shipments to Indonesia,
facilitating the terror and massacre in East Timor to which Gerald
Ford and Henry Kissinger had given the greenlight.  Moreover, US 
voted against UN General Assembly resolution condemning Indonesian 
invasion and occupation each year of Carter's term (1977-1980).  
This resolution was on GA agenda between 1975-1982 with US abstaining 
the first time and voting consistent *nay* after that.  US ambassador 
to UN during Ford presidency, Daniel Moynihan, has indicated that he 
was told to use any measures necessary to make ineffective the UN 
response to East Timor.

US role in East Timor cannot be separated from its role in undermining
Portugese Revolution of 1974-75.  Not until overthrow of dictator
Antonio de Oliveira Salazar did Portugal initiate de-colonization (East 
Timor first appeared on UN de-colonization list in 1960).  Salazar had
ignored UN condemnations of his colonial policies and continued to
use military force in Angola, Mozambique, and Cape Verde & Guinea-
Bissau.  The military coup that ousted Salazar unleashed multiple 
progressive social movements and the new regime moved quickly to
the left.  There were Communist ministers in West European cabinet 
for the first time since 1947.  

Secretary of State Kissinger used same CIA tactics to destabilize 
Portugal that he had used previously against Salvador Allende and 
Popular Unity in Chile and that he was using against Michael Manley 
and People's National Party in Jamaica - channeling money to 
conservative groups and parties, disseminating disinformation though 
the media, working with religious officialdom (US covert operations 
in Portugal occurred at the very time such activities were under 
being investigated in Congress).  The left-ward march of the revolution 
would wane, the Soviets would opt for continuing detente, moderate 
Socialists would win parliamentary elections, the new government
would abandon pledges to assist in transition to East Timorese
sovereignty, and would Portugal would remain with the West.

The Timorese Democratic Union (UDT), the more conservative partner in  
coalition that was to mark East Timor's independent statehood broke
with the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (FRETLIN)
- a social-democratic formation committed to social justice,
economic redistribution, and mixed economy - and seized power.
FRETLIN, which had 'inherited' weapons from Portugal's military as it 
withdrew, gained control.  Claiming that its intervention would 
restore peace and stability in, but actually motivated by desire to 
eliminate leftist-FRETLIN and US Cold War policies that required
'allies' in war against communism, offered military funding, training,
and weapons to such counties, and maintained profitable 'trading 
partners' and investment locations, Indonesia invaded in December 1975.  
Michael Hoover

[PEN-L:11999] Re: Sweezy and Innovation

[Carrol Cox]

Michael Perelman wrote:

> Somewhere, I recall Paul Sweezy discussing how major corporations ripped
> off the work of independent inventors.  I recall a specific discussion
> of General Electric and the garbage disposal.  Does anyone remember
> where he wrote about this?
> --

I'm pretty sure the topic is discussed in *Monopoly Capital*, but
it's been a long time since I read it.

Carrol

[PEN-L:11998] Re: Re: RE: Re: New biography of Marx

[Carrol Cox]

When this quote appeared as a filler in MR some years ago they used
a delightfully idiomatic translation for the first sentence: "It is not our
thing to write recipes for the cookshops of the future."

Carrol

Michael Hoover wrote:

> > One of my all-time favorite quotes from Marx comes from a letter to Arnold
> > Ruge in 1841 (I believe but correct me if this is incorrect):
> > "If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not
> > our task, all the more certain is what me must accomplish in the present. I
> > mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being
> > ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears
> > conflict with the powers-that-be." (quotation from memory so excuse any
> > errors from the orginal).
> > Jim C.
>
> For what very little it's worth: above is from 1843...  Michael Hoover

[PEN-L:11993] Re: Lumpers and Splitters

[Charles Brown]

I agree with this. Except as I understand Jim D's 
lumpers and splitters, Marx was a splitter in the sense
that he was a dialectician and saw processes as
involving quantitative change turning into 
qualitiative change. There was a leap into
capitalism, by his analysis, a discontinuity, 
a revolution, not just an evolution.



Charles Brown

>>> Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/29/99 04:51PM >>>
Jim Devine set an excellent example of how debate should proceed.  Do
not characterize others in ways that they would not accept themselves.
I mentioned to Jim B. that the term Eurocentrism did not seem
particularly useful.  For example, Dobb, as I read him could be charged
with Eurocentrism, just like the creators of triumphalist books to
celebrate the success of the British economy.

Dobb, as I read him many years ago, seemed to make the same point that
Doug Henwood suggested, that the exploitation of the British themselves
should not be overlooked.

As I understand the story, the British overlords were willing to exploit
just about anybody: African slaves, Irish tenants, Indian farmers 
as well as their own people.  All contributed to the process.

Marx, as I understand him, understood things holistically.  Maybe this
makes him a lumper, although he was careful to make distinctions in his
analysis.  For example, he rejected all sorts of bourgeois theory, but
not before he extracted what could be useful from people, such as Smith
and Ricardo.

I'm still at a loss to see the basis of all the hostility in this
debate.  To accept Maurice Dobb does not seem to sacrifice anything on
an altar of British or European superiority.  To incorporate much of Jim
Blaut's information, which I appreciate, does not mean that I'm willing
to castigate those who disagree with him as Eurocentrists.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

[PEN-L:11937] GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.

[chang]

This message is dedicated to poor people and people of justice all
over the world. You can print it, forward and post it to other mailing
lists/discussion forums as long as its
attribution is given to the author and the wording is not altered in
any way. Feel free to pass it around to all of your friends.

Subject: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
by Ju-chang He

Bourgeois economists disguise economic reality and appear to do so
deliberately.  They use the GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), to measure the
whole economic status of a country and this results in the government paying
no attention to the living standards of poor people. So poverty is perpetuated.

Nowadays, most countries use the GDP to judge their economic
growth and, according to this GDP, calculate their
economic growth rate. When there appears a large GDP and
a high economic growth rate, say 9% per
year, economists will say that the economy is great and the financial
officers will be proud, but still the economy is bad. It is bad because the
living standards of the poor haven't been raised. There are still a lot of
people suffering from cold and hunger. They can't afford to send their
children to school, and, as a result, too many children are deprived of
education.

If the economists say things are bad, the government has got to make an
effort to raise the living standards of poor people. If the economists say
that the economy is great, there seems no need for the government to raise
the living standards of poor people.

When there is a small GDP and a negative economic growth rate of,
say, -2% a year, the economists will say that the economy is bad and the
financial officers will be ashamed of it.  Then the government has got to
make every effort to raise GDP, but the living standards of the poor are
unaffected. Therefore, it appears that GDP is for the rich to hoodwink the
poor people to keep them poor.

The GDP, as a measure of the whole economic situation for a country, is
unscientific, because it does not tell the whole story; and it is unfair for
poor people, because it excludes them from prosperity.

What Should We Do to Raise the Living Standards of the Poor?

First, I'd like to prove that the GDP, as a measure of a country's
total economy, is unscientific and unfair for poor.  Then, I'll show that
instead of the GDP, we could use the living standards of the people to
measure the whole economic situation of a country.

In order to use the living standards of the people instead of GDP to
measure the whole economic situation of a country, I'd like to offer a
criterion of how to measure the living standards of the people:
People's living standard can be divided into four grades. The first
grade is necessary consumption of education, clothing, food, housing and
transportation. The second grade is ordinary consumption, which means buying
some more clothes and purchasing TV sets and washers, etc. The third grade
is extravagant consumption, which means going to hotels, restaurants and
dancing-halls and taking cars, etc. The fourth grade is over-extravagant
consumption.

Next, we can carry on state regulations and give guidance of market.
Go to the following site for an explanation:
.
In this way, the market will produce enough consumer goods of the first
and second grade. According to today's productivity, it is not difficult to
produce enough consumer goods of the first and second grade. The government
should make laws to fix a minimum wage level in accordance with the economic
situation of the country and make it clear that the wages of all the workers
oughtn't to be lower than this level. The government should distribute
relief fund among the unemployed and disabled. Thus, the living standards of
poor people will undoubtedly be raised.

If the government refuses to raise the living standards of the poor,
then their loyalties become clear. This visibility serves to motivate the
government to raise living standards of poor people as a matter of first
importance.

So, we should use the living standards of poor people and the
sufficiency of the first and second grade consumer goods as the
criterion to
judge the economic situation of a country and the achievements of its
government. Only when poverty is eliminated, may we say that the social
economy is developed. Only when the living standards of the low-income
people are improved, will we be able to take a just and accurate measurement
of the economic growth of a country. So, the economic growth of a certain
country can't be measured by GDP, which is really unscientific and unfair
for poor people.

Bourgeois economists may argue:
**GDP is scientific and fair. Because GDP was NOT designed to measure
distribution, it was designed to measure volume - so the criticism of
unfairness does not apply.
**GDP measure just the volume and production of goods sold, not the
living standards of poor people.
**GDP does not measure

[PEN-L:11988] Re: check out this new reader

[Ricardo Duchesne]

what crackdown?

> What the hey! There's no Alexander Greschenkron included here. I am afraid
> the crackdown has begun...
> 
> >FROM MODERNIZATION TO GLOBALIZATION:
> >SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
> >
> >Edited by J. Timmons Roberts and Amy Hite
> >Blackwell Publishers
> >Forthcoming Nov/December, 1999
> >
> >CONTENTS
> >
> >Preface/Acknowledgments
> >
> >INTRODUCTION
> >
> >PART I: FORMATIVE IDEAS ON THE TRANSITION TO MODERN SOCIETY
> >
> >1.  Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.  1848/1844.  "Manifesto of the
> >Communist Party"; "Alienated Labor"
> >
> >2.  Durkheim, Emile.  1893. Selections from The Division of Labor in
> >Society
> >
> >3.  Weber, Max. 1905.  The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
> >Capitalism",
> >"Characteristics of Bureaucracy" (1920),"Science as a Vocation" (1919)
> 
>  (clip)
> 
> 
> Louis Proyect
> 
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
> 
> 

[PEN-L:11936] GDP

[chang]

This message is dedicated to poor people and people of justice all
over the world. You can print it, forward and post it to other mailing
lists/discussion forums as long as its
attribution is given to the author and the wording is not altered in
any way. Feel free to pass it around to all of your friends.

Subject: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
by Ju-chang He

Bourgeois economists disguise economic reality and appear to do so
deliberately.  They use the GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), to measure
the
whole economic status of a country and this results in the government
paying
no attention to the living standards of poor people. So poverty is
perpetuated.

Nowadays, most countries use the GDP to judge their economic
growth and, according to this GDP, calculate their
economic growth rate. When there appears a large GDP and
a high economic growth rate, say 9% per
year, economists will say that the economy is great and the financial
officers will be proud, but still the economy is bad. It is bad because
the
living standards of the poor haven't been raised. There are still a lot
of
people suffering from cold and hunger. They can't afford to send their
children to school, and, as a result, too many children are deprived of
education.

If the economists say things are bad, the government has got to make an
effort to raise the living standards of poor people. If the economists
say
that the economy is great, there seems no need for the government to
raise
the living standards of poor people.

When there is a small GDP and a negative economic growth rate of,
say, -2% a year, the economists will say that the economy is bad and
the
financial officers will be ashamed of it.  Then the government has got
to
make every effort to raise GDP, but the living standards of the poor
are
unaffected. Therefore, it appears that GDP is for the rich to hoodwink
the
poor people to keep them poor.

The GDP, as a measure of the whole economic situation for a country, is
unscientific, because it does not tell the whole story; and it is
unfair for
poor people, because it excludes them from prosperity.

What Should We Do to Raise the Living Standards of the Poor?

First, I'd like to prove that the GDP, as a measure of a country's
total economy, is unscientific and unfair for poor.  Then, I'll show
that
instead of the GDP, we could use the living standards of the people to
measure the whole economic situation of a country.

In order to use the living standards of the people instead of GDP to
measure the whole economic situation of a country, I'd like to offer a
criterion of how to measure the living standards of the people:
People's living standard can be divided into four grades. The first
grade is necessary consumption of education, clothing, food, housing
and
transportation. The second grade is ordinary consumption, which means
buying
some more clothes and purchasing TV sets and washers, etc. The third
grade
is extravagant consumption, which means going to hotels, restaurants
and
dancing-halls and taking cars, etc. The fourth grade is
over-extravagant
consumption.

Next, we can carry on state regulations and give guidance of market.
Go to the following site for an explanation:
.
In this way, the market will produce enough consumer goods of the
first
and second grade. According to today's productivity, it is not
difficult to
produce enough consumer goods of the first and second grade. The
government
should make laws to fix a minimum wage level in accordance with the
economic
situation of the country and make it clear that the wages of all the
workers
oughtn't to be lower than this level. The government should distribute
relief fund among the unemployed and disabled. Thus, the living
standards of
poor people will undoubtedly be raised.

If the government refuses to raise the living standards of the poor,
then their loyalties become clear. This visibility serves to motivate
the
government to raise living standards of poor people as a matter of
first
importance.

So, we should use the living standards of poor people and the
sufficiency of the first and second grade consumer goods as the
criterion to
judge the economic situation of a country and the achievements of its
government. Only when poverty is eliminated, may we say that the social
economy is developed. Only when the living standards of the low-income
people are improved, will we be able to take a just and accurate
measurement
of the economic growth of a country. So, the economic growth of a
certain
country can't be measured by GDP, which is really unscientific and
unfair
for poor people.

Bourgeois economists may argue:
**GDP is scientific and fair. Because GDP was NOT designed to measure
distribution, it was designed to measure volume - so the criticism of
unfairness does not apply.
**GDP measure just the volume and production of goods sold, not the
living standards of poor people.
**GDP does not measure

[PEN-L:11934] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.

[chang]

Although they don't hoodwink the rich they hoodwink the poor. So they
are cheaters.

>I don't think that they are "cheaters" from a capitalist perspective,
only
>from a socialist perspective.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Sincerely,
Ju-chang He
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA
Welcome to My Homepage

[PEN-L:11986] Re: big mammals

[Ricardo Duchesne]

> Now, your 
> insistence that there are still big mammals in Asia, which is true, 
> leads me to think that was because, perhaps, homo erectus did reach 
> China, and thus as in Africa, but to a lesser extent, the big mammals 
> there adapted too.

Wording above may be misleading: Erectus (or at least a closely 
related species) did reach China, I meant "perhaps" that's why there 
are still big mammals in Asia. 
> 

[PEN-L:11985] (Fwd) check out this new reader

[Ricardo Duchesne]

--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date:  Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:05:11 -0400
From:  christopher chase-dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:   check out this new reader
To:WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization:  Sociology Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
   MD. 21218 USA

FROM MODERNIZATION TO GLOBALIZATION:
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Edited by J. Timmons Roberts and Amy Hite
Blackwell Publishers
Forthcoming Nov/December, 1999

"This comprehensive book contains a rich range of 'classic' articles
helping
to explain why certain countries and peoples are poor, currently and
historically. The essays explore the shift in conceptualization from
modernization to development and most recently to globalization, and the

social effects of world processes. Combined, they provide superb
background
to the subject matter."
Susan Eckstein, Boston University (Past-President, Latin American
Studies
Association)

"At last I have found a textbook I can wholeheartedly recommend to my
students. It will retain its value for many years to come as the
readings
are either classics or are likely to become so. This comprehensive and
balanced book is further proof of the revival of development theory and
its
relevance for understanding the world in the new millennium."
Cristobal Kay, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

. Why are some countries poor? What can they do to turn their situations

around?
. What happens to countries and individuals when they "modernize"?
. What does it mean to "develop" and be "modern"?
. What are the social effects of globalization?

>From Modernization to Globalization is a reference for scholars,
students,
and development practitioners on the issues of social change and
development
in the "Third World." It provides carefully excerpted samples from both
classic and contemporary writings in the development literature, short,
insightful introductions to each section, and a general introduction.
Part
One reviews formative ideas on the transition to modern society with
brief
readings from classical theorists. The second part addresses the
modernizationists' discussion of how development changes people. The
response from dependency and world-system theorists is reviewed in Part
Three. The final section includes eight of the most influential writings
on
the social effects of globalization. Together, this represents an
unprecedented compilation of an impressive range of writings on
international development.


CONTENTS

Preface/Acknowledgments

INTRODUCTION

PART I: FORMATIVE IDEAS ON THE TRANSITION TO MODERN SOCIETY

1.  Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.  1848/1844.  "Manifesto of the
Communist Party"; "Alienated Labor"

2.  Durkheim, Emile.  1893. Selections from The Division of Labor in
Society

3.  Weber, Max. 1905.  The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism",
"Characteristics of Bureaucracy" (1920),"Science as a Vocation" (1919)

PART II: HOW DOES DEVELOPMENT CHANGE PEOPLE? MODERNIZATION THEORIES AND
THE INTELLECTUAL ROOTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

4.  Parsons, Talcott.  1964. "Evolutionary Universals in Society

5. Rostow, W.W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth:  A Non-Communist
Manifesto,

6. Lewis, Oscar. 1968 From A Study of Slum Culture: Backgrounds for LA
VIDA.

7.  Lerner, Daniel. 1958.  Excerpts from The Passing of Traditional
Society.

8.  Inkeles, Alex. 1969. "Making Men Modern: On the Causes of
Individual
Change in Six Developing Countries."

9.  Huntington, Samuel.  1968/ 1971 "The Change to Change:
Modernization,
Development, and Politics" Political Order in Changing Societies.

PART III: BLAMING THE VICTIMS? DEPENDENCY AND WORLD-SYSTEMS THEORIES
RESPOND

10. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1969. "The Development of
Underdevelopment."

11. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. 1972. "Dependency and Development in
Latin
America."

12. de Janvry, Alain. and Carlos Garramon. 1977. "The Dynamics of
Rural
Poverty in Latin America."

13. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1979. "The Rise and Future Demise of the
World
Capitalist System:  Concepts for Comparative Analysis."

14. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1975. "The Effects of International
Economic
Dependence on Development and Inequality:  A Cross -National Study."

15. Gereffi, Gary. 1994. "Rethinking Development Theory: Insights
from East
Asia and Latin America."

PART IV: ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND GLOBALIZATION AND ITS SOCIAL EFFECTS

16. Froebel, Juergen Heinrichs and Otto Kreye. 1980. Introduction to
The new
international division of labour in the World Economy.

17. McMichael, Philip. 1996. "Globalization: Myths and Realities."

18.  Harvey, David. 1992. "Capitalism: The Factory of Fragmentation"

19.  Rodrik, Dani. 1997. "Introduction." To Has Globalization Gone too
Far?

20. Kathryn B. Ward and Jean Larson Pyle. 1995.  "Gender,
Industrialization, Transnational Corporati

[PEN-L:11984] Re: big mammals

[Ricardo Duchesne]

Clarification, by coevolution i did not mean domestication, but that 
big mammals in Africa learned not to trust humans (rather than 
assuming we were just small noiceless vegetarians, because they 
co-evolved with us, and saw us, beginning with Erectus 1.6 million 
years ago, as a threat because we hunted, yet Erectus was not as 
effective a hunter as homo-sapiens, which was the only species which 
reached every region of Asia, Indonesia, Aurstralia, and the 
Americas (as I just read in a book for one of my courses). Now, your 
insistence that there are still big mammals in Asia, which is true, 
leads me to think that was because, perhaps, homo erectus did reach 
China, and thus as in Africa, but to a lesser extent, the big mammals 
there adapted too.

Ricardo,
 Your original message was about Africa
versus the rest of the world.  I would agree that
there is strong evidence that a lot of big mammals
in the Americas got zapped when Homo
Sapiens arrived on the scene (I don't know about
Australia).  But the claim that Africa has a higher
density of big mammals than Asia looks highly
questionable.  For that matter, in what way have
such critters as rhinos, elephants, lions, or giraffes
"coevolved" with humans in Africa?  I don't see them
as having gotten themselves domesticated the way
water buffalo or yaks have in Asia.
  Where do I get the nerve?  I don't know.  Probably
it's the pepto-bismol I take after I smoke my surrealistic,
but Freudian, cigar that is not a cigar, :-).
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Ricardo Duchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 9:29 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11939] Role of Total Foreign Trade


>
>> Ricardo,
>>  I think we would be more inclined to fall at
>> your feet in fawning admiration if you did not
>> keep giving us major bloopers like this last one
>> about large mammals.
>>   Last time I checked there still are elephants
>> in Asia.
>> Barkley Rosser
>>
>Where do you get the nerve to talk about "bloopers" when each one of 
>your interventions/criticisms of my position has ended with a 
>correction on my part? Was it a (pseudo) Freudian slip? It is well 
>known that Australia/New Guinea, and the Americas were full of big 
>mammals, but around 17,000 to 12,000 years ago (in the Americas) they 
>disappeared, which so happens to have been the period when humans 
>migrated into that area. The same goes for Australia and Siberia: big 
>mammals there (as indicated by dating of fossil remains) disappeared 
>as humans arrived there.  Africa today has the 
>largest concentration of big mammals, because such animals there had 
>the fortune of adapting to a less effective, proto-human hunter, as 
>it evolved into homo sapiens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[PEN-L:11992] Re: Gerschenkronism

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 03:07 PM 9/29/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
>You got to be careful recommending these authors, Wojtek. There was a big
>witch-hunt in the 1950s to weed out professors who were disciples of
>Alexander Gerschenkron and things are starting to look menacing after Waco
>and other FBI crackdowns. Are you familiar with the story of Lenny
>Lipschitz, a sociology professor here at Columbia who led a secret study
>group on Gerschenkron at his Riverside Dr. residence in 1957? It turns out


No. But the witch-hunt hardly surprises me.  I consider gerschenkronism
more damaging to the US imperial and neo-liberal mythologies (it refutes
the notion than x-USSR was the satan incarnate i.e. a communist state) than
any other school of thought.


wojtek

[PEN-L:11990] Re: Re: Re: moral entrepreneurship (was: "Free labor" asaprecondition forcapital)

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 03:04 PM 9/29/99 -0400, Barkley Rosser wrote:
>Wojtek,
> Minor point.  You grew up in the Second World,
>even if it is no more.   Hey, without a Second World
>there can be no Third World.


Technically true.  Although imho the second/third world distinction is more
racist than Blaut & Co. make of the first world.  Although Soviet block
countries are on a par with many  developing countries of Latin America and
Asia, as  far as GDP-related measures are concerned - Eastern European
intellectuals do not want to be put in the same category as "banana
republics" and they highly resent being considered 'third world' (that was
even noted by Janine Wedell in her _Collision and Collusion: The Strange
Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe_).  So calling them third world gives
me a pleasure usually associated with profanation of nationalistic altars.

wojtek

[PEN-L:11989] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)

[Charles Brown]

Yes, I answered Wojtek's question when he asked it a long time ago. And it doesn't 
pose any kind of challenge to the position I have been putting forth on the issues on 
this thread. So, the response to you remains simple also: Wojtek didn't find any flaws 
in what I have been saying. Your comment below certainly doesn't "simply" point out 
how Wojtek has found flaws in what I am saying.

I guess for starters, my position is not that "it is only the gold". So right away  
Wojtek is not finding a flaw in what I am saying. That should  settle it right there. 
Get it ? Wojtek is attacking a straw man, so any flaws he finds are not in my 
argument. But Wojtek's arguments are sort of multivariate confused, so there isn't 
always a simple reply to all the errors in his posts.

But to go beyond the simple, gold did not play a role in the primitive accumulation of 
capitalism in Europe because it was gold. So, its being gold would not have caused 
capitalism to arise in South America. So, that is the answer directly to Wojtek's 
question.

Gold played a role in the original accumulation of capitalism because the social 
arrangements of the European colonialism and slavery of the period allowed the 
Europeans to exploit the labor of Indian miners getting the gold commodity at a very 
high rate of exploitation or profit. So , it was the exchange-value or surplus value 
of the gold, not the chemical composition or particular use-value of gold that was 
unique about the gold mining business in contributing to the initial take off of 
European capitalism.

Thus, it is precisely certain social arrangements (not "only the gold" , as Wojtek put 
it), but those between the European explorers and the Indian miners (not those inside 
of Europe only) that explains the role of the gold business in the origin of 
capitalism in Europe.   

Finally, I say that capitalism arose in Europe not only because of its slavery and 
colonial system ,but also because of the founding of the institution of wage-labor, 
meaning wage-labor becoming the prevailing social arrangement. So, the absence of 
wage-labor as the prevailing social arrangement in South America is a further 
explanation as to why gold in South America , or any other type of use-value in South 
America would not cause capitalism to arise in South America.

My explanation is based on social arrangements analysis or analysis of relations of 
production. Capitalism originated in Europe because of two types of relations of 
production: 1) the establishment of prevailing wage or free labor relations of 
production,especially in England and Holland  2) slave and colonialist relations of 
production outside of Europe.  Both are necessary , but neither is a sufficient 
condition for this origin of capitalism. The explanation is not based on technological 
discoveries or the chemical or mechanical qualities of gold or any other raw material.


Thus, Wojtek's simple question finds no flaw in my argument.


Charles Brown



>>> "Rod Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/29/99 03:42PM >>>
The answer is simple Charles

Gold is only wealth in certain social arrangements. Northwest Europe had 
those arrangements. A lot of other places didn't. The only possible 
exception is China. So the emphasis should be on those social arrangements 
rather than the gold. Wojtek asked if it was only the gold why didn't South 
America develop a capitalist economy.

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:11997] Sweezy and Innovation

[Michael Perelman]

Somewhere, I recall Paul Sweezy discussing how major corporations ripped
off the work of independent inventors.  I recall a specific discussion
of General Electric and the garbage disposal.  Does anyone remember
where he wrote about this?
--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

[PEN-L:11987] check out this new reader

[Louis Proyect]

What the hey! There's no Alexander Greschenkron included here. I am afraid
the crackdown has begun...

>FROM MODERNIZATION TO GLOBALIZATION:
>SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
>
>Edited by J. Timmons Roberts and Amy Hite
>Blackwell Publishers
>Forthcoming Nov/December, 1999
>
>CONTENTS
>
>Preface/Acknowledgments
>
>INTRODUCTION
>
>PART I: FORMATIVE IDEAS ON THE TRANSITION TO MODERN SOCIETY
>
>1.  Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.  1848/1844.  "Manifesto of the
>Communist Party"; "Alienated Labor"
>
>2.  Durkheim, Emile.  1893. Selections from The Division of Labor in
>Society
>
>3.  Weber, Max. 1905.  The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
>Capitalism",
>"Characteristics of Bureaucracy" (1920),"Science as a Vocation" (1919)

 (clip)


Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)

[PEN-L:11979] Re: standard of living debate

[Ricardo Duchesne]

Last winter I showed that Frank runs  
into a major difficulty in speaking of Europe as both a high wage 
and a  low per-capita/low productivity region. Here I want to pick 
up, just briefly, that other major debate on the 
English workers' living standards during the industrial revolution. 

If in the 60s the non-specialist could enter a major debate and 
contribute some solid ideas to it, today we seem less and less able to say 
anything original about such issues, in view of the enormous specialized 
scholarship that has flourished on each of these 'big' issues. The 
initial round of this debate may be traced to Ashton 
(1949) who argued that the lives of workers saw 
improvements, if not in the 1790s, certainly by the 1820s, and to Eric 
Hobsbawm who insisted "there is not much evidence 
that real wages in Europe began to go up significantly until the 
later part of the 1860s..." (as he put it in the *The Age of 
Capital*, but had already argued earlier - I think it was against 
Hartwell). 

I should remind readers that this debate is connected to the colonial 
trade because, as I pointed out earlier, Hobsbawm thinks that there 
was, in the early phase of the industrial revolution in Britain, a lack of 
demand by the home market, due to the low living standards of 
workers, which was dealt with by exporting goods to the colonies. 

Last winter I merely mentioned a graph which I found in E.A.Wrigley's, 
Peoples, Cities, and Wealth, The Transformation of Traditional 
Society (1987)  which measured real wage trends in England and which 
showed that, from 1600 onwards, real wages move steadily upward to 
fall after 1750, to rise, substantially and steadily, after 
1800. But this is not enough. 

The technical problem of  how one measures  real wages is itself a 
matter of debate, but one which I will leave to the side unless 
asked. So, let's be aware that these numbers are not beyond dispute, 
though this issue has been debated so often that one could argue that 
many problems about data collection  have been eliminated. 

Now, checking this literature one finds that a  consensus has 
emerged, which is that one should divide the industrial revolution 
into two periods: 1) between 1790 and 1820 real wages remain more or 
less constant, and 2) after 1820 they rise steadily. That wages 
remained constant in the first period can be attributed to 'external' 
factors like a string of bad harvests, and the Napoleonic wars. But 
everyone agrees (Lindert and Williamson, 1983; Feinstein, 1981; 
Crafts, 1983) that after 1820 (actually some say, after 1810) real 
wages rose in a sustained way.   Lindert and Williamson have gone as far 
as to say that "real wages...nearly doubled between 1820 and 1850 - 
too optimistic a conclusion for Crafts (1985), but just a minor 
dispute.  

[PEN-L:11994] What is "Eurocentrism"? (A to Z)

[Craven, Jim]

For me, and this is entirely tangental to the discussions on "Eurocentrism"
that I frankly have not been following too closely, Eurocentrism means:

a) Characterizing all economic thought originating from "Euro" sources
(includes US, Australia, NZ) as "analysis" while characterizing non-Euro
analysis as "thought" (a la the distinction between thought and analysis
made by Schumpeter et al);

b) failure to analyze and incorporate any concepts or lessons from non-Euro
or pre-Euro societies into analysis of present-day and past Euro and
non-Euro societies;

c) referring to present-day Euro capitalist systems as "democracies" and
tracing the origins of "democracy" to Greece and Rome;

d) attempting to "universalize" concepts specific to Euro systems by
missapplying them--grafting--to pre-capitalist, non-capitalist or non-Euro
socioeconomic formations and modes of production and/or holding them up as
"universal standards" to which non-Euros ought to strive;

e) summary dismissal of, ignorance of, failure to seriously consider, making
caricatures of or demonizing non-Euro sources of thought and analysis in
literature, politics, economics, culture etc;

f) joining the words Euro or American or Western or capitalist on the one
hand, and the word "civilization" on the other hand implying that the two
words go together rather than being oxymoronic;

g) dismissing examples of Euro systems or individuals carrying out wholesale
genocide with reference to the need to "understand" in historical and
situational "context"-- outright or implicit rationalization;

h) reference to pre-capitalist, non-capitalist and non-Euro/non-capitalist
systems and societies as "primitive" and backward;

i) considering only Euro sources or "experts" as worthy of being heard or
read or invited to speak or qualified to teach etc;

j) inability/unwillingness to see Euro societies and issues through non-Euro
eyes and paradigms and/or the inability to see non-Euro societies and issues
through non-Euro eyes and paradigms;

k) seeing progress, growth and development only in narrow
materialistic/edifice/technology terms--the bigger the buildings, the more
"sophisticated" the technology, and the greater the volumes and varieties of
goods/services (regardless of the fact that they accrue to a privileged few)
the greater the "development" and "progress";

l) supporting Indian, African-American, and other non-Euro causes and issues
but telling your daughter or son not to dare bring a non-Euro home as a
marriage prospect;

m) accepting, spreading (even innocently) or reinforcing caricatures and
stereotypes about non-Euros that could be easily discovered to be
caricatures and stereotypes;

n) admiring the architecture, inventions and institutions of Greece and Rome
and knowing nothing about the architecture, inventions and institutions of
non-Euro societies;

o) being able to recount events, regimes, accomplishments and dates of Euro
history at-will, and knowing nothing about the same with reference to
non-Euro Peoples and societies;

p) believing that the word "Indian" came from Columbus heading for "India",
taking a wrong turn and misnaming as "Indian" the Indigenous Peoples he
found, enslaved and slaughtered; Also anyone who celebrates "Columbus Day"
without protest or a word of what Columbus was all about;

q) knowing the names and reputations of "great Euros" in history and not
being able to name any non-Euros beyond Poccahantas, Confucius, Sitting Bull
or Geronimo--and can't date even when any of them lived and what they did or
didn't do;

r) when dating historical events, uses B.C. and A.D.;

s) Refers to Lewis and Clark as "pioneers" and "explorers" rather than
front-men for genocide;

t) thinks Vine Deloria is a form of green plantlife commonly entwining
castles in Europe;

u)  Says he's sorry about all of the genocide and stolen lands in the past,
but that was past, and there is no connection between the past, present and
future--"past is past get over it";

v)  only values that which is written in tortured syntax, sees "science" and
"scientific method" only in linear and reductionistic terms, sees Indigenous
stories as cute and supernatural and superstitous rather than as complex
allegories about cause and effect and knows nothing about the date of
origination and accuracy of the Mayan, Jewish, Chinese and other calendars
vis-a-vis Julian and Gregorian calendars;

w) refers to American Indians as "Native Americans" or the first and "real"
"Americans";

x) refers to the "foundations" of the U.S. and its Constitution as Euro and
Judeo/Christian;

y) Reveres and venerates or refers to Thomas Jefferson as a "libertarian";

z) Refers to Asia as the "Orient" with "Orientals", and uses a world map
with the US or Europe in the center to give reference to North, East, South
and West; relative locations of all places are given in reference to the US
or Europe;

Jim Craven

James Craven
Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
Vancouver, WA. 98663
(360) 9

[PEN-L:11981] Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Louis Proyect]

>I wish I could say the same for your performances on the issues
>surrounding the origins of capitalism. There your principles have
>been either shifting or obscure, your facts have been thrown
>about with no attempt to establish their relevance, you have
>refused even to try to respond to the actual points others
>have raised but have consistently ignored or misinterpreted
>their arguments.

Carrol, we have political differences on these questions. It is not the end
of the world. I wish you would stop agonizing over it. I have political
differences with Mark Jones on Stalin but I don't walk up and down the
stage like King Lear wailing at the heavens because we differ. You just
have to accept that.

It doesn't matter to me what Ellen Wood thinks or doesn't think. I have
long given up idols, since they all have feet of clay, from James O'Connor
to David Harvey to that rat bastard Michael Perelman who hasn't paid me the
$100 he owes me for a bet he lost on a Knicks game.

I am trying to develop my own thinking on these questions and it doesn't
matter to me whether I pass muster with you or anybody else. I have been
reading Robert Brenner very, very, very carefully over the past week or so
and I am telling you that his NLR article is simply outrageous. To defend a
position that there is no relationship between underdevelopment in the
"periphery" and development in the "core" without a single word about Latin
America is just unbelievable. Unbelievable. I say that as somebody who has
been researching and writing about Latin America for 30 years. More to come...

Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)

[PEN-L:11977] Gerschenkronism

[Louis Proyect]

>That is not to imply that there is no outstanding scholarship on the above
>named subject (e.g. Barrington Moore, Jeffery Paige, Alexander
>Gerschenkron, Dietrich Rueschemeyerto name a few), but that the gems are
>often surrounded by trash, moral-intellectual entrepreneurship.
>
>wojtek

You got to be careful recommending these authors, Wojtek. There was a big
witch-hunt in the 1950s to weed out professors who were disciples of
Alexander Gerschenkron and things are starting to look menacing after Waco
and other FBI crackdowns. Are you familiar with the story of Lenny
Lipschitz, a sociology professor here at Columbia who led a secret study
group on Gerschenkron at his Riverside Dr. residence in 1957? It turns out
that one of the students was working for the FBI and ratted Lenny out.
There's a famous picture of Lenny on the front page of the Daily News being
led from Dodge Hall in handcuffs that I remember vividly from sixth grade.
We had a teacher named Bruce Gluckstern-Lopez who was a secret supporter of
Gerschenkron but who because of pressing economic responsibilities (7
children and a failing poultry farm on the side that had inherited from his
Zionist dad), never came out of the closet. In tears, he held up the News
and told us, "Children, this is a great tragedy. With the last remaining
Gerschenkronist purged from the American university, catastrophe awaits us."

Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)

[PEN-L:11964] Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Ricardo Duchesne]

> Ricardo:
> >This is a missing element in Brenner, who assumes that, because 
> >merchant capital had long been in existence, one can ignore it as 
> >the factor which made the difference which led to capitalism. 
> 
> One can ignore merchant capital because it preceded capitalism? Er. Um. Okay.
> 
that's right, ask your friend Wood why she thinks that because 
merchant capital has long been present, it should be ignored. i guess 
it feels uncomfortable that you are with me on this point and not 
with her. 

[PEN-L:11976] Re: Re: moral entrepreneurship (was: "Free labor" as aprecondition forcapital)

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Wojtek,
 Minor point.  You grew up in the Second World,
even if it is no more.   Hey, without a Second World
there can be no Third World.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:06 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:11955] Re: moral entrepreneurship (was: "Free labor" as
aprecondition forcapital)


>At 01:05 PM 9/28/99 -0500, Mathew Forstater asks:
>>What is one to say to this?  This is so disheartening.
>
>in response to my remark:
>>>Max, I am totally with you on that, I do not think third worldism is
about
>>>political struggle, abroad or here - it is a kulturkampf waged by
>>>intellectuals in the symbolic realm of blame and guilt.  It has the signs
>>>of a religious guilt trip cum denying the obvious to claim a moral
victory
>>>written all over it.
>
>
>
>Mat, I think truly disheartening is that such ideologies exist.  I grew up
>in a developing country, a 'third world' if you will, and I am thoroughly
>familar with the genre.  It is the countless allovariants of a single
>theme: scapegoating, i.e. attributing causes of what happens in a society
>to external forces and factors.
>
>Its purpose is generally to mobilize support for- and deflects criticim
>from- the local ruling elite or the nationalist/isolationist faction of it.
> It is, in effect, saying 'we as the nations and its leaders are valiand
>and brave, work hard and do all the right things, so if things do not work
>as expected, it is because those damn Yanks or Ruskies meddle in our
>internal affairs and rob us of our precious resources.  If anyone is
>interested, I can tell some really amusing stories of that genre, e.g. how
>an ant (Poland) supported an elephant (Russia).  I can even match them with
>the festung-amerika variety how all those damn foreigners conspire to rob
>hard working US-ers of their way of life.
>
>I think that the fundamentally reactionary and pro-status quo character of
>blaming imperialism for all national woes should be quite apparent.  It
>diverts attention from domestic problems, binds common people to the ruling
>elites, fosters bigotry and nationalism.  It usually served as an
>ideological prelude to witch-hunts and purges in the former Soviet bloc
>states.
>
>
>The anti-imperialist mythology is also present in the US academy and its
>offshoots, but it serves a different function here -- that of the merit
>making.  In medieval Europe, merit making was the practice of alms giving
>(usually by the nobility) to the poor not to relly help them, but earn a
>'merit' for the giver in this life as well as the afterlife.In the same
>vein, certain academics earn 'merits' by paying the lip service to the
>'wretched of the earth' (the farther away, the better) and fighting the
>imaginary demons (imperialism, racism, eurocentrism, capitalism etc.) on
>their behalf.  That allows them to take a high moral ground, earn a
>mini-celeberity status among graduate students and maverick intellectuals
>for their 'controversial' and 'uncompromising' stance, look down on their
>colleagues as suckups and lackeys of the status quo, or deflect any
>criticism of their shoddy scholarship as being 'ideologically driven.'
>
>That is not to imply that there is no outstanding scholarship on the above
>named subject (e.g. Barrington Moore, Jeffery Paige, Alexander
>Gerschenkron, Dietrich Rueschemeyerto name a few), but that the gems are
>often surrounded by trash, moral-intellectual entrepreneurship.
>
>One more thing.  You may wonder why I am so concerned with what appears to
>be a realtively minor aspect of the culture wars waged in this society.
>Well, academy is where i work.  So instead of fighting monsters in distant
>and exotic places (which is what many US academics love to do) - I believe
>that we need to do some stable cleaning much closer to home, perhaps even
>in our own instiutions and ranks.
>
>wojtek
>
>
>

[PEN-L:11973] Re: Re: taking stock

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Ricardo,
 You're not a sinner.  You're just a Siberian
tiger, :-).
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Ricardo Duchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:05 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11946] Re: taking stock


>
>
>> > Look at the responses to the last post on total foreign trade,
>>
>> Why?  Are you telling me that you want me to join in with your
accusations against
>> those who disagree with you?
>
>I know where you stand on this issue, and would never expect that. But
>favoring a position requires knowing why one favours it.
>
>
>> > only
>> > one took direct issue with the argument and the figures I used, which
>> > is a fair critique,  but am also being told that the
>> > material I used on total trade is from the 1980s when the fact is
>> > that most of the sources favouring my view where from the 1990s, as
>> > was indicated.
>>
>> As long as you are merely throwing sources at each other, the accusation
of
>   obsolete
>> data is standard procedure.
>
>I think I have done more than throw sources, but am also trying to
>indicate that the position am taking is the latest consensus among
>economic historians. Even Deane (1965), a source which Mat just cited
>(and argument which I did mention in an earlier post), no longer
>thinks that *total* foreign trade was the major factor.
>
>RD:
>> > (Not that there's anything wrong with older sources,
>> > as Blaut appears to think,
>>
>
>MP:
>> Now you're back taunting.  Let Jim speak for himself.
>
>Please, Michael, be sensible; I think you are an excellent moderator
>given the circumstances and the number of people you have to deal
>with, but Jim has been stating over and over
>that my views are old stuff, conventional. Perhaps you acquiesce when
>someome argues against your views; I dont, 'cause I don't argue
>unless I know what I am saying. And if I recognize a good argument I
>will - one way or another - acknowledge it, whether by saying it
>directly, or by responding in a serious scholarly manner.
>
>RD:
> > > with this silly idea that I am defending a
>> > "conventional" view whereas he is on the side of the newest
>> > scholarship! Fact is that both sides have old and new sources).
>> > Besides, I have made more references than anyone else,
>>
>MP:
>> We are not keeping score here.  The question should be if you fail to
convince
> us on
>> this list, either the rest are stubborn or stupid or you have just not
made your
>> point because you may be wrong or you may have a poor technique for
>communicating.
>> It is far easier to assume the fault lies with those who disagree with
you.
>
>RD: What am writing is part of  a future paper, of which the colonial
>trade will be just a section. I am not faulting
>anybody for not accepting what I have said. Am only asking for
>serious academic responses, rather than this stuff about eurocentrism
>and all. You can be sure that if someone challenged me seriously I
>would raise the level of my arguments more. But Proyect must be
>disappointed with Blaut whom he expected to take me but has instead
>relented.
>
>I agree with you that I may have been insensitive at times (as I may be
>here again). But I cant always help it.  Guess am a sinner too.
>Anyways, this debate will end anytime soon, and then I am out of here, at
>least for a while.
>
>

[PEN-L:11970] Eurocentrism

[Louis Proyect]

>Wallerstein and Frank's methodologies, in the eyes of these Marxists at
>least, led progressives in advanced capitalist (advanced in terms of
>development of capitalist relations of production, not in any other sense
>it should go without saying) countries to support all kinds of bourgeois
>tomfooolery in the 'periphery', only to later end up disappointed that
>their nationalist heroes were unable to do much more than implement IMF
>adjustment plans...
>
>So I would argue that Doug's point gets to the heart of what inspired
>Brenner to make his arguments against Wallerstein and Frank's
>methodologies.
>
>Steve

Both Wallerstein and Brenner represent dialectical poles taking to the
extreme within tendencies found in Marx's original work. I found it deeply
troubling, for example, that Wallerstein operates under the auspices of the
Gulbenkian Foundation, a Portuegese oil magnate who has been castigated as
stealing from former East Asian colonies.

On the other hand, I am not sure that Brenner's doctrines are any kind of
corrective since they are based on a denial that development in the core
countries is related to underdevelopment in the periphery. This is not only
a departure from Wallerstein, but a departure from Marx and Lenin as well.

As I have stated repeatedly, Ernest Mandel has a pretty good handle on
combining a class analysis of these dependent countries with a strong
anti-imperialist perspective. In fact, this was the approach of Lenin's
Comintern--the spirit of which was at least was continued with the
Trotskyist Fourth International despite its sectarian baggage.

I am afraid that academicians like Brenner and Wallerstein tend to lose
sight of realities that are not within the immediate purview of their
speciality. Since Mandel's death, the social and political analysis of
these sorts of questions that I have been most impressed with are found in
Jim Petras, Carlos Vilas, Colin Leys, Walden Bello and many of the people
on the editorial board of Monthly Review and Socialist Register.

Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)

[PEN-L:11957] Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Ricardo Duchesne]

> 1. URBAN OR RURAL ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE?
> It is crucial to Brenner's (and Wood's) thesis to locate the transition
> from feudalism to capitalism in the countryside. While it is necessary to
> focus on the enclosure acts, etc., what seems puzzling to me is his
> de-emphasis of embryonic forms of the capitalist factory per se, which were
> found primarily in the towns and cities of the late middle ages. My
> interpretation of what took place in the transition from feudalism to
> capitalism is that artisans gradually were drawn to facilities where the
> tools and raw materials were provided by entrepreneurs, many of whom were
> artisans themselves at the outset, but whose growing wealth allowed them to
> become proto-capitalists. In a nutshell, they would eventually become the
> bourgeoisie, a French word for burgher or "townsman". In such locales,
> woolen goods--for example--were produced for the local and international
> marketplace. 

This is a missing element in Brenner, who assumes that, because 
merchant capital had long been in existence, one can ignore it as 
the factor which made the difference which led to capitalism. So, he 
ignores the putting out system, to concentrate only on agrarian 
relations. But it was not, according to B, tenant farmers who 
introduced capitalist relations in the countryside. It was the 
landowners themselves who, in order to deal with 
the persistent crisis of declining feudal incomes, decided to 
eliminate customary and copyhold tenements for new 
leases, leases which eventually led to the rise of capitalism.

Alan Carling's synthesis of Cohen and Brenner, which Wood completely 
rejects as an imposible mix (not everything mixes, try putting car 
oil in your soup) can be found in his book, Analytical Marxism.
 

[PEN-L:11968] Re: Open letter to NACLA, Susan Lowes and Jack Hammond

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 11:19 AM 9/29/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>Mario's only response to all this has been a paranoid and demagogic rant
>about how Yankee racists should keep their nose out of Colombian politics,


Mario's response is NOT a paranoid and demagogic rant.  He provides a clear
assessment of a situation based on his and other's obsoervation.  We may
disagree with that assessment, but we cannot say it paranoid or dogmatic.  

More importantly, nowhere in his letter he uses the phrase 'Yankee
racists'.  The only context in which the word 'racist' appear is

>>I am forced to respond now, however, because of what I perceive to be an
>>overtly racist discharge that closed the letter below: "It appears to me

which appear to me a very carefully worded and reserved comment about the
text rather than a person.

As to his quoted observation:

>>It is mighty easy for someone sitting in a comfortable high rise on the
>>upper east side of Manhattan to launch into some pseudo-intellectual
>>diatribe about how "civil society" is getting in the way of truly
>>revolutionary change in Colombia; it is entirely different living the


I can only add that what I really hate about certain type of US
intellectuals is their temerity to solve problems  all over the world, but
not being able to pull together even a modestly progressive political
action in their own country.

wojtek

[PEN-L:11980] Re: Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Carrol Cox]

Preliminary (for contrast).

Lou, in your fine open letter to NACLA you write:

I tried to do my own investigation into this incident and uncovered the
following report from The Presbyterian Church of Colombia:

"A new massacre flows with blood in the Department of Cordoba. This time
it was in the village of Saiza, on June 15, where heavily armed men
assassinated eight people and wounded two people of indigenous origin
and
ransacked local commercial establishments. The initial versiones of the
story which passed through the urban zone of Tierra Alta held that the
bloody act was committed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC), but when the injured arrived, this information was "defalsified"
and it was confirmed that the authors of the acts were members of United
Self Defense of Colombia (AUC)."

So when I attended a meeting of the Colombia Media Project on Friday
evening, Sept. 24th at Hunter College chaired by Mario, I asked him to
clear this up. What were the facts? Did or did not the FARC murder and
abduct Indians in the Cordoba region, or was the Presbyterian Church
report accurate?
-

Now my point: Here is a question which is of immediate political
importance, and on a subject on which even the real or alleged
experts can claim no special knowledge of the "original sources."
In your letter you provide one source that is probably as close
to a primary source as it is possible to get. Moreover, you state
clearly the political principles which make the factual material
relevant. Most of us on these lists will agree that the treatment
of indigneous peoples by a revolutionary movement is directly
and clearly relevant to the political judgment of that movement.
Most of us will probably agree with your propositions in reference
to "civil society" (or the idea of civil society), and if some do
not the framework you provide will be one within which that
argument can be conducted. And finally you provide rather
good evidence for the unprincipled polemics of the NACLA
author  -- the letter you attach to your post. That letter reminds
me of an old legal joke (or serious advice). If the facts against
you, cite the law. If the law is against you, cite the facts. If
both are against you, call the opposing attorney an S.O.B. (Of
course, it is unfortunate that both you and Jim Blaut in the
present thread have resorted to the third alternative.) All in
all the post is the sort of model of political analysis and polemic
that I have come to expect from you at your best.

I wish I could say the same for your performances on the issues
surrounding the origins of capitalism. There your principles have
been either shifting or obscure, your facts have been thrown
about with no attempt to establish their relevance, you have
refused even to try to respond to the actual points others
have raised but have consistently ignored or misinterpreted
their arguments.

Over and over and over again we have insisted, briefly and at
considerable length, that views regarding the origins of capitalism
*are not relevant*  to the issue of eurocentrism, which must
be judged in terms of contemporary political practice. Over and
over again you (and Jim Blaut) have ignored that argument and
gone back to piling up mountains of fact and alleged fact on an
issue that we have declared not to be our central concern. In
fact several of us indicated very strongly that we *agreed*
with the political conclusions you drew but insisted that
those conclusions were independent of the historical thesis
you were urging.

The following exchange between Jim Devine and Jim Blaut
gets at the very heart of the dispute:
---

Jim Devine writes:

[Jim Blaut writes]:
>What is your opinion of the charges against Catholicism that those Catholic
>dummies were inferior and didn/t/couldm't invent capitalism because they
>didn't possess the Protestant ethic? Wasn't that bigotry, racism,
>prejudice?

this question misses the point, a point that people on pen-l (including
yours truly) have made several times. If one believes in the Weberian
"Protestantism caused capitalism" theory (which I do not), the Catholics
could be _praised_ for NOT having created capitalism. After all,
capitalism
has destroyed the community, the extended family, the reverence of
everyday
life and the Almighty, and the respect for authority that the Catholics
have strived to preserve over the centuries. So the Catholics might be
seen
as _superior_.

I'm not a Catholic, but some of those things (clearly not all of them)
are
valuable. (BTW, I am an excommunicated Unitarian [;-)]and a hard-core
agnostic.)

I don't understand your urge to arbitrarily mix normative and positive
concerns. Though obviously the two can't be separated absolutely (since
one's values inform one's research and vice-versa), your apparent effort
to
defend the non-European world against the charge of being "dummies" for
not
foisting capitalism on the world seems silly.
-

If I understand Jim B co

[PEN-L:11965] Re: Role of Total Foreign Trade

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Ricardo,
 Your original message was about Africa
versus the rest of the world.  I would agree that
there is strong evidence that a lot of big mammals
in the Americas got zapped when Homo
Sapiens arrived on the scene (I don't know about
Australia).  But the claim that Africa has a higher
density of big mammals than Asia looks highly
questionable.  For that matter, in what way have
such critters as rhinos, elephants, lions, or giraffes
"coevolved" with humans in Africa?  I don't see them
as having gotten themselves domesticated the way
water buffalo or yaks have in Asia.
  Where do I get the nerve?  I don't know.  Probably
it's the pepto-bismol I take after I smoke my surrealistic,
but Freudian, cigar that is not a cigar, :-).
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Ricardo Duchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 9:29 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11939] Role of Total Foreign Trade


>
>> Ricardo,
>>  I think we would be more inclined to fall at
>> your feet in fawning admiration if you did not
>> keep giving us major bloopers like this last one
>> about large mammals.
>>   Last time I checked there still are elephants
>> in Asia.
>> Barkley Rosser
>>
>Where do you get the nerve to talk about "bloopers" when each one of 
>your interventions/criticisms of my position has ended with a 
>correction on my part? Was it a (pseudo) Freudian slip? It is well 
>known that Australia/New Guinea, and the Americas were full of big 
>mammals, but around 17,000 to 12,000 years ago (in the Americas) they 
>disappeared, which so happens to have been the period when humans 
>migrated into that area. The same goes for Australia and Siberia: big 
>mammals there (as indicated by dating of fossil remains) disappeared 
>as humans arrived there.  Africa today has the 
>largest concentration of big mammals, because such animals there had 
>the fortune of adapting to a less effective, proto-human hunter, as 
>it evolved into homo sapiens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[PEN-L:11961] Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Louis Proyect]

Ricardo:
>This is a missing element in Brenner, who assumes that, because 
>merchant capital had long been in existence, one can ignore it as 
>the factor which made the difference which led to capitalism. 

One can ignore merchant capital because it preceded capitalism? Er. Um. Okay.

Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)

[PEN-L:11991] Lumpers and Splitters

[Michael Perelman]

Jim Devine set an excellent example of how debate should proceed.  Do
not characterize others in ways that they would not accept themselves.
I mentioned to Jim B. that the term Eurocentrism did not seem
particularly useful.  For example, Dobb, as I read him could be charged
with Eurocentrism, just like the creators of triumphalist books to
celebrate the success of the British economy.

Dobb, as I read him many years ago, seemed to make the same point that
Doug Henwood suggested, that the exploitation of the British themselves
should not be overlooked.

As I understand the story, the British overlords were willing to exploit
just about anybody: African slaves, Irish tenants, Indian farmers 
as well as their own people.  All contributed to the process.

Marx, as I understand him, understood things holistically.  Maybe this
makes him a lumper, although he was careful to make distinctions in his
analysis.  For example, he rejected all sorts of bourgeois theory, but
not before he extracted what could be useful from people, such as Smith
and Ricardo.

I'm still at a loss to see the basis of all the hostility in this
debate.  To accept Maurice Dobb does not seem to sacrifice anything on
an altar of British or European superiority.  To incorporate much of Jim
Blaut's information, which I appreciate, does not mean that I'm willing
to castigate those who disagree with him as Eurocentrists.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

[PEN-L:11960] Re: Re: Re: Re: taking stock

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Jim B.,
  BTW, although you have backed off a bit
from the emphasis on the role of gold and silver,
it is certainly a staple of much of the literature that
you cite and propose as supporting your view.  I
am thinking in particular of Andre Gunder Frank's
_ReOrient_ which really plays up the role of the silver
trade very much, way too much as far as I am concerned.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: James M. Blaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:27 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11931] Re: Re: Re: taking stock


>Barkley:
>
>I'd agree that the slave plantation system (combined with forced cotton
>planting in India after 1857) was in the long run more important than the
>16th-century gold and silver, mainly because it involved millions of
>plantAtion workers, slave and non-slave, refininery workers, transport
>workers., etc., etc. -- it was industry. And let us remmeber that sugar and
>cotton were the most important products in international trade in the later
>Middle Ages and early modern period. The gold and silver, to my mind,
>produced one basic change: the rise of capitalists to political power in
>the Bourgeoius Revolutions and related events. Without state power,
>capitalists would not have been able to really develop plantation
>colonialism as well as create conditions for more rapid accumulation in
>England and eventually an industrial revolution.
>
>As to that question of Holland and england vis-a-vis spain and Portugal.
>I'd add only one point or rather nuance. We telescope history when we think
>that these were individual countries in the 16th century, competing with
>one another,, etc. Also, our fixation on the process of developmemnt of
>capitalistm in the English countryside leads us to neglect the network of
>protocapitalist relations that connected all of western and southern Europe
>into a single economic system. Profits that went to  spain went into this
>system. So did products. So did products moving the other way. And the
>historical geography of this system was very clear: it had economic cores
>going back to the middle middle ages -- northern Italy, the Low Countries,
>secondarily England and Germany, etc. I don't know why anyone should be
>surprised that these economic cores REMAINED economic cores. The anomaly,
>of course, is Italy.
>
>Cheersa
>
>Jim B
>
>

[PEN-L:11959] Re: Re: Re: Re: taking stock

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Jim B.,
  Guess I'm largely in agreement here.  It is
quite clear that both the inflation and the selected
increases in wealth that accompanied the 1500s
inflow of bullion to Europe shook up the class structure
considerably, with at least some of the gainers being
either actual or proto-capitalists of one sort or another.
Again, I am less convinced of the significance of that inflow,
but then we seem to agree that the later sugar and cotton
trades were more important anyway.
  I certainly agree about the long-running "core-periphery"
structure of the European economy.  It may well be that the
fate of Northern Italy was eventually largely an accident of
its geographical location (sound reasonable to a self-
labeled geographer?).  Certainly this is Braudel's argument
on the matter, that Venice in particular had been a beneficiary
of being just beyond the west end of the old Silk Road and
that a crucial result of both Vasco da Gama's voyage
and of the opening of the trans-Atlantic trade/exploitation
was to render its position irrelevant.  Maybe the Venetians
and other Italians could have gotten out, although some did
so under other flags, e.g. Columbus (for whom did Amerigo
Vespucci sail anyway?).  But it was simply harder
to do so not having that Atlantic coast line.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: James M. Blaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:27 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11931] Re: Re: Re: taking stock


>Barkley:
>
>I'd agree that the slave plantation system (combined with forced cotton
>planting in India after 1857) was in the long run more important than the
>16th-century gold and silver, mainly because it involved millions of
>plantAtion workers, slave and non-slave, refininery workers, transport
>workers., etc., etc. -- it was industry. And let us remmeber that sugar and
>cotton were the most important products in international trade in the later
>Middle Ages and early modern period. The gold and silver, to my mind,
>produced one basic change: the rise of capitalists to political power in
>the Bourgeoius Revolutions and related events. Without state power,
>capitalists would not have been able to really develop plantation
>colonialism as well as create conditions for more rapid accumulation in
>England and eventually an industrial revolution.
>
>As to that question of Holland and england vis-a-vis spain and Portugal.
>I'd add only one point or rather nuance. We telescope history when we think
>that these were individual countries in the 16th century, competing with
>one another,, etc. Also, our fixation on the process of developmemnt of
>capitalistm in the English countryside leads us to neglect the network of
>protocapitalist relations that connected all of western and southern Europe
>into a single economic system. Profits that went to  spain went into this
>system. So did products. So did products moving the other way. And the
>historical geography of this system was very clear: it had economic cores
>going back to the middle middle ages -- northern Italy, the Low Countries,
>secondarily England and Germany, etc. I don't know why anyone should be
>surprised that these economic cores REMAINED economic cores. The anomaly,
>of course, is Italy.
>
>Cheersa
>
>Jim B
>
>

[PEN-L:11958] Re: Re: "Internal" and "external" factors; Ernest Mande

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Jim B.,
  Good luck on the third volume.
  I hope you recognize that I have put forward
some arguments that have been (or could be)
labeled "Eurocentric," although perhaps I have
avoided that label by accepting large portions of
the "Third-Worldist" position.  But then, I'm one of those
who would prefer to avoid these labels, having already
been rather dismissive about precisely defining
"capitalism," although I thought your quickie definition
was not too bad.
   With regard to the argument that you have just
laid out, I would be cautious regarding the claim that
inventions happen and just sit around until demand picks
up sufficiently and they get adopted.  The situation is much
more complicated than that, with the gap from some initial
conceptualization or invention to actual adoption in the
economy in the form of embodied capital equipment or
commodities being a matter of varied evolution.  Again,
this is one of those not-entirely-satisfying "subtle interplay"
stories, with new technologies or inventions undergoing improvements or
changes as demand increases and they
move toward actual adoption. I would warn that the literature
on this sort of thing is vast, but I would warn against making
facile statements.  I'm not sure that it is crucial to the core of
your argument anyway, at least as I understand it.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: James M. Blaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:25 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11930] Re: "Internal" and "external" factors; Ernest Mande


>Barkley:
>
>You always bring a breath of fresh air into this miasmic discussion.
>
>I'm working on a third volume of The Colonizer's Model and one section will
>deal with the industrial revolution. I'll argue -- this is not partiucalry
>original --  that the run-up to, and early stages, of the industrial
>revolution (to maybe 1840) were stimulated most critically by steadily
>increasing demand (particularly for cotton cloth) which capitalists
>expected to contnue to increase, hence (given labor's resistance) they
>quickly and repeatedly introduced new and more productive or efficient
>technology (or went out of business). Technology, I (and many others)
>argue, is always available ahead of the need for its use. (We tend to
>romanticize invention.) So the signatyure of the IR, new technolgoy,
>PRIMARILY reflected increased demand over a long period of time.
>
>I think I'll be able to show that the steadily increased demand reflected
>various forms of colonialism and related phenomena: plantation colonies,
>settler colonies, wars over coloniasl possessions (including the Napoleonic
>Wars, by the way), trade, some of it unequal, in Asia; and also the
>evolving changes in Europe which in part were reflections of Europe
>Expanding: urbanization, stimulated agriculturasl production, with -- in
>England -- its big new demand for iron implements -- etc.
>
>We already know, Barkley, that those Others on the list, the Eurocentrists,
>will kick and scream when they read this. They should be forewarned that
>I'm not going to get into a discussion of this matter until the next
>millennium, and not with them.
>
>Cheers
>
>Jim Blaut
>
>
>

[PEN-L:11952] Re: units of analysis

[Ricardo Duchesne]

> >What is your opinion of the charges against Catholicism that those Catholic
> >dummies were inferior and didn/t/couldm't invent capitalism because they
> >didn't possess the Protestant ethic? Wasn't that bigotry, racism,
> >prejudice?
> 
> this question misses the point, a point that people on pen-l (including
> yours truly) have made several times. If one believes in the Weberian
> "Protestantism caused capitalism" theory (which I do not), the Catholics
> could be _praised_ for NOT having created capitalism. After all, capitalism
> has destroyed the community, the extended family, the reverence of everyday
> life and the Almighty, and the respect for authority that the Catholics
> have strived to preserve over the centuries. So the Catholics might be seen
> as _superior_. 

which is why I dont' waste time responding to this accusation that, 
if one argues that Europe developed first into capitalism, one is 
thereby saying Europeans were a superior ethinic group. question 
Blaut needs to answer is, if Europe and China were equally developed in 
1500, does that mean he thinks China was superior to Africa? or any 
humter-gatherer remaining out there? 

[PEN-L:11956] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 07:50 AM 9/29/99 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
>
>yours truly) have made several times. If one believes in the Weberian
>"Protestantism caused capitalism" theory (which I do not), the Catholics


Jim, I think that is a rather distorted view of Weber's theory, which is
much more subtle.  It deals with the issue of the relationship between
political/economic power and cultural institutions.  Rather than saying
that cultural instituions (religions, value systems) cause certain economic
development (like capitalism), Weber treats them as instruments of that
development.  That is, social groups or classes that gain economic or
political power try to legitimate their power by using cultural
institutions as instruments to that end.  That instrumentality, in turn,
depends on "elective affinity" that is, certain values, beliefs, or
behaviors embedded in a particular cultural institution that are
particularly useful for the interests of the power group in question.

Thus, the usefulness of protestantism over catholicism was differences in
work ethic - while catholicism stressed the concern with wordly affairs
should be limited to the level necessary to surivive, protestantism anxiety
and the need to 'prove' oneself in the material world.  That made
protestant ethic useful to instill behavioral traits that were desirable
from a point of view of those profited of the labor of others.  That is,
there was and elective affinity between protestant "arbeit macht frei"
ethics and capitalist insterests which explains the popularity of
protestantism among nascent capitalists.

In essence I interpret Weber's view of cultural institutions as an extnsion
of Marx's idea of linking the class interest of those who control the means
of material production to the regulation and distribution of the production
of ideas.

wojtek

[PEN-L:11955] Re: moral entrepreneurship (was: "Free labor" as aprecondition forcapital)

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 01:05 PM 9/28/99 -0500, Mathew Forstater asks:
>What is one to say to this?  This is so disheartening.

in response to my remark:
>>Max, I am totally with you on that, I do not think third worldism is about
>>political struggle, abroad or here - it is a kulturkampf waged by
>>intellectuals in the symbolic realm of blame and guilt.  It has the signs
>>of a religious guilt trip cum denying the obvious to claim a moral victory
>>written all over it.



Mat, I think truly disheartening is that such ideologies exist.  I grew up
in a developing country, a 'third world' if you will, and I am thoroughly
familar with the genre.  It is the countless allovariants of a single
theme: scapegoating, i.e. attributing causes of what happens in a society
to external forces and factors.

Its purpose is generally to mobilize support for- and deflects criticim
from- the local ruling elite or the nationalist/isolationist faction of it.
 It is, in effect, saying 'we as the nations and its leaders are valiand
and brave, work hard and do all the right things, so if things do not work
as expected, it is because those damn Yanks or Ruskies meddle in our
internal affairs and rob us of our precious resources.  If anyone is
interested, I can tell some really amusing stories of that genre, e.g. how
an ant (Poland) supported an elephant (Russia).  I can even match them with
the festung-amerika variety how all those damn foreigners conspire to rob
hard working US-ers of their way of life.

I think that the fundamentally reactionary and pro-status quo character of
blaming imperialism for all national woes should be quite apparent.  It
diverts attention from domestic problems, binds common people to the ruling
elites, fosters bigotry and nationalism.  It usually served as an
ideological prelude to witch-hunts and purges in the former Soviet bloc
states.

 
The anti-imperialist mythology is also present in the US academy and its
offshoots, but it serves a different function here -- that of the merit
making.  In medieval Europe, merit making was the practice of alms giving
(usually by the nobility) to the poor not to relly help them, but earn a
'merit' for the giver in this life as well as the afterlife.In the same
vein, certain academics earn 'merits' by paying the lip service to the
'wretched of the earth' (the farther away, the better) and fighting the
imaginary demons (imperialism, racism, eurocentrism, capitalism etc.) on
their behalf.  That allows them to take a high moral ground, earn a
mini-celeberity status among graduate students and maverick intellectuals
for their 'controversial' and 'uncompromising' stance, look down on their
colleagues as suckups and lackeys of the status quo, or deflect any
criticism of their shoddy scholarship as being 'ideologically driven.'

That is not to imply that there is no outstanding scholarship on the above
named subject (e.g. Barrington Moore, Jeffery Paige, Alexander
Gerschenkron, Dietrich Rueschemeyerto name a few), but that the gems are
often surrounded by trash, moral-intellectual entrepreneurship.

One more thing.  You may wonder why I am so concerned with what appears to
be a realtively minor aspect of the culture wars waged in this society.
Well, academy is where i work.  So instead of fighting monsters in distant
and exotic places (which is what many US academics love to do) - I believe
that we need to do some stable cleaning much closer to home, perhaps even
in our own instiutions and ranks.

wojtek

[PEN-L:11983] Re: Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Sam Pawlett]

Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
> 
> Alan Carling's synthesis of Cohen and Brenner, which Wood completely
> rejects as an imposible mix (not everything mixes, try putting car
> oil in your soup) can be found in his book, Analytical Marxism.
> 

 I'm afraid I'm going to have to endorse Ricardo's observations here. In
my years as a line cook I've found that 10w30 motor oil is not  a good
garnish for soups though higher viscosity oil works quite well as a
replacement for Italian salad dressing.

Tommy Udo

[PEN-L:11954] Eurocentrism

[James M. Blaut]

Doug:

It isn't fair to faulty the critique of Eurocentrism by saying thaT  it
doesn't correct other problems, like class issues in the European world.

Thats like saying, when we get a cure for AIDS, "oh, thats not really
important because we haven't cured cancer."

One thing at a  time -- or, I do my work, you do your work.


Cheers

Jim  

[PEN-L:11953] Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[James M. Blaut]

Louis:

You say " In Brenner's very, very lengthy article, there is nearly ZERO
discussion of Latin America, Asia and Africa. "

Actually, in Brenner's lon g essay, there is NO MENTION WHATEVER OF ASIA,
AFRICA, OR LATIN AMERICA except for one comment about Barbados after 1650
-- after the the rise of ca[pitalism which is what he is talking about.

Jim B
 

[PEN-L:11982] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)

[Rod Hay]

The answer is simple Charles

Gold is only wealth in certain social arrangements. Northwest Europe had 
those arrangements. A lot of other places didn't. The only possible 
exception is China. So the emphasis should be on those social arrangements 
rather than the gold. Wojtek asked if it was only the gold why didn't South 
America develop a capitalist economy.

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:11978] FW: Masonic Bone Ritual shocks Aborigines; boys find skulls in storeroom

[Craven, Jim]

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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Masonic Bone Ritual shocks Aborigines; boys find skulls in
storeroom


Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:32:08 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Lynne Moss-Sharman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Masonic Bone Ritual shocks Aborigines; boys find skulls in
   storeroom
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The West Australian (Perth)  July 23, 1999
by Anne Buggins

MASONIC BONE RITUAL SHOCKS ABORIGINES:
Freemasons give police human skulls for forensic testing

Aboriginal activist Clarrie Isaacs, who is a former member of the WA
Freemasons, says he is surprised and disappointed to discover Aboriginal
bones had been used in masonic secret rituals.

A skull and crossbones belonging to the Newman Masonic Lodge was identified
as Aboriginal, prompting Freemasons to surrender up to 60 such skulls to
police for forensic testing.

"I wouldn't like to see the use of human bones in any ritual," he said. "I
don't think it is a Christian sort of thing to  have bones hanging around."

Mr. Isaacs, who is a Muslim, said he was a member of the Concorde Lodge in
Stirling Highway for about three years, but left in 1988.  "I somehow felt
it didn't really fit my style," he said. "It was a lot of big businessmen
and tons of police."

"Some of them were doing good things -- not all of them were police.
I was just working for the Water Authority, I couldn't keep up with all
their donations. I don't think they objected to me, maybe it was a novelty
to say they had the only Aboriginal in the lodge."  

Despite ent3ring the third masonic degree and attaining the title of Master
Mason, Mr. Isaacs had never seen a set of bones used for any ceremonial
ritual. He said he may not have been eligible to see them.  "As you join
among men and want to be their equal, you would hope they don't have such
dastardly things going on," he said.

Mr. Isaacs said he became fed up with the amount of time masons spent
memorising things and reading them out. "I thought, 'How am I ever going to
apply this stuff'. It was a bit like nonsense," he said.

Yesterday, Coroner's Court manager Glenn Spivey said police had handed in a
few skulls for testing in recent weeks. Forensic tests normally took up to
10 days, but there could be a delay if lots came at once.  

Other Aboriginal spokesmen have reacted strongly to the news. The Perth
Noongar Regional Council chairman, the Rev. Cedric Jacobs, said he was
devastated to think the bones of any human had been used in such a manner
and believed the Masons should be prosecuted. He said the matter would be
raised at a council meeting next month.

But Manguri Aboriginal Corporation director Dean Collard said he saw
practical difficulties with any move to prosecute.  "I don't think it can
be done," he said. "Just in a practical sense who do you prosecute?"  He
applauded the Masons' decision to hand other skulls in for forensic
examination. He said it showed respect for Aboriginal beliefs.

~~o~
FREEMASONS HAND OVER 60 SKULLS FOR POLICE TESTS
The West Australian (Perthy) July 22, 1999 page 1
by Anne Buggins

WA Freemasons could be forced to reveal details of their secret ceremonies
after a skull and crossbones belonging to the Newman Lodge were identified
as Aboriginal.  The discovery has prompted Freemasons to surrender up to 60
such skulls for forensic testing and to begin using photographic
transparencies instead of human remains in rituals.

Aboriginal elder Ken Colbung, who likened Freemason rituals to those of a
witches' coven, wants the masons to be prosecuted.  "It makes your blood
run cold really," he said yesterday. "I am not against them using skeletal
remains as long as they have got permission, but when they become grave
robbers we would tend to think they shouldn't be doing that."

But South Hedland DetSgt. Ron Clarke said prosecution was not an issue. The
masons had not contravened a section of the Criminal Code which dealt with
"misconduct with regard to a corpse."

Irene Stainton, assistant director of Aboriginal heritage and culture at
the Aboriginal Affairs Department, said it was "hugely significant" to all
Aboriginal people that human remains be returned to a person's country or
place of origin.  But pathologists could confirm only the remains were
those of an Aboriginal man, aged 30 to 35.
(continued on page 2) 

BONES POINT TO MASONIC RITES  page 2
The West Australian (Perth) July 22, 1999

The masonic ritual came to light in February when three boys, aged six and
seven, took a box containing the 

[PEN-L:11946] Re: taking stock

[Ricardo Duchesne]

> > Look at the responses to the last post on total foreign trade,
> 
> Why?  Are you telling me that you want me to join in with your accusations against
> those who disagree with you?

I know where you stand on this issue, and would never expect that. But 
favoring a position requires knowing why one favours it. 


> > only
> > one took direct issue with the argument and the figures I used, which
> > is a fair critique,  but am also being told that the
> > material I used on total trade is from the 1980s when the fact is
> > that most of the sources favouring my view where from the 1990s, as
> > was indicated.
> 
> As long as you are merely throwing sources at each other, the accusation of
   obsolete
> data is standard procedure.

I think I have done more than throw sources, but am also trying to 
indicate that the position am taking is the latest consensus among 
economic historians. Even Deane (1965), a source which Mat just cited 
(and argument which I did mention in an earlier post), no longer 
thinks that *total* foreign trade was the major factor. 

RD: 
> > (Not that there's anything wrong with older sources,
> > as Blaut appears to think,
> 

MP:
> Now you're back taunting.  Let Jim speak for himself.

Please, Michael, be sensible; I think you are an excellent moderator 
given the circumstances and the number of people you have to deal 
with, but Jim has been stating over and over 
that my views are old stuff, conventional. Perhaps you acquiesce when  
someome argues against your views; I dont, 'cause I don't argue 
unless I know what I am saying. And if I recognize a good argument I 
will - one way or another - acknowledge it, whether by saying it 
directly, or by responding in a serious scholarly manner. 

RD:
 > > with this silly idea that I am defending a
> > "conventional" view whereas he is on the side of the newest
> > scholarship! Fact is that both sides have old and new sources).
> > Besides, I have made more references than anyone else,
> 
MP:
> We are not keeping score here.  The question should be if you fail to convince
 us on
> this list, either the rest are stubborn or stupid or you have just not made your
> point because you may be wrong or you may have a poor technique for 
communicating.
> It is far easier to assume the fault lies with those who disagree with you.

RD: What am writing is part of  a future paper, of which the colonial 
trade will be just a section. I am not faulting 
anybody for not accepting what I have said. Am only asking for 
serious academic responses, rather than this stuff about eurocentrism 
and all. You can be sure that if someone challenged me seriously I 
would raise the level of my arguments more. But Proyect must be 
disappointed with Blaut whom he expected to take me but has instead 
relented. 
 
I agree with you that I may have been insensitive at times (as I may be 
here again). But I cant always help it.  Guess am a sinner too. 
Anyways, this debate will end anytime soon, and then I am out of here, at 
least for a while.

[PEN-L:11951] Re: Indigenous Efficiency

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 03:57 PM 9/28/99 -0700, Jim Craven wrote:
>The real "savages" are all wearing uniforms and three-piece suits and acting
>oh so "civilized" and "efficient".


If I remember correctly, the Canadian government outlawed for some time the
practice of potlatch, solely because it was s antithetical to the holy
spirit of capitalism.

While we are at that,  the idea of potlatch (=ritualistic feast + giving
gifts to visitors at the 'expense' of the village chief) had an important
function of attracting new people to a village (the 'wastefulness' of
latter days potlatches so bemoaned by westerners was simply a result of the
decimation of the indigenous population).  It thus follows that humans were
a scacre resource in the indigenous economy.  That is also consistent with
the practice of prisoner taking by many tribes to replace the deceased
members of their community.  Those prisoners were adapted to the new
society as equals, and given the functions that the deceased member
performed.  That further explains why white women kidnapped by the tribes
often refused to return to the 'white' society when they had a choice -
they were simply better treated by the indigenous people than by white men.

Now it is quite clear to me that in a situation when the total population
is on average stable, you can can economize by balancing the existing
resources.  That is you may have periodical shortages of material
resources, but you can solve these shortages by simply transfering the
surpluses from more abundant periods (saving).  Those inter-periodical
redistributions do not affect the long term balance.  But that is not the
case when shortages are endemic i.e. you either face a persistent shortage
of labor (i.e. the "systemic' situation the latter day potlatches tried to
avert by 'local' i.e. redistributive means), or the opposite, population
growth puts increasing strain on the existing resources.  It is not
possible to solve these persistent shortages by redistributive means,
including obtaining new resources from outside of the system - at least not
in the long run.  You need to eliminate the cause of the problem, that is,
either stabilize population growth or increase the volume of resource
production.

So its seems to me that indigenous and capitalist economies dealth with two
much different problems that makes them very difficult to compare and say
which one is 'more efficient.'  As you correctly pointed out, capitalist
economy was 'inefficient' form the indigenous point of view, because it was
geared to achieve a different set of objectives than the indigenous economy
- the constant growth of resource production instead of balancing the
existing resources.  In the same vein, the indigenous economy may appear
'ineffcient' preciesely for the same reason - it is not designed to
generate constant growth of production (which it views as wasteful excess).

Regardless of ideological pronouncements and rivalries, every society (and
every living species for that matter) needs adequate material resource base
to survive.  The social and economic institutions are mere adaptations to
the procurement of adequate material resources under given circumstances.
That does not mean that old institutions die when their usefulness for
resource procurement expires.  It means that a society dies if it does not
develop adequate  social-economic institutions when the usefulness of the
old ones expires due to changing material conditions.

My intention is not to defend the excesses of conspicuous consumption
characteristic of late capitalism, or its numerous paradoxes and
aberrations, such as social inequality, hunger and povert amidst of plenty,
the undemocratic character of the organization of production etc.  While
these problems are very serious and must be eventually solved (that's what
unites people on this list, despite petty differences, no?) - i do not
think that we as society have an option of returning to a pre-capitalist
society, no matter how appealing its customs and instituions may appear to
us.  Unless, of course, someone wants to take an alternative route to
restoring the resource/population balance - a "final solution" to "surplus"
population.

wojtek

[PEN-L:11974] RE: Re: Re: Indigenous Efficiency

[Craven, Jim]

Michael,

Thanks for the reference. I'll get ahold of Amazon.com and try to get a copy
of it. I have seen desperately poor Tribal members ban together to create a
pool of resources for other Tribal members who suffered a tragedy and were
evenly more desperately poor; and they took action against the wealthier
Tribal members who refused to participate. In all cases, their appeal was
very simple: "Ni-Kso-Ko-Wa."

In contrast, I find the core dynamics and superstructure of capitalism
producing/sanctioning/celebrating increasingly alienated, atomistic, cruel,
selfish, brutal, greedy, narcissistic, rat-race-competitive, materialistic
and myopic individuals/individualism. I find the "invisible hand"
increasingly working like the "hand" of the proctologist with a rubber glove
on it--and worse.

Thanks for the reference.

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: michael perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:11972] Re: Re: Indigenous Efficiency


One of my favorite books on this subject is King's Farmers of 40 centuries,
describing Asian agricultural practices that allowed for high productivity
over a
long period of time.  It was published early in the century and reprinted by
Rodale around the 1960s.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11972] Re: Re: Indigenous Efficiency

[michael perelman]

One of my favorite books on this subject is King's Farmers of 40 centuries,
describing Asian agricultural practices that allowed for high productivity over a
long period of time.  It was published early in the century and reprinted by
Rodale around the 1960s.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11969] RE: Re: Indigenous Efficiency

[Craven, Jim]

Hi Wojtek,

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I am not anti-industrialization, only
anti-capitalist-industrialization; I am not anti-urbanization, only
anti-urbanization under capitalism; I am not a Luddite (I desperately seek
to have Louis P come out to Browning and other reservations/reserves to help
wire them up); I am not seeking a return to "primitive" communalism. This is
about comparative paradigms and the inner/defining features and structures
of systems that shape the inner "logic" and imperatives of systems that
shape the dynamics, trajectories and dominant paradigms of systems.

In Kerala, a favorite saying is: "For the little frog in the well, the sky
is as big as the mouth of the well." Under capitalism, as revealed by the
whole history of capitalism everywhere it is found, a central dynamic is
increasing "socialization" of costs and risks of accumulation, production
and distribution--with true costs and risks very narrowly defined--coupled
with increasing privatization/concentration/centralization of the returns of
accumulation/production/distribution. The core imperatives of accumulation
and expanded reproduction of the whole system lead to short-run myopia in
terms of defining/calculating/underestimating true costs of
production/distribution/capitalism versus often exaggerating the true
returns--and to whom those returns accrue--of the above-mentioned.

So for example, GDP excludes--and therefore demeans--so-called "non-market"
services such as Household services done primarily by women; it excludes
some of the true costs associated with industrialization/urbanization--under
capitalism and other systems to some extent--such as rapid resource
depletion of non-renewable resources, environmental decay, rat-race
individualism, divorce/suicice rates etc etc.

Even when so-called corrections are made for positive and negative
"externalities" through taxation and subsidies to supposedly make market
prices reflect marginal private costs and benefits plus marginal costs of
negative externalities or marginal benefits of positive externalities, this
is done by a State bought and paid for by the ultra-rich to ensure they get
the benefits while the costs are born by the least able and least involved
in generating those costs in the first place.

In traditional Indigenous societies, there is no notion of "private" and
"social" costs and benefits analogous to that under capitalism, because all
in the Tribe are considered "related" (In Pikunii language greeting and
leaving is via "Ni-Kso-Ko-Wa" or "We are all related")and so the notion of
someone for private gain, shitting in the collective environment and
distinguishing between "private" versus "social or collective" interests is
not done. There is no notion of a few satisfying luxury "wants" at the
expense of basic "needs" of the many because "Ni-Kso-Ko-Wa (would you live
in a huge luxury house while your mother, father or sister were homeless?;
in the Tribe, all are related in that way)

So the sick paradigm of capitalism, partly summed up in methodological
individualism--plus more--is central to the core/defining imperatives of
capitalism that shape the logic, dynamics and trajectories of that system.
And as that system ripens, expands and attempts to conquer more and more of
nature, people, investment outlets, resources and whole nations, the sick
increasingly outweighs the healthy, destruction increaisngly outweighs
construction, destruction of the environment increasingly outweighs
preservation of the environment, alienation and fear increasingly outweighs
contentment and hope, etc--for the broad masses as opposed to some
privileged few.

Yes we get a panoply of products and product diversity, but what good are
new toys and magnificent inventions the borad masses cannot afford to buy
and/or are not used in the interests of the whole Tribe? What good are all
these conveniences that may be all lost at any moment through the rampant
cruel vicissitudes and restructuring of the whole system? What kind of
system and systemic paradigms/values present a cornocopia of instruments for
financial speculation but leaves more than one-third of its population
without any health care or without full health care and leaves millions
homeless? What kind of system and systemic values demand using scarce
resources to prop-up ugly genocidal dictatorships that service imperial
accumulation by breaking up unions, mass terror through death squads,
keeping wages low and unconscionable while keeping productivity high and
therefore surplus value extraction continually flowing back to the
metropoles?

That was my point. The paradigms of capitalism and the contrived and very
narrow and very inhuman syllogisms, definitions and concepts of progress,
efficiency, "optimality", "economy", etc that they embody and utilize, along
with the theories and policies they produce, lead nowhere except to NET
destruction, decay, inefficiency, misery etc.

Jim C.

James Craven
Clark College, 1800 E

[PEN-L:11949] BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999

Perhaps the greatest surprise of the economic expansion that began in 1991
has been the failure of inflation to rise once the nation's unemployment
rate dipped under 6 percent.  Many economists were convinced by history that
falling under that threshold would cause inflation to accelerate. ...
Economists have cited a host of reasons inflation has remained so tame,
including strong productivity growth, falling prices for imports, declining
prices for computers, and increasing competition in many markets,
particularly those subject to foreign competition.  Nevertheless, this
recent history hasn't kept most Federal Reserve policymakers ... from
worrying that, if unemployment keeps falling, sooner or later employers will
begin to raise wages in an inflationary fashion in order to attract or
retain workers. ...  To the Fed chairman, the issue is not just what is
happening to the pool of officially unemployed workers ... Greenspan also is
focused on a separate, somewhat smaller group that contains people who don't
have a job, aren't actively looking for work -- and therefore aren't in the
labor force -- but say they "want a job now." ...  Since 1997, both groups
have shrunk. ...  In congressional testimony this summer, Greenspan
reiterated his concern about this declining pool of available workers from
the viewpoint of inflation while acknowledging the social value of providing
jobs for many workers who normally would not have them. ...  Some labor
experts, including analysts at BLS, are skeptical about Greenspan's way of
measuring the pool of potential workers ... because there is enormous
churning in the labor force as people enter and leave the work force, obtain
and lose jobs, turn 16, or retire or die.  Taking this churning into
account, these labor experts believe there are more potential workers than
those in the two groups Greenspan is counting. ...  (John M. Berry, writing
in The Washington Post, page E1).

The National Association for Business Economics forecasts 3.8 percent
economic growth this year and 2.7 percent in 2000, the association
president-elect Diane Swonk says.  NABE expects inflation as measured by the
CPI to accelerate from 1.6 percent in 1998 to 2.1 percent in 1999, and 2.3
percent in 2000.   The national unemployment rate is expected to average 4.3
percent this year, compared with a 4.5 percent average in 1998, and settle
in at 4.4 percent in 2000. ...  The Asian crisis appears to be over, the
president-elect says. ...  (Daily Labor Report, page A-4).

In the past few years, the European economy has virtually reinvented itself.
Corporations have modernized and merged.  Governments have reduced budget
deficits and deregulated key industries.  This year, 11 European nations
joined in creating a single currency, the euro.  But Europe's economic boom
is unlike that of the United States in one crucial respect:  Unemployment
remains stubbornly high. ...  Sixteen million people in the EU are looking
for work and not finding it -- a problem that ultimately threatens to
undermine the continent's aspirations of being a global economic superpower.
...  In the past 5 years of economic expansion, 11.5 million new jobs have
been created in the United States.  In the European Union, with a population
40 percent larger, 3.6 million jobs were added, and many of those were in
just two countries -- Britain and the Netherlands.  Germany and Italy have
fewer jobs today than they did in 1993, France barely more.  To many
experts, the explanation is simple:  It costs companies too much to create
jobs in Europe, and employment law is so protective of workers that
businesses are reluctant to hire. ...  Bosses are wary of adding workers who
will be hard to shed if business turns sour. ...  (Washington Post, page
A1).

British prices for consumer goods are much higher than those charged in the
rest of Europe and the United States, and Britons are complaining loudly,
says The Washington Post (page A19). ...  For example, the price of a gallon
of unleaded gas in London is $5.44, while the price in the District of
Columbia is $1.30.  A 6-pack of Coke is $4.90 in London, $2.50 in the
District of Columbia. ...  Analysts offer a variety of explanations:  Simple
market forces, an ingrained culture against competition, higher retailing
costs, and outright price gouging are some. ...  

Are temporary workers a booming area's proletariat? asks The New York Times
(Sept. 26, "Money & Business" section, page 4).  The article concerns
Silicon Valley, which a technician in computer-aided design says has a
subculture of temporary workers.  They don't enjoy stock options or the
holidays.  When they are laid off, they just bite the bullet.  They don't
get much respect. ...  The drive to organize temporary workers on the part
of the unions reflects growing concern about the widening gaps between
different classes of workers.  In the high-tech economy of the late 1990s,
research from 

[PEN-L:11948] Open letter to NACLA, Susan Lowes and Jack Hammond

[Louis Proyect]

Dear Jack and Susan,

I am not sure how much involvement you have with the day-to-day activities
of NACLA in your capacity as members of the Board of Directors and
Editorial Board, but I want to raise a serious question with you about
recent coverage of events in Colombia in the context of the NACLA Report's
drift toward Castañeda's vision of "civil society". I dropped my sub to the
Report because I found this perspective less and less useful. I also found
editorials on Lori Berenson's 'foolishness' and Cuba's failure to adapt to
'new realities' outright offensive. In any case, I can live with this. What
I can't live with is slander against the FARC driven apparently by
ideological fervor.

Specifically, the NACLA Report July/August 1999 contains an article
"Indigenous Communities Caught in the Crossfire" by Mario Murillo, an
editorial board member:

He states, "Over the past year, FARC guerrillas and right-wing
paramilitaries have murdered, abducted, and threatened numerous members of
the Embera Katío community, a tribe of about 500 families living along
rivers in northern Córdoba…"

Since I am working on a book on Marxism and the American Indian that is
inspired to a large degree by the tragic failure of the FSLN to fully
comprehend legitimate Miskitu interests at the outset, I am very interested
in evidence such as the kind that Mario was reporting on. So I wrote to
Mario asking him about the source of this report, but he didn't think it
was worth a reply. This was even after I identified myself as a long-time
activist in the Central American solidarity movement of the 1980s.

I tried to do my own investigation into this incident and uncovered the
following report from The Presbyterian Church of Colombia:

"A new massacre flows with blood in the Department of Cordoba. This time it
was in the village of Saiza, on June 15, where heavily armed men
assassinated eight people and wounded two people of indigenous origin and
ransacked local commercial establishments. The initial versiones of the
story which passed through the urban zone of Tierra Alta held that the
bloody act was committed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC), but when the injured arrived, this information was "defalsified"
and it was confirmed that the authors of the acts were members of United
Self Defense of Colombia (AUC)."

So when I attended a meeting of the Colombia Media Project on Friday
evening, Sept. 24th at Hunter College chaired by Mario, I asked him to
clear this up. What were the facts? Did or did not the FARC murder and
abduct Indians in the Cordoba region, or was the Presbyterian Church report
accurate? He chose not to reply to me at the meeting. An Indian activist
named Eulalia Yagar, who was on the panel, spoke at length but could not
provide any information on the incident. This is clearly an evasion and
while left unanswered, discredits NACLA.

Mario's only response to all this has been a paranoid and demagogic rant
about how Yankee racists should keep their nose out of Colombian politics,
because they can't possibly care about the suffering of a people who have
been victims of a 40 year war. I haven't heard crap like that since the
1960s, but I attach it for your edification. I am telling you in no
uncertain terms that as long as this kind of politicized reporting
characterizes the current-day NACLA Report, it will lose credibility among
people like myself. I moderate a mailing list with nearly 200 subscribers,
many of whom live in Latin America. I also maintain a website that has
1000s of hits a month from Marxists and other leftists. I do not plan to
let go of this issue until I feel that a proper understanding of the
problem has been achieved. I do not appreciate having my email queries
ignored, nor do I like being called a Yankee racist.

Louis Proyect

>Friends,
>
>It is mighty easy for someone sitting in a comfortable high rise on the
>upper east side of Manhattan to launch into some pseudo-intellectual
>diatribe about how "civil society" is getting in the way of truly
>revolutionary change in Colombia; it is entirely different living the
>effects of a war which has been waged endlessly throughout the country
>with no end in sight. Unfortunately, too often, the arrogance of the
>Yankee, whether expressed from the right or the left, very often does
>not allow him to pull his swollen head out of the sand (or from wherever
>else he happens to have it stuck).
>
>To describe someone as a Castañeda adherent simply because they have
>written something that does not fit conveniently into one’s own
>theoretical liking smells of the same kind of knee-jerk reactionism that
>has so often discredited people in the so-called left in the past.
>
>If you read my NACLA article carefully, you would notice I refer to a
>series of attacks against Indigenous communities carried out by all the
>major armed actors in the country - the guerillas, the paramilitaries,
>and their military allies. This assessment was based not 

[PEN-L:11947] Eurocentrism

[Doug Henwood]

I think the concept of Eurocentrism is both enlightening and useful. 
There's no doubt that the idea of "Europe" sprung up in opposition to 
the colonized Other, just as reason came into being with madness and 
nature with civilization. But there seems to be a danger in stopping 
there, and just getting fixated on the Europe/colonized opposition. 
It runs the risk of effacing all the class, ethnic, and geographical 
divisions within Europe - Eastern and Southern Europe stand in a 
quasi-colonial relation with Western and Northern Europe - and the 
class divisions within national and subnational regions of Europe. It 
runs the risk of overlooking all the non-Europeans who populate the 
global hegemon, the U.S. It runs the risk of overlooking the fact 
that Asians (a concept that's undoubtedly a product of European 
thought) have become formidable capitalists, with Japan among the 
first rank of imperial powers and Taiwanese capitalists running 
sweatshops in Guatemala. And it also runs the risk of effacing all 
the class differences within colonized realms, and the considerable 
complicity of comprador classes. Those compradors often use 
anti-Eurocentric/nationalist rhetoric to justify their rule and to 
hide their complicity.

Doug

[PEN-L:11967] Re: Re: Re: "Free labor" as a precondition forcapital

[Jim Devine]

Jim B. writes: 
>(1) You're absolutely right that "factories in the field" are just as
>capitalist as factories in the city. But I repeat: Brennerr is talking
>about pre-industrial times, the 15th and 16th centiuries, not industrial
>capitalism, and not about factories in the field. 

I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not defending Brenner _per se_.
I am not a Brennerite. (I do know him pretty well and I used to belong to a
political group with him, Workers' Power. But I am not now and have never
been a Brennerite.) I find that I learned a lot from him, but I also
learned a lot from Samir Amin (as I've noted in previous missives, which
Jim B. seems to have ignored). Thus, I feel no obligation to go back and
re-read Brenner's articles in order to defend him. Nor am I interested
enough in reading criticisms of Brenner because that requires the diversion
lots of time from research, personal life, and/or sleep to deal with the
details of those criticisms. 

BTW, as it should have been pretty clear from my contributions to this
"debate," I have been very willing to accept Jim B.'s facts as true.
Rather, I am arguing about interpretation of these facts.

There are four levels of the theoretical discussion below: [A] lumpers vs.
splitters; [B] the emphasis on technology vs. that on social relations of
production; [C] the single-factor theory of the rise of capitalism vs. my
"exploding dynamite" theory (which isn't really "mine"); and [D] Marx's
definition of capitalism vs. other definitions, and the issue of the need
for clear definitions for clear thinking and discussion.

>This is importanbt -- and
>the reason I'm making this intervention -- because one of the fundamental
>errors that Brenner makes is to impute the tecvhnological innovativeness of
>real industrial capitalism, which must always revolutionize the methods of
>production, to the English tenant farmers of the 15th century. He says, in
>essence: when big tenant farmers in the 15th century began to employ
>landless laborers (and pay rent to the landllords, as though they were
>modern factory-owners paying land rent  to the owners of the underlying
>land), these 15th-century tenant farmers began to accumulate and began to
>revolutionize technology (like modern faactory-owners). But some people
>including me have demonstrated that there was no revolutionizing of the
>methods of agricultural production in that period or maybe for the next
>three centuries.

[issue A.] This is the kind of thing that gets us to the age-old
controversy between the lumpers and the splitters (which seems older than
the fight between the big-enders and little-enders that Swift [1726]
found). In the empirical study of history are there any obvious "breaks" (a
sudden revolution in the extent of technological change, in this case) as
the splitters want there to be? The lumpers say no: look at the evidence!
(This dispute can be seen in lots & lots of debates, including that
concerning the French 1789 revolution: there are many who see it as merely
a political blip on a general trend.)

Instead of getting into the details of the evidence on Brenner's work
(which involves a lot of expensive time), I would go with Lazonick (whose
Summer 1974 REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS article I've already
cited and is somehow being ignored) who discusses the data concerning
out-migration from the areas that had been enclosed. (BTW, you don't have
to read Lazonick's article. Just take my word for what he said.) 

In Lazonick's article, lumpers like Chambers are quoted as saying: look,
there was no change in out-migration due to enclosure, therefore Marx's
story of the AgRev is totally bogus. Lazonick replies: the fact is that
there was a change in _social relations_ that set the stage for _later_
out-migration. I think this conclusion also applies to Brenner: there was a
change in social relations -- which is what Marx meant by an AgRev -- which
set the stage for a _later_ acceleration of tech. change in he countryside. 

(Note here that I am defending Marx (since Lazonick was doing so), not
Brenner. I am also not defending Bairoch, who has a different definition of
the AgRev than Marx (or Brenner, I believe), even though he has a lot of
interesting things to say.) 

In other words, both the lumpers and the splitters can be right. The former
can right about quantitative evidence, while the latter can be right about
qualitative issues, like changes in the relations of production. (As some
hairy old dead white male noted, history involves _both_ qualitative and
quantitative changes.) 

Of course, we can't go too far with either: the lumpers want to tell us
that the world social system hasn't changed since the last ice age, while
he splitters want to find discrete stages in all processes. (BTW, some of
A.G. Frank's recent work veers toward the picture of the lumpers I just
painted.) 

Further, the issue of changes in "methods of agricultural production" is
irrelevant to a critique o

[PEN-L:11962] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.

[michael perelman]

I have asked Chang not to send this stuff to the list.  I have unsubbed him and he
resubbed.  I will try rectify this as soon as I can.  We have better things to do.

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11945] units of analysis (was: wojtek)

[Charles Brown]

>>> "Rod Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/28/99 06:31PM >>>
You can agree with Louis, but it must be admitted that for two weeks Wojtek 
has been pointing out a flaw in the argument

(

Charles: No  this doesn't have to be admitted , because it is not true. It is Wojtek's 
argument that is flawed in many ways, and others and I have been pointing out the 
flaws in Wojtek's arguments continuously as he has been making them.  See archives if 
you missed it. 

Wojtek has a kind of shifting theory of value. He doesn't seem to apply the labor 
theory of value, despite his feints at historical materialist commentary. Then he 
asked why didn't the Third Worlders develop the wealth before capitalism. This assumes 
that capitalist hyper-productivity is the optimum standard of "wealth" creation, 
ignoring that other modes of production that are less hyper-productive of 
exchange-value  but not necessarily as indifferent to the goal of production and 
distribution of use-values may have better standards of wealth. In other words, he 
seems to have a highly ethnocentric concept of wealth. 

Wojtek and you have still not answered the question of why ,if no significant wealth , 
in the capitalist conception of it as exchange-value, was added to the European 
treasuries by its early slavery and colonies, did the Europeans spend so many 
resources in conducting slavery and colonialism ?  By this you imply that the 
Europeans were not efficient but very wasteful and couldn't tell that they were not 
making any significant profits from outside of Europe. Slavery and colonialism were 
sort of an elaborate tourism by the Europeans, with no significant net economic gain 
on the scale of in Europe operations.  

Wojtek puts forth sort of faux materialist comments mocking references to what he 
calls morality. He doesn't even realize that the founder of historical materialism 
fills his discussion of the original capitalist colonialism and slavery with 
references to the use of force and violence in effecting the primitive exploitation 
for the primitive accumulation. In other words, materialism does attend to the social 
and cultural ideology of a group as a factor in its economic development, etc., etc., 
etc. all kinds of  things wrong with Wojtek's analysis of the issues on this  thread.

In this context, Wojtek is not finding any flaws in our argument because he shows no 
awareness of the gaping flaws in his argument, and those flaws in his arguments render 
his critique of our arguments ineffective.

CB



((



and it took this mocking of the 
argument to get other than insults from Lou. The argument put forward by Jim 
B. and Lou does not have any explanatory power. In fact, as Wojtek was 
pointing out for those who can read is that the logical conclusion of the 
argument is a racist one. For pointing out the inherent racism of the 
argument he gets called a racist by Lou. And around and around we go.



Original Message Follows
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:11889] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:57:07 -0400

I agree with Louis on this issue. Wojtek regularly uses formulations that 
are not just offensive in form, but white supremacist in content. Then he 
tries to defend his analyses by accusing his critics of "moralizing" and 
"intellectual or cultist thirdworldism" ,  posturing as if he is merely 
being a militant materialist. It should be possible to openly criticize this 
as just what it is without being accused of unfair play or flaming. If 
anything the initiation of any flaming is by Wojtek,  not his critics.

It is not legitimate scientific method to ban from this list criticisms of 
racism and white supremacist theory, as if just by being on a progressive 
list, listers don't truck in left racism.

Categorization of analyses as racist is scientific and not primarily 
sensitivity training. The idea that there are no racist theories or 
statements on these lists , properly and openly labelled as such, is 
outrageous. Banning criticisms of racism as bad manners is racist.

Charles Brown

 >>> Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/28/99 01:16PM >>>
 >Not only is "dummies" pretty mild, but I read Wojtek as using the word in
 >the specific way of saying "if you take the Blaut perspective seriously 
one
 >can lambaste the third-world as being inhabited by dummies."

It is mild to you, but--trust me--to an Argentinian or Brazilian leftist it
would be highly insulting, in or out of context. Part of the problem with
PEN-L is that there is not a single regular poster from a legitimate
colonized country. And the last time somebody who even had a marginal
connection to such a country--Henry Liu--was here, he resigned in protest
over what he regarded as naked racism. Now I know that most people here are
glad that he is gone with his constant rejoinders, but I can assure you
that anybo

[PEN-L:11938] "Aid" to Indonesia

[Michael Keaney]

Times Higher Education Supplement, 10 September, 1999

Aid is a hand-out to tyranny

Donald Hagger condemns the blinkered theories behind western aid to
Indonesia's brutal government


As Indonesia descends into chaos, severe doubts arise about the theories of
development aid that have underpinned the policies and practice of official
international assistance to the nation.

The official aid programme, coordinated through the World Bank and
instrumental to the creation and continuance of former President Suharto's
military dictatorship, was unconcerned with encouraging the establishment of
a civil state. Now in East Timor, military-backed terror is clearly intended
to intimidate other provinces that have democratic and separatist ambitions.
It can only, however, threaten the integrity of the Indonesian state, as
well as destroying the primary objective of stable economic development.

Aid agencies could not have been blind to the organisation of the Indonesian
economy but, concerned principally with securing economic expansion and
barred from intervention in political matters, they regarded its flaws as
"an institutional problem". Predictably, ruling neo-classical economics
urged that privatisation and the introduction of overseas capital would lead
to a market economy and democracy.

The happy coincidence between the precepts of theory and the requirements of
strategic diplomatic policy disguised the blinkered vision of the former­and
leaves both condemned by events. Academic work, too, failed to offer an
objective assessment of the realities. With political economy unfashionable,
replaced by analytical economics, the connections between economics and
politics were, save in scorned Marxist analysis, ignored.

Indonesia is a test case now for both the theory and practice of aid. Had
reality been faced, present events would at the least have been predicted
and counter-measures prepared. Economic theorists can now only express
surprise that political collapse could follow so hard on the heels of rapid
economic expansion. In fact, nothing could have been more predictable.

Meanwhile, the momentum of aid continues unabated. The Consultative Group on
Indonesia (CGI), of which Britain is a member, has just granted $5.9 billion
to the Indonesian government.

During his seizure of power, Suharto presided over the massacre of at least
500,000 people; 200,000 more died in East Timor during its struggle against
annexation, and many thousands in the course of Suharto's 33-year rule as
secession movements arose in other parts of the nation. The death toll in
Western New Guinea­Indonesia's forgotten war­is unknown.

Aid, bilateral and multilateral, poured in, attended by thousands of
advisers from the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the
Asian Development Bank and the bilateral donors. Initially the aim was to
stabilise Indonesia as a barrier against communism; later to use it as a
market for the arms trade and, after the end of the cold war, as a
development opportunity for western investment. Repression was equated with
stability. The fact that New Order Indonesia was a centralised, unitary
state rooted in corruption and poised above centrifugal, separatist forces
that were held in check only by the military was ignored.

Something of this has had to be acknowledged recently. Ex-US president Jimmy
Carter, now working for the UN, said of East Timor: "The Indonesian military
and other government agencies are supporting, directing and arming
pro-integration militias to create a climate of fear and intimidation." In
this the West remains implicated because it brought about the downfall of
President Sukarno and in effect replaced him with General Suharto. Indonesia
today is the legacy not merely of Indonesia's founding father, Sukarno,
under whom the military was constitutionally enshrined in every corner of
the administration, or of Suharto, who institutionalised corruption, but of
international aid policy.

With the exception of Indonesia's former colonial power, the Dutch, the West
remained officially and culpably oblivious to the nature of Suharto's
regime. The Dutch withdrew from the Intergovernmental Group on Indonesia­the
consortium of Western aid donors­after protesting at abuses of human rights.
As a result, the group was re-formed as the CGI, chaired by the World Bank,
and continued to meet to grant annual aid injections. The only admission of
the problems inherent in the New Order was the mantra of the World Bank that
"institutional problems need to be addressed". Of course, the bank remained
broadly content because Indonesia had never defaulted on its loan
repayments.

The failure of aid policy lies in the fact that it had no political
component. It was assumed that the objectives of the donors and the New
Order government were generally aligned, an assumption that brings into
focus the deficiencies of development studies. An examination of standard
texts reveals strikingly little on corru

[PEN-L:11939] Role of Total Foreign Trade

[Ricardo Duchesne]

> Ricardo,
>  I think we would be more inclined to fall at
> your feet in fawning admiration if you did not
> keep giving us major bloopers like this last one
> about large mammals.
>   Last time I checked there still are elephants
> in Asia.
> Barkley Rosser
>
Where do you get the nerve to talk about "bloopers" when each one of 
your interventions/criticisms of my position has ended with a 
correction on my part? Was it a (pseudo) Freudian slip? It is well 
known that Australia/New Guinea, and the Americas were full of big 
mammals, but around 17,000 to 12,000 years ago (in the Americas) they 
disappeared, which so happens to have been the period when humans 
migrated into that area. The same goes for Australia and Siberia: big 
mammals there (as indicated by dating of fossil remains) disappeared 
as humans arrived there.  Africa today has the 
largest concentration of big mammals, because such animals there had 
the fortune of adapting to a less effective, proto-human hunter, as 
it evolved into homo sapiens.

[PEN-L:11942] CORRECTION: Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Louis Proyect]

This heading:
>1. URBAN OR RURAL ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE?

should obviously have read:

>1. URBAN OR RURAL ORIGINS OF CAPITALISM?

Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)

[PEN-L:11933] FW: Western exposure in Indonesia

[Michael Keaney]

Private Eye, No. 985

17 September, 1999

In The City

"You cannot expect this bank to be the policeman of the world." So declared
chairman Sir William Purves at the 1995 annual shareholders' gathering of
Midland Bank, now HSBC. Sir William, who had been out east a long time and
had seen more than a few strange things, was being quizzed about the bank's
business in Indonesia. His dismissive reply took its cue from successive
British politicians and business leaders. But the real reason was that
business was booming.

The three decades which was the dictator Suharto, his family and cronies
steal billions while illegally annexing East Timor and murdering, torturing
and repressing thousands of its and Indonesia's citizens were good times for
not just Britain's arms manufacturers but also British banks whose loans
helped fuel the regime. Growing evidence of the Suharto clique's corruption
and kleptomania was no disincentive.

By the time Suharto fell in May 1998 foreign banks were owed a staggering
$80bn by Indonesian companies, banks and institutions. Much of this lending
was to banks, companies and joint ventures in which the Suharto family had
substantial interests. They amassed a fortune estimated at up to $10bn while
Indonesia was receiving billions in international aid for its poor!

Britain's share of this orgy of lending to one of the world's greatest
kleptocracies and bloodiest dictatorships was over $3bn.

The banks would say that they were only following the lead of international
institutions such as the American dominated International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank. For throughout the Cold War and beyond western powers shut
their eyes to Suharto's corruption and the brutality of his generals, taking
the line encapsulated almost a century ago by US president Teddy Roosevelt:
"He may be a sonofabitch but he's our sonofabitch."

Until the 1997 crash wiped the smile off the face of the Asian tiger
economies banks fell over themselves to lend. This caused a serious rethink
because suddenly Indonesia adopted a "can't pay, won't pay" policy which
forced a rash of bad loan write-offs that severely dented profits and
prompted a lack of enthusiasm for new loans.

But there was still banking business to be done in Indonesia even if the
killing went on in East Timor and Suharto had merely been replaced by one of
his closest associates.

"Willie" Purves's sensitivity about HSBC's business in Indonesia is
understandable. Because of its Hong Kong roots HSBC had the biggest British
presence there - more than $1bn in loan exposure, nine branches, 800 staff.
Until the crash Indonesia and Suharto had been very good for HSBC.

They had also been good to Standard Chartered which was reckoned to have a
loan exposure close to $1bn. That number is all set to increase under a deal
whereby Standard Chartered is due to rescue insolvent Bank Bali from which
$70m was hoisted to boost president Habibie's Golkar party. No wonder the
bank appeared unperturbed last week as the ethnic cleansing increased in
East Timor and thousands were butchered. "We are taking a three to five year
view," a bank spokesman told the Daily Mail. "East Timor is a complicated
situation. There are no circumstances in which it could cause us to leave
Indonesia."

Indeed it has never prevented other British banks from fighting for
Indonesian business. Barclays had a substantial presence as indicated by a
loan exposure of £300m. In 1996 its BZW offshoot helped provide $410m for a
copper smelting project. NatWest also joined in. Its exposure was almost
£200m. So too did Royal Bank of Scotland and merchant bankers Schroders
which had loans of $40m. But then they can point to encouragement from
visiting Tory ministers eager to ensure British banks grabbed their share of
an estimated £600m privatisation bonanza. British banking interests were no
doubt also to the fore when Habibie chatted to chancellor Gordon Brown
during a visit to London weeks before he was handpicked to replace his
patron.

British banks can also point to the fact that Britain was not the biggest
player in Indonesia. That dubious privilege went to the Japanese banks who
are still owed $16bn. Next up are German banks with $6bn led by Deutsche
Bank, Dresdner, Commerzbank and Berliner. American banks' (Citibank, Bank of
America, Chase Manhattan, BankBoston) $3bn exposure is similar to that of
their British rivals. After that follow the French (Banque Nationale de
Paris, Credit Lyonnais) and the Dutch (ABN-Amro) plus the Australians (ANZ).

Needless to say the governments for all these countries have suddenly
discovered Indonesia's rulers are untrustworthy tyrants who can only be
restrained by threatening to turn off the financial tap which has been wide
open for years. But whatever the political rhetoric, as Standard Chartered
openly admits, the bankers will still be there because the banking business
is about money not morality.

Indonesia is merely the latest example after Slobodan Milos

[PEN-L:11940] Provisional reactions to the Brenner thesis

[Louis Proyect]

These are some initial reactions to Brenner's NLR piece that I will amplify
on after finalizing my research.

1. URBAN OR RURAL ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE?
It is crucial to Brenner's (and Wood's) thesis to locate the transition
from feudalism to capitalism in the countryside. While it is necessary to
focus on the enclosure acts, etc., what seems puzzling to me is his
de-emphasis of embryonic forms of the capitalist factory per se, which were
found primarily in the towns and cities of the late middle ages. My
interpretation of what took place in the transition from feudalism to
capitalism is that artisans gradually were drawn to facilities where the
tools and raw materials were provided by entrepreneurs, many of whom were
artisans themselves at the outset, but whose growing wealth allowed them to
become proto-capitalists. In a nutshell, they would eventually become the
bourgeoisie, a French word for burgher or "townsman". In such locales,
woolen goods--for example--were produced for the local and international
marketplace. If there were a network of such embryonic factories in the
1500s, it seems likely that a large-scale infusion of bullion and capital
provided by slavery on plantations would supercharge capitalist development.

2. FREE LABOR AS A PRECONDITION FOR CAPITALISM
In Brenner's very, very lengthy article, there is nearly ZERO discussion of
Latin America, Asia and Africa. Since he is polemicizing against
"core-periphery" theorists, you'd think he'd take the trouble to
investigate their empirical research on the colonized world. Instead, he
focuses on Wallerstein's discussion of Polish feudalism and some
observations that Andre G. Frank made on colonial Virginia, of all places.
Since Brenner's thesis is based on what I consider an undialectical
understanding of the relationship of wage slavery and feudal social
relationships in "peripheral" countries, it might be useful to fill in the
gap. This is from something I posted on the Incas to PEN-L and the Marxism
list as part of my series on Marxism and the American Indian:

===
The Inca empire came into existence not much earlier than the arrival of
Columbus and it was beginning to unravel at the edges by the time that
Pizarro's army arrived. Civil war and general resentment of Inca rule made
it possible for the Spaniards to divide Indian against Indian. Cortez had
done this successfully against the Aztecs in the beginning of the 15th
century.

Pizarro's only goal was to find gold and silver and steal it for the
Spanish crown. As Adam Smith put it, "The pious purpose of converting them
to Christianity sanctified the injustice of the project. But the hope of
finding treasures there, was the sole motive which prompted them to
undertake it. . . All the other enterprises of the Spaniards in the world
subsequent to those of Columbus, seems to have been prompted by the same
motive. It was the thirst for gold." (Cited in Andre Gunder Frank's "World
Accumulation, 1492-1789)

After an initial period of wanton plunder, the Spanish conquerors made use
of the existing forms of class oppression in Inca society. Pre-existing
hierarchical structures could help to exploit the Andean riches on a more
normal, rational and economic basis. They appropriated forms of the
specific Andean tributary mode of production in order to extract silver
from Peru's mines rather than weaving and spinning. Thus began a process of
co-opting a layer of the Inca aristocracy into becoming willing servants of
Spanish interests.

The Spaniards set up a system of "encomiendas," a system that attempted to
wed features of Spanish feudalism with the local tributary system of the
Incas. Encomiendas were estates that Pizarro awarded to his cronies, upon
which all resident Indians had to provide labor services, especially
mining, to the landlord. The Spanish rulers enticed and bribed local Indian
chiefs into collaborating with this system. They murdered those who resisted.

The question of the differences between Inca and Spanish rule is important.
If the Spaniards simply appropriated the existing tributary system and
adapted it for their own needs, why would anybody view the change as
retrograde? After all, Marxists oppose class oppression whether it has an
internal or external origin.

The answer has to do with the particular role of Spanish colonialism in
financing the initial take-off of the bourgeois revolution in Europe. True
tributary societies revolve around the production of use values, while the
Spanish colonial empire was responding to the demands of
commercial-capitalist expansion in Europe. Silver extracted from the Andean
mines helped to hasten the accumulation of capital in Europe. Therefore,
the pressures on Indian miners were much greater than they had been in the
past. Before the European invasion, silver became a bracelet. Now it
financed European trade and manufacturing.

>From the mid-1500s on, the Spaniards began to replace the encomienda system
with a new system. This was the mit

[PEN-L:11975] Eurocentrism and Malaysia

[Stephen E Philion]

One more thought. Wallerstein and Frank's approach is greatly appreciated
by intellectuals who are trying to defend clowns masquarading in
nationalist costumes, like the great leader of Malaysia.  Any criticisms
of their 'nationalism' is, conveniently, labelled "Eurocentric" (or
racist...), end of discussion.  For, after all, the clown is a leader of a
"Periphery" nation, battling a "Core" or "Western"  nation...Before Henry
left, one of his last posts was such a call for support for
Mahathir...Angela's recent posts on Malaysia, from the LBO list would have
been fine material to refute any insistence that we as Marxists or
progressvies have an obligation to support such clowns (For the record,
Ronald Reagan, hailing from the "West" was a clown also, an even bigger
one,so is Mr. Clinton...that changes nothing of course...)

Perhaps this is why I am wary of arguments against Brenner and Wood that
they are 'Eurocentric'...
 
Steve

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:11:07 -1000
From: rc-am <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: lbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: malaysia and its national controls

much has been said about malaysian capital controls.  nothing about what
workers in malaysia confront. why is it that when people talk about this
stuff it's as if workers are substituted by, or made commensurate with,
nations?  below some cuts and pastes from various organisations such as
CARAM Asia, Tenaganita, AAWL, and the ILO.

1. Malaysia's industrialisation strategy was premised on the supply of
cheap, renewable, and temporary labour.   Foreign migrant workers have been
the mainstay of Malaysia’s economic growth. Unofficial sources estimate
that there were about three million migrant workers working in plantations,
construction sites factories and households until the onslaught of the
economic crisis when the government began repatriating foreign workers in
1998. Half these were legal,  ie., those with 'guest worker' status
confronting the threat of being thrown into detention camps as a constant
form of punishment.  many of these workers are from Indonesia, Bangladesh,
Sri Lanka and Burma.   [according to Tenaganita (a women's rights
organisation) "migrant workers ended up in detention camps after they were
cheated by fraudulent recruiting agents or their passports were withheld by
errant employers even though they entered the country legally".  this is a
standard practice across many Asian countries, including places like Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait which rely on 'guest workers' (ie., workers with no
formal protections) from Asia.  for publishing the Memorandum on the
widespread practices of torture and abuse in the detention camps, the
director of Tenaganita, Irene Fernandez was arrested and charged in 1996
for 'false reporting'.  (i do not know whether the charges were upheld.)]

2. national workers can be in unions, except for those defined as 'pioneer
enterprises', eg, electronics, where unions have been banned since the
1970s, and this sector accounts for around 40% of malaysian exports, and
where most workers are women. in 1988 the government relaxed this policy
and said that workers could join unions of their choice, vigorous protests
from employers quickly reversed the decision.  moreover, there are constant
retrenchments of union organisers and unionised plants in other sectors,
and a preference for company unions by employers when pushed to recognise a
union.  so-called foreign workers are not allowed to join unions or hold
union office.  The Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the
Printing Press and Publications Act, and the Sedition Act function to
curtail union organising, as in the arrest of Fernandez (above).  The
Minister of Human Resources can order the suspension, for a maximum
six-month period, of any trade union which, in his opinion, "is, or is
being used for purposes prejudicial to or incompatible with, the interests
of, the security of, or public order in, Malaysia, or any part thereof".
Unions cannot use their funds for political purposes. The law includes a
comprehensive list of matters which can be termed as "political objects".

3. in 1997, the Malaysian govt announced that 400,000 workers in
"non-productive" sectors (including the service sector) would have to leave
by August 1998, irrespective of whether they had valid visas or work
permits. No foreigners would be permitted to work as domestic help in
families with a non-working wife.  Where foreign domestic workers are
permitted, they must be between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five and
to come from the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, or Sri Lanka
only, with the Philippines having low priority.(31) In January 1998, the
government further announced that no new work permits would be given to
foreigners in shopping complexes, hotels, and restaurants, among other
sectors. The construction industry would be closely monitored and migrant
workers could only be retained to complete an ongoing project.

4. in 1998, the Malaysian Govt a

[PEN-L:11971] Re:PEN- "Free labor" as a precondition for capital

[Stephen E Philion]

Jim D wrote:

Of course, we can't go too far with either: the lumpers want to tell us
that the world social system hasn't changed since the last ice age, while
he splitters want to find discrete stages in all processes. (BTW, some of
A.G. Frank's recent work veers toward the picture of the lumpers I just
painted.) 

Steve wrote:
Reminds me of an amusing discussion about WST that some classmates of mine
had recently. One remarked, "Just how far back does Frank go now with his
world system?" I replied, "Depends on which version of evolution you buy."
AG not veers toward the picture of the lumpers, he takes it to its final
end...The mission is completed...As Ellen Wood would put it, just one more
social 'theorist' who would have us believe capitalism has always been
here, just waiting for the right amount of water and proper soil to
blossom in...

Steve

[PEN-L:11966] Re: Eurocentrism

[Stephen E Philion]

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, James M. Blaut wrote:

> Doug:
> 
> It isn't fair to faulty the critique of Eurocentrism by saying thaT  it
> doesn't correct other problems, like class issues in the European world.
> 
> Thats like saying, when we get a cure for AIDS, "oh, thats not really
> important because we haven't cured cancer."

Hi Jim B,
If I recall correctly, Brenner's main beef with Wallerstein was that his
approach tended to either overlook or minimize the importance of class
relations within 'periphery' nation-states, which he and a good  # of
Marxists at the time were concerned led to significant problems for
liberation movements located there.  

Wallerstein and Frank's methodologies, in the eyes of these Marxists at
least, led progressives in advanced capitalist (advanced in terms of
development of capitalist relations of production, not in any other sense
it should go without saying) countries to support all kinds of bourgeois
tomfooolery in the 'periphery', only to later end up disappointed that
their nationalist heroes were unable to do much more than implement IMF
adjustment plans...

So I would argue that Doug's point gets to the heart of what inspired
Brenner to make his arguments against Wallerstein and Frank's
methodologies.

Steve

> 
> One thing at a  time -- or, I do my work, you do your work.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jim  
> 
> 

[PEN-L:11944] Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)

[Jim Devine]

At 08:26 PM 09/28/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>Jim D:
>
>"The introduction to the Blaut article that Wojtek was reacting to could be
>interpreted as criticizing Brenner and the like simply because he doesn't
>like Brenner's anti-third-worldist politics. This is an endless loop that
>should be avoided."
>
>Don't you think you should save your comments and criticisms until you've
>read more than the "introduction" to the article you want to criticize? Lou
>put up the first few paragraphs while AT THE SAME TIME telling you where on
>the web you can find the whole article."  That would be proper scholarly
>procedure and would avoid "endless loops."
>
I was simply talking about Wojtek's reaction -- and the silly accusation
againt him based on that reaction. I was NOT talking about the entire
article. That's for another day.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html

[PEN-L:11943] Re: Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)

[Jim Devine]

>What is your opinion of the charges against Catholicism that those Catholic
>dummies were inferior and didn/t/couldm't invent capitalism because they
>didn't possess the Protestant ethic? Wasn't that bigotry, racism,
>prejudice?

this question misses the point, a point that people on pen-l (including
yours truly) have made several times. If one believes in the Weberian
"Protestantism caused capitalism" theory (which I do not), the Catholics
could be _praised_ for NOT having created capitalism. After all, capitalism
has destroyed the community, the extended family, the reverence of everyday
life and the Almighty, and the respect for authority that the Catholics
have strived to preserve over the centuries. So the Catholics might be seen
as _superior_. 

I'm not a Catholic, but some of those things (clearly not all of them) are
valuable. (BTW, I am an excommunicated Unitarian 
[;-)]and a hard-core agnostic.)

I don't understand your urge to arbitrarily mix normative and positive
concerns. Though obviously the two can't be separated absolutely (since
one's values inform one's research and vice-versa), your apparent effort to
defend the non-European world against the charge of being "dummies" for not
foisting capitalism on the world seems silly.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html

[PEN-L:11941] U.S. Health Care

[Rod Hay]

BBall Bill has put forward a plan for increase health insurance coverage. 
Does any one have an analysis of the plan?



Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archives
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/




__
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[PEN-L:11914] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.

[chang]

Barkley Rosser,
You know that in China the living standards of the poor haven't been
raised. There are still a lot of people suffering from cold and hunger.
They can't afford to send their children to school, and, as a result,
too many children are deprived of education.

I really sympathize with poor people in their sufferings. I hate
bitterly bourgeois economists who use GDP to hoodwink poor people.

Sincerely,
Ju-chang He
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA
Welcome to My Homepage

-Original Message-
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 3:25 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11766] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor
people.
>J.-C.,
> You live in what is by far the highest income
>part of the PRC, except for recently acquired Hong
>Kong to which Shenzhen is adjacent.  How do I know
>that?  Because it has a much higher per capita
>income than in the rest of the PRC, which is equal
>to per capita GDP (or gross regional product).  I know
>that Shenzhen has a lot of inequality, and thus probably
>a lot of poverty.  But does it have more than the rest of
>the PRC?
> Are living standards higher or lower in Shenzhen than
>in the rest of the PRC for the average citizen?  If they are
>higher, then that is evidence that it is perfectly reasonable
>for, not just most countries, but all countries to keep track
>of GDP.  Of course I fully agree that all countries should keep
>track of such things as poverty rates, Gini coefficients and
>physical measures of the standard of living as well.
> You continue to be simply off base with your claim that
>"GDP is unscientific because it does not help poor people."
>Barkley Rosser

[PEN-L:11913] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.

[chang]

-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 12:08 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11736] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.

>There's a large and growing literature on alternatives to GDP as a measure
>of "economic progress." For example, a San Francisco-based think-tank
>called REDEFINING PROGRESS measured a "Genuine Progress Indicator" which
>takes into account increasing inequality, increasing pollution, etc. (as
>negative factors) for the US, from the 1950s to the 1990s. Not
>surprisingly, the US growth process doesn't look very good when measured in
>this way. Not surprisingly, the orthodox economists dismissed the research.
>(BTW, it's possible to dismiss part of their research and accept the rest,
>creating a modified Genuine Progress Indicator. As far as I know, I'm the
>only one who has pursued this lead. If not, I'd like to know.) 
>
>The GPI of course assumes that there is such a thing as "progress." Crucial
>to their efforts was the idea that you can attach dollar values to
>pollution damage, the effects of crime, traffic congestion, etc., etc., so
>that they can be added up to produce a single number. To me, this is like
>adding apples and oranges; use-values can't be added.However, it does
>provide a useful antidote to the adulation of real GDP in the press and by
>unthinking orthodox economists. (Most serious economists know that "real
>GDP" is at best a guestimate of "real progress," since the nature of the
>goods produced changes, the quality can fall and rise, etc., etc.)
>
>The (nominal) GDP, on the other hand, is based on the reasonable assumption
>that one can add up market revenues. But it's a measure of the size of the
>market, not of "progress." A country that is in the process of
>marketization -- like China -- can have a rising GDP simply because
>nonmarket production becomes marketized. Of course, the resulting rising
>GDP is then trumpeted as a "success," as "progress," etc. In the US, if the
>public libraries are shut down so that people have to buy books, that would
>likely promote GDP. 
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
>http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html


Therefore all bourgeois economists are cheaters. It is because they
disguise economic reality and appear to do so deliberately.  They use
the GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), to measure the whole economic status
of a country and this results in the government paying no attention to
the living standards of poor people. So poverty is perpetuated.

Sincerely,
Ju-chang He
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA
Welcome to My Homepage

[PEN-L:11932] Re: What caused capitalism?

[James M. Blaut]

Michael:

I am tense, as you may have noticed though I try to hide it...
Sorry about giving you aggravation.  And sorry about the crtuches.

"James M. Blaut" wrote:

> EITHER europe was more advanced, more progressive,
> more graced with environmental qualities, etc., than the rest of the
world,
> OR it was not. You cannot have it both ways. It would be like being half
> pregnant.

I was asking something different.  Can't you have two different societies
each
with the near possibility of becoming capitalist, where relatively small
accidents can determine which actually becomes capitalist -- without
attributing some special qualities to the Europeans."

YES, YES, YES! You're right. People castigate my theory by saying "he's
calling it just an accident!" To a geographer, geography doesn't seem like
an accident, but that aside, in terms of cultural evolution per se,
something external to culture that impinges on culture, like a matter of
distance and sailing conditions, can readily be thought of accidental. So
what you're saying makes sense to me.
"
"I do not deny that you might be correct in some of your rejections of my
suggestions -- I do not pretend to be an expert in that area."

Who's an expewrt?. I'm a geographer, who worked for many years on peasant
agriculture and works pert=time on environmental cognition in prerschool
children, and then works part time on world history. A lot of time put into
it but I''m hardly an expert. Lets talk about this sometime. 

"Then you wrote:
this, you'll forgive me for saying, is bullshit. Eurocentrism -- as the
term is now universally used -- is one or both of the followuing two
things: prejudice, ignorance. It is the false attribution of positive
qualities to Europe at whatever period down to the present, or denial of
thesee qualities to non-Europe. It is ugly and dangerous and is not always
distinguishable from racism. "Thirdworldism" is a term that was invented by
Brenner or his confreres simply as a curse word. They mean by it anyone who
refuses to acknowledge the superiority or priority of Europe in history and
anyone who claims that in the present the workers and peasants of the
non-European world -- make a difference in the struggle for socialism.
Some of us who fight against Eurocentrism will on occasion call ourselves
thirdworldists to throw the term  backin the face of those who sneer at
Third World sturggles.

"Look Jim.  I agree that Thirdworldism is a curseword, but the way you
define
Eurcentrism also sounds like a curse word for people.  As you know, I am
trying
to calm things down."

But you said: "Third Worldism and Eurocentrism seem to be hollow slogans
bandied about to bludgeon those with whom we disagree."

Eurocentrism is not a hollow slogan. It is very serious issue in most
social sciences and humanities and the fact that a critique of eurocentrism
is vitally needed is not controversial although everyone disagrees about
what particular doctrines are Euroencric and not emirically valid. I
overreated to your wording which seemed to suggest (which it apparently
didn't) that eurocentrism is jutst a theoretical point of view like others,
such as "thirdworldism. But today there is a huge cross-disciplinary
critique of eurocentrism: Edward Said, Eric Wolf, Sa mir Amin, Jack Gloody,
Gunder Frank, Janet Abu-Lughod, many, many others. It is quite simply a
campaign to elimnate those false beliefs from science and the humanities
which wrongly elevate Europe. Michael, not very many people in history,
geography, sociplogy, many other fields disagree with the need to get rid
of Eurocentrism -- which by definition is false and bad science -- nor is
there much confusion about what it is. And there is agreement that much it
is inherited beliefs  that many scholars accept without knowing that the
validation of a particular Eurocentric belief originaslly lay in prejudice
(or racism), not in evidence. Given this, I must tell you I was dismayed to
get the kinds of reactions I did from progressive economnists. Howe can
they be ignorant of this fact and call it thirdworldism., a cult, a
laughable ideosycra 

Anyway, looking forward to seeing you. 

Cheers, Jim 

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--- Internet Header 
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from galaxy.csuchico.edu (galaxy.CSUChico.EDU [132.241.82.21])
by spamgaab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) with ESMTP id
AAA18935;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:38:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA20812;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gangrene.ecst.csuchico.edu (gangrene.ecst.csuchico.edu
[132.241.9.86])
by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA20797
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:43:37 -0700
(PDT)
Rec

[PEN-L:11848] Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Louis,

Just in case I've found my way out of your filter file ... didn't the big
fella say from the off that the bourgeoisie was the product of a series of
revolutions?  And that some of these had to do with the political advance
of the class through the rise and fall of feudalist institutional
arrangements, as from oppressed class under the nobility to autonomous
association within medieval communalism etc?  And would not the needs of
these changing social manifestations change, too?  Making of, say, gold and
silver, something that it had not once been?  Something it mebbe should
never have been, and certainly never needed to have been.  If such were the
'riches' of the 'third world', it is no black mark in the third world
copybook that they were not 'optimally' exploiting them at all!  Perhaps
what made third world gold and silver so valuable had something to do with
developments (a better word than progress') in Europe.  And perhaps this
the point that Wojtek is actually making (sorry if I'm ascribing a load of
ill-considered crap to you if you weren't, Wojtek).

You do good sarcasm, Louis.  And I reckon you know it when you see it.  So
'fess up, and lay off with that 'racist' stuff.

Yours pompously,
Rob.

>At 03:57 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Jim Blaut wrote:
>>Talk about illogical positivism!
>
>-- snip---
>
>>you mock. That is typical of your empty scientism.
>>
>
>
>I read that you are basically not concerned with the empirical
>demonstration of the effect of colonialism on european capitalist
>development, right?
>
>Since I do not buy your functionalist logic that something that exist (e.g.
>colonialism) must automatically have a significant social function
>(contribution to capitalist economy), could you tell me why should I or
>anyone on this list accept your view over, say, that of Ricardo D. who
>believes that colonialism was not that crucial?
>
>At the very least, Ricardo takes into account institutional factors in that
>development, of which you do not seem to have much to say.  That is at
>least one reason to like his story more than yours.  Would you be happy
>with an attempt to explain the economy of the US that focuses mostly on the
>foreign trade balance, while ignoring the organization of the firm, the
>structure of government, economic policies of various administrations,
>labor laws, unions, lobbying groups etc.?
>
>And one more thing.  If I were to accept your point of view that colonial
>exploitation significantly contributed to world's economic development, I
>would be really grateful to the Europeans for masterminding that
>exploitation, its human cost notwithstanding.  For it would seem that
>before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put
>together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they
>were sitting for centuries.
>
>wojtek

[PEN-L:11842] Re: Re: Re: progress

[Rob Schaap]

G'day all,

Sez Carrol:

>On the other hand, Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarism"
>does work both as slogan and as historical analysis: it is this
>either/or that the anti-marxists on this list will not acknowledge,
>since *their* hope for progress depends on the amelioration of
>capitalism

Well, we could accept the Luxemburg premise and take time off to promote
little moments of amelioration (like trying to save a couple hundred
thousand East Timorese and Ambonese) while History unfolds and we work out
how to take a strategic hand in its trajectory.

And we might take care to try to avoid 'barbarism-as-'socialism'', too.  I
reckon we've had some of that during the course of this century (and, yes,
Chas, we've also endured 'barbarism as 'liberal democracy''), and we have
to find a way ruthlessly to criticise 'our' side of the fence without the
flames of wrath scorching the participants.

Nite all,
Rob.

[PEN-L:11930] Re: "Internal" and "external" factors; ErnestMande

[James M. Blaut]

Barkley: 

You always bring a breath of fresh air into this miasmic discussion.

I'm working on a third volume of The Colonizer's Model and one section will
deal with the industrial revolution. I'll argue -- this is not partiucalry
original --  that the run-up to, and early stages, of the industrial
revolution (to maybe 1840) were stimulated most critically by steadily
increasing demand (particularly for cotton cloth) which capitalists
expected to contnue to increase, hence (given labor's resistance) they
quickly and repeatedly introduced new and more productive or efficient
technology (or went out of business). Technology, I (and many others)
argue, is always available ahead of the need for its use. (We tend to
romanticize invention.) So the signatyure of the IR, new technolgoy,
PRIMARILY reflected increased demand over a long period of time.

I think I'll be able to show that the steadily increased demand reflected
various forms of colonialism and related phenomena: plantation colonies,
settler colonies, wars over coloniasl possessions (including the Napoleonic
Wars, by the way), trade, some of it unequal, in Asia; and also the
evolving changes in Europe which in part were reflections of Europe
Expanding: urbanization, stimulated agriculturasl production, with -- in
England -- its big new demand for iron implements -- etc.

We already know, Barkley, that those Others on the list, the Eurocentrists,
will kick and scream when they read this. They should be forewarned that
I'm not going to get into a discussion of this matter until the next
millennium, and not with them.

Cheers

Jim Blaut
   

[PEN-L:11931] Re: Re: Re: taking stock

[James M. Blaut]

Barkley:

I'd agree that the slave plantation system (combined with forced cotton
planting in India after 1857) was in the long run more important than the
16th-century gold and silver, mainly because it involved millions of
plantAtion workers, slave and non-slave, refininery workers, transport
workers., etc., etc. -- it was industry. And let us remmeber that sugar and
cotton were the most important products in international trade in the later
Middle Ages and early modern period. The gold and silver, to my mind,
produced one basic change: the rise of capitalists to political power in
the Bourgeoius Revolutions and related events. Without state power,
capitalists would not have been able to really develop plantation
colonialism as well as create conditions for more rapid accumulation in
England and eventually an industrial revolution.

As to that question of Holland and england vis-a-vis spain and Portugal.
I'd add only one point or rather nuance. We telescope history when we think
that these were individual countries in the 16th century, competing with
one another,, etc. Also, our fixation on the process of developmemnt of
capitalistm in the English countryside leads us to neglect the network of
protocapitalist relations that connected all of western and southern Europe
into a single economic system. Profits that went to  spain went into this
system. So did products. So did products moving the other way. And the
historical geography of this system was very clear: it had economic cores
going back to the middle middle ages -- northern Italy, the Low Countries,
secondarily England and Germany, etc. I don't know why anyone should be
surprised that these economic cores REMAINED economic cores. The anomaly,
of course, is Italy.

Cheersa 

Jim B