Re:racism, eurocentrism
Bill Burges wrote: it was Eurocentric to expect a revolution in Germany in 1918-19 I don't know if it was eurocentric to expect a revolution in Germany or not in 1918, but the Marxian prediction was that it would happen. The fact that it did not happen can still be explained in marxian terms (call it eurocentric) 1) german social democratic party was taking a more reformist and pacifist direction under the dominance of Kaustskian orthodoxy till 1905. Kautsky dominated the second international as a leading theorist standing in opposition to Lenin and Luxemburg (before these two divorced) 2).On top of all, the first world war disappointed the international solidarity of working classes and their anti-war expectations. The most significant exception being the Russian, european working classes, including Germany, turned to their own classes in the defense for war. Basically, this co-optation and anti-imperialist rivalry divided the working classes in almost every country. Realizing this problem, Russian revolutionaries standing against the war and nationalism, organized the Third Communist International (Comintern) in 1919 as a successor to Second International. The other reason was that Marxian theory was a taking social democratic direction in Germany at that time. Bernstein, who voted for war credits in 1914, came back to the SDP after the war and his revisionism became the orthodoxy of the party up to now. On the other hand, the austro marxism of Hilferding was reformist too. The most notable exception was Luxemburg, of course, and her Spartacus League. I think Luxemburg should be given credit at this point, because as the founder of the social democratic party of Poland, she strongly opposed the polish left party line on polish nationalism. 3) the Eurocentric policy of the Comintern led to disastrous alliances with the bourgeoisie in countries like China, Turkey and Indonesia. As I said before that this eurocentricism as a "concept" per se is not analytically useful. Let's use instead anti-capitalism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, or whatever. Historically speaking, capitalism definitely took place in Europe, Britain as the classical example--primitive accumulation, enclosure movement, decline of the agricultural population, commercialization of the country side, private property rights, etc.. (or according to Wallerstein Netherlands first. let's not go into this at the moment). The anti-eurocentric attempt to prove otherwise is a hopeless exercise to extrapolate the conditions to other countries who have different conditions in the final analysis. In my view, Lenin successfully realized this problem, though he could not come to grasp with totally.Offering a model based on the realities of Russian society, he argued that the class contradiction in Russia was between two modes of production, feudal and capitalist and their dominant classes; feudalists and capitalists. What was immediately on Lenin's agenda was an anti-feudalist, democratic bourgeois revolution, the historical mission he attributed not to bourgeois classes (unlike the west), but to working classes and peasantry. As Lenin said "working classes carried the bourgeois revolution to its logical conclusion--socialism" in Russia. (emphasis is mine since I can not exactly remember the quote now) Was Comintern's policy eurocentric? I guess the question is wrongly formulated. Yes, it was if we mean by this universalistic, but i don't see a problem with that. Regarding Comintern's alliances with national bourgeoisie, it depends on which _period_ we are talking about. Originally, Lenin's Comintern (1919) aimed to advocate communism world wide so it rejected non-communist regimes in principle. During Lenin's time, it had four congresses (1919, 1920, 1921, 1922). Given that it failed to achieve its internationalist ideal, it began to divert from its principles in 1935 under the dominance of Stalin, and by forming populist and national bourgeois allies. Basically, the comintern degenerated under Stalin, becoming a tool of Kremlin Bureaucracy.But the original idea was internationalist. Regarding Turkey(since it was metioned), Lenin's Comitern principle was to form alliances with Turkish communists in their fight against their own bourgeoisie.For example, the Turkish Communist Party, founded in 1920s, was NOT a third world nationalist party. As a member of the comintern, TKP party principles were in accordance with the internationalist principles set by the Comintern, while recognizing the realities and needs of the Turkish society in the mean time. On the contrary, Turkish nationalist party, the founding party of the regime, was _Republican Peoples Party_ (populist, nationalist). These should not be confused. This is not suggest that TKP did not have a nationalist bias, but it is not a problem unique to "third world" countries (whatever this means since I reject to use this concept ). Even the United States Communist Party could
Re: Against Psychologism (was Re:Anti-Eurocentrism: Idealist Diversion from Anti-racism/anti-imperialism)
Yoshie wrote:
Keynes' remarks demonstrate that an explanation of post-modernism (or
anti-anti-Eurocentrism, for that matter) should be neither
psychologized nor generalized. For instance, such psychologization
allows one to argue that a criticism of post-modernism =
self-righteous expression of contempt = a psychological
"compensation," and, worse yet, that a criticism of capitalism (or
racism, sexism, etc.) = self-righteous expression of contempt = a
psychological "compensation"! The only people who are against
capitalism are those who are envious of the rich, or so say
apologists for capital.
Psychoanalysis doesn't allow you to do this. It's only irrational ideas and
feelings that can be explained in this way, not ideas in general.
People do mistakenly use it like this, often as a method of ad hominem
argument. It then mirrors the mistaken use of "bourgeois thinker" I pointed
to earlier. It gets in the way of reading with "good will".
Properly used, however, psychoanalysis explains why it's so difficult to
read with good will and why it itself, Marxism, etc. are so frequently made
into weapons in ad hominem arguments. This often accompanies a state of
mind characterized by "splitting" people into the idealized good (the
working class, the oppressed, non-Europeans) and the demonized bad (the
capitalists, the oppressors, Europeans).
The term "Eurocentric" can be used in this way e.g. to resist changing
beliefs shown to be self-contradictory. The law of non-contradiction is
dismissed as Eurocentric or phallocentric (ditto for "foundationalism" and
"essentialism").
As Keynes attempted to show there is, in fact, a mistaken understanding of
the role of the law of non-contradiction - of formal logic - in reason that
has been particularly characteristic of modern white European males like
Newton. This doesn't invalidate the law.
The adjectives "modern", "white", "European" and "male" are only relevant
when we are trying to understand unreasonable tenacious dogmatic attachment
to this "Ricardian vice" and then only as indicators of the specific
historical social relations (e.g. the differential treatment based on gender
characteristic of family relations) that fettered the development of
autonomy in the way indicated by the particular nature of the mistake.
The starting point in Klein is that what are in question are the ideas of a
more or less potentially rational person, i.e. a person able to be
autonomous (in Kant's sense) in their thinking and willing. Analysis is a
particular type of educative process (made necessary by unconsciously
anchored "resistance" to ordinary modes of rational discourse). When it is
successful, it enables individuals to become autonomous in this sense. The
"determinism" involved allows for rational self-determination of both ideas
and actions.
Psychoanalysis "helps", it "succeeds", to the extent that it enables people
to become rationally self-determined in thought and action. (Orthodox
psychiatry, in constrast, has no logical space for this conception of "help"
and "success".)
This mirrors Hegel and Marx's treatment of the historical process of human
development as a process of *bildung* in which the human potential for
autonomy (the human "in itself") becomes actual ("for itself"). They
explicitly give a significant role in this process to irrational "passions"
e.g. in Marx's treatment of capitalism, to irrational avarice and a linked
irrational love of power.
Psychoanalysis explains why, as Hegel points out (in the passage from the
*Philoosphy of History* about the "idea" of humanity), the actualization of
autonomy (of a "will proper" and a "universal will") requires "an
incalculable medial discipline of the intellectual and moral powers" and is
so strongly opposed by "natural inclination".
Keynes's claim about capitalist motivation is most likely self-consciously
based on the passage from Civilization and Its Discontents you quote.
Keynes, however, incorporates the idea into a very different ontology.
Freud, in his explicit statements about such questions, uncritically
endorses scientific materialism. (Key features of the Civilization and Its
Discontents passage reflect this.)
Keynes, as I tried to show, not only explicitly repudiates it, but offers a
psychoanalytic explanation of its irrational aspects e.g. the
misidentification of reason and science with long chains of deductive
reasoning from fixed precisely defined premises (the "Ricardian vice").
This misidentification, by the way, underpins evolutionary psychology's
incoherent scientific materialist conception of the the human mind as a
"calculating machine".
Keynes's criticism of capitalism is rooted in ethical beliefs very close to
Marx's (at least to Marx's beliefs as I interpret them). See, for instance,
the essay "Economic Possibiities for our Grandchildren" in vol. IX of his
collected writings. Elsewhere he claims that:
"The decadent international but individualistic
The Origin of Europe
I agree that anti-eurocentrism sometimes reads like a nationalist/ethnocentric reaction that, but for constraints put on the rest of the world by colonialism imperialism, capitalism would have arisen developed elsewhere. But I disagree with Wood that 'both Eurocentric and anti-Eurocentric accounts assume that human beings, given a chance (= absence of constraints) were *destined* to develop a capitalist mode of production'. But perhaps I am just worried about the word "destined", and should not deny that Wood does have a point when she insists that those accounts which emphasise the role of the market and/or rationality tend to see these as the *active* variables; variables which are somehow pushing towards capitalism, and that, therefore, the way to explain why capitalism developed here but not there is to look for those factors (environmental, political, cultural) which blocked the natural disposition of these active variables to create capitalism: If the emergence of a mature capitalist economy required any explanation, it was to identify the barriers that have stood in the way of its natural development, and the process by which those barriers were lifted" (16). But Wood goes too far in denying altogether the argument that markets which operate in a favorable environment will spread, and that as they spread it becomes easier and easier to create full capitalist relations of production. Let's agree with her own 'fundamentalist' definition of capitalism, as a specific mode in which money is used to purchase labour power and means of production to produce goods to sell for a profit, a process which can be represented schematically as M-CPC'-M', where P stands for production. Now, it has to be admitted that this circuit is already implied in the circulation form of merchant capital, M-C-M'. Capitalism is thus *logically* implicit in this money-form. I dont think there is another factor which has this intimate logical relation to capitalism. So I cannot agree with Wood (Brenner and Comninel) that capitalism is a totally unique phenomenon which is in no way connected to the growth of markets but which simply developed out of the peculiar nature of English feudalism. We have to look at the market as the "active" variable, and the degree to which markets were allowed to operate freely or not. I would add that this variable cannot be studied independently of some concept of rationality, for humans are rational beings who understand the economic choices they make. We may begin by noting that capitalism did not arise in an ill-defined abstraction called "Europe"; it originated in England, *nowhere else*: "Feudalism in Europe, even in Western Europe, was internally diverse, and it produced several different outcomes, only one of which was capitalism" (Wood 67). I find strange that Wood does not seem to care one bit about all the evidence that has been gathered against Brenner's thesis.
Re: Re:racism, eurocentrism
Sorry I was unclear. I was disagreeing with the positions quoted below (which I attributed to Sam P), that Lenin and Trotsky were Eurocentrist in politically important ways and that Stalinism = Eurocentrism. Mine wrote: Bill Burgess wrote: it was Eurocentric to expect a revolution in Germany in 1918-19 3) the Eurocentric policy of the Comintern led to disastrous alliances with the bourgeoisie in countries like China, Turkey and Indonesia. Thanks for the references on the Second Congress discussion, which is what I was referring to in disagreeing with Sam's suggestion that Lenin and Roy were in opposite corners on the importance of (or prospects for) revolutions in the 'colonial' countries. (I do think it is half wrong to suggest that Lenin viewed the revolution in Russia as a democratic revolution against feudalism, but what we are discussing here is the alledged role of Eurocentrism.) Bill Burgess
Re: The Origin of Europe
We have been through his this debate between Wood and Brenner already. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
what's happening?
Has Clinton's run of good luck right ended? Will the same momentum that drove the stock market up continue to work in reverse? Will Greenspan continue to raise interest rates because of the fear of inflation? I have been expecting something like this for a long time, but so far nothing has happened. If it continues, what dog will Clinton wag? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: what's happening?
I have been expecting something like this for a long time, but so far nothing has happened. If it continues, what dog will Clinton wag? Michael Perelman Actually, I think it is clear that the Miami mess was not cooked up as some kind of attempt to divert the public's attention from the economy or anything else. It has been something of a revelation--in fact--that there is so little interest in the affair on LBO-Talk or PEN-L. In reality the confrontation between the Cuban goverment and US capitalism revolves around core issues that have yet to be resolved. In some ways the analogy that keeps cropping up in the press about Orville Faubus or George Wallace defying the federal government are most apt. While nominally committed to integration, the Democratic Party included the Dixiecrats. The reason that the government has been so spineless with respect to the kidnappers is that it is ambivalent about their role in American society. It needs the Miami gusanos as much as US capitalism needed (and needs) the KKK. Instruments of terror such as these can be used to intimidate liberation movements overseas or within our borders. It is interesting to compare FBI collusion with the Klan murderers and CIA support for the criminals who have set off bombs on Cuban civilian airliners, among other things. The criminals are never apprehended for some odd reason. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: MR gossip?
Jim Devine wrote: Does anyone know why Ellen Meiksins Wood is no longer a co-editor of MONTHLY REVIEW? Political differences? No, mostly personality conflicts. Doug
Roger Milliken
The New Republic, Jan. 10 The man behind the anti-free-trade revolt. Silent Partner By RYAN LIZZA I'm on the phone with Mike Dolan, the Public Citizen activist who led the charge against the World Trade Organization in Seattle a month ago. The lefty Dolan is packing for a much-needed vacation to (where else?) Cuba as he banters in his friendly, Jesse Ventura-esque voice about his yearlong effort to bring the anti-free-trade movement to the Pacific Northwest. "I was the first one out there," he says. "I pulled together a whole lot of people." Suddenly we're interrupted. "I'm sorry; I have to put you on hold for a second," he says. Three minutes later, he's back on the line, telling me he can no longer talk with me. His boss, Lori Wallach, chief Washington lobbyist for Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, has just instructed him to end our on-the-record conversation. "You and I," he says, "are about to go on deep background, OK?" What's the problem? Something that has been whispered about on the left for some time now: the suspicion that Roger Milliken--billionaire textile magnate from South Carolina, founding member of the conservative movement, and patron of right-wing causes for almost 50 years--has been quietly financing the anti-globalization efforts of Public Citizen and related organizations. "This is the dirty little secret in the anti-free-trade crowd," says one prominent left-of-center activist. If it's true, then a man who once banned Xerox copiers from his offices because the company sponsored a documentary about civil rights played a key role in filling the streets of Seattle with protesters in December. "They were out there [in Seattle] months in advance. They were paying for offices and computers. Where did all that money come from?" asks one economist whose organization is a member of Citizens Trade Campaign, the anti-globalization coalition of environmental, labor, and other progressive groups dominated by Public Citizen. Milliken, Public Citizen, and the Citizens Trade Campaign all give the same answer when asked about a financial relationship: they will neither confirm nor deny it. But what is clear is that Milliken's decade-long fight against free trade is finally bearing fruit. Full story at: http://www.tnr.com/011000/lizza011000.html Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
To be black or brown in California
On April 13, I went to one of a series of town hall meetings on racial profiling being held throughout California, sponsored by the Racial Justice Coalition, and held in a church located in a Sacramento community of color. The audience of 200 was racially diverse. Dozens of black and brown men and women testified clearly and forcefully how their skin color has spurred harmful stops and arrests of them, family and friends by law-enforcement officers. Consider the tale told by a young woman of color who attends CSU, Sacramento. She reported how a police officer in an unmarked car followed her for miles at night, and then finally showed identification after stopping and requesting her driver's license. He then excused his actions by saying the police were attempting to clear some garbage from the streets. I may have been many things in my life, she said in conclusion, but being a piece of garbage isnt one of them. Subsequent town hall meetings on racial profiling are scheduled in Salinas (April 18) and Fresno (April 20). For more information, contact Olivia Araiza 415-621-2493 ext. 380 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] On April 27, a protest is planned on the steps of the state Capitol to pressure Governor Gray Davis to sign SB 1389. It would require all of the states law-enforcement agencies to collect data on the racial profiles of people stopped and arrested. So far, Davis has refused to sign the bill. In this respect, he is following in the race exploitation footsteps of his predecessor, Governor Pete Wilson of anti-affirmative action fame. Seth Sandronsky Sacramento [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Braudel-Brenner-Skocpol-Wallerstein Debates and Non-Debates by Arrighi
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/gaasa96.htm "Capitalism and the Modern World-System: Rethinking the Non-Debates of the 1970s" by Giovanni Arrighi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) © Fernand Braudel Center 1997. (Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, New York, August 16-20, 1996) Talking at cross purposes is often a major ingredient of so- called debates in the social sciences. The real, though generally undeclared purpose of such non-debates is not so much the shedding of light on their alleged subject-matter as establishing or undermining the legitimacy of a particular research program--that is, what subject-matter is worth investigating and how it should be investigated. Criticisms of empirically false or logically inconsistent statements are advanced not to improve upon the knowledge produced by a research program but to discredit the program itself. This, in turn, produces among the upholders of the program a siege mentality that leads them to reject valid criticisms lest their acceptance be interpreted as a weakness of the program. Worse still, the same fear leads to another kind of non-debate--that is, to the lack of any debate of even the most glaring differences that arise among the upholders of the program. Useful as these non-debates may be in protecting emergent programs against the risks of premature death, eventually they become counterproductive for the full realization of their potentialities. I feel that world-system analysis has long reached this stage and that it can only benefit from a vigorous discussion of issues that should have been debated long ago but never were. The purpose of this paper is to raise afresh some of these issues by examining briefly two major non-debates that marked the birth of the world-system perspective--the Skocpol- Brenner-Wallerstein and the Braudel-Wallerstein non-debates. 1. The World-System Perspective and Wallerstein's Theory of the Capitalist World-Economy. As Harriet Friedmann (1996: 321) has pointed out, the emergence of the world-system perspective as research program is inseparable from the influence of Immanuel Wallerstein's The Modern World System, Vol.I (henceforth TMWS) and from the new institutions formed in its wake, most notably the PEWS Section of the ASA, the journal Review, and the Fernand Braudel Center. Thanks to this text and these institutions, the new research program "opened questions later blazed across headlines, and the subject of fast-breeding academic journals. If sociology has kept pace with `globalization' of the world economy, it is to the credit of the institutional and intellectual leadership initiated in 1974 by [Wallerstein's] remarkable study of the sixteenth century" (Friedmann 1996: 319). The new perspective redefined the relevant spatial and temporal unit of analysis of the more pressing social problems of our times. In Christopher Chase-Dunn's and Peter Grimes' words, At a time when the mainstream assumption of accepted social, political, and economic science was that the "wealth of nations" reflected mainly on the cultural developments within those nations, [the world-system perspective] recognized that national "development" could only be understood contextually, as the complex outcome of local interactions with an aggressively expanding European- centered "world" economy. Not only did [world-systemists] perceive the global nature of economic networks 20 years before such networks entered popular discourse, but they also saw that many of these networks extend back at least 500 years. Over this time, the peoples of the globe became linked into one integrated unit: the modern "world-system." (1995: 387-8) In pioneering this radical reorientation of social research, Wallerstein (1974, 1979 [1974]) advanced a theoretical and historical account of the origins, structure, and eventual demise of the modern world-system. Central to this account was the conceptualization of the Eurocentric world-system as a capitalist world-economy. A world-system was defined as a spatio-temporal whole, whose spatial scope is coextensive with a division of labor among its constituent parts and whose temporal scope extends as long as the division of labor continually reproduces the "world" as a social whole. A world-economy was defined as a world-system not encompassed by a single political entity. Historically, it was maintained, world-economies tended towards disintegration or conquest by one group and hence transformation into a world empire--a world-system encompassed by a single political entity. The world-economy that emerged in sixteenth- century Europe, in contrast, displayed no such tendency. Not only did it survive but it became the only world-system--in Wallerstein's own words--"that has ever succeeded in expanding its outer boundaries to encompass the entire world," thereby transforming itself "from being a world to becoming the historical system of the world" (1995:5). What accounted for this
Imaginary Maps, Gayatri Spivak: Marxist-feminist approach to post-coloniality
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Imaginary Maps: Three Stories of Mahasweta Dewi "Imaginary Maps includes a translator's preface, appendix, and interview with the author by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Spivak explodes the scope and impact of these stories, conncecing the necessary "power lines" not only between local and international structures of power (patriarchy, nationalism, late capitalism), but tracing them to the very door of the university" Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak is the Avalon Foundation Professor in the Humanities at Columbia University. She is the author of Outside in the Teaching Machine, In Other Worlds and The Post-Colonial Critic, a collection of her interviews. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" http://landow.stg.brown.edu/post/poldiscourse/spivak/spivak2.html Benjamin Graves '98, Brown University Spivak's essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?"--originally published in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg's Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (1988)--perhaps best demonstrates her concern for the processes whereby postcolonial studies ironically reinscribe, co-opt, and rehearse neo-colonial imperatives of political domination, economic exploitation, and cultural erasure. In other words, is the post-colonial critic unknowingly complicit in the task of imperialism? Is "post-colonialism" a specifically first-world, male, privileged, academic, institutionalized discourse that classifies and surveys the East in the same measure as the actual modes of colonial dominance it seeks to dismantle? According to Spivak, postcolonial studies must encourage that "postcolonial intellectuals learn that their privilege is their loss" (Ashcroft. et al 28). In "Can the Subaltern Speak?", Spivak encourages but also criticizes the efforts of the subaltern studies group, a project led by Ranajit Guha that has reappropriated Gramsci's term "subaltern" (the economically dispossesed) in order to locate and re-establish a "voice" or collective locus of agency in postcolonial India. Although Spivak acknowledges the "epistemic violence" done upon Indian subalterns, she suggests that any attempt from the outside to ameliorate their condition by granting them collective speech invariably will encounter the following problems: 1) a logocentric assumption of cultural solidarity among a heterogeneous people, and 2) a dependence upon western intellectuals to "speak for" the subaltern condition rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. As Spivak argues, by speaking out and reclaiming a collective cultural identity, subalterns will in fact re-inscribe their subordinate position in society. The academic assumption of a subaltern collectivity becomes akin to an ethnocentric extension of Western logos--a totalizing, essentialist "mythology" as Derrida might describe it--that doesn't account for the heterogeneity of the colonized body politic. Spivak: Marxist, Feminist, Deconstructionist Benjamin Graves '98, Brown University If Spivak's chief concern can be summarized as a wariness of the limitations of cultural studies, what's particularly interesting about her engagement of the postcolonial predicament is the uneasy marriage of marxism, feminism, and deconstruction that underlies her critical work. "Three WomenÕs Texts and a Critique of Imperialism," an analysis of Emily Bronte's Jane Eyre, Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, portrays the complicated interface of competing critical practices. According to Spivak, Bronte's novel may well uphold its protagonist as a new feminist ideal, but it does so at the expense of Bertha, Rochester's creole bride who functions as a colonial subject of "other" to legitimate Jane's simultaneous ascent to domestic authority. In other words, a feminist approach to theory perhaps precludes an understanding of the novel's depiction of the "epistemic violence" (and in the case of Bertha, physical containment and pathologization) done upon imperial subjects. In the following passage, Spivak portrays such imperialism as a "worlding" process that attempts to disguise its own workings so as to naturalize and legitimate Western dominance: If these 'facts' were remembered, not only in the study of British literature but in the study of the literatures of the European colonizing cultures of the great age of imperialism, we would produce a narrative in literary history, of the 'worlding' of what is now called 'the Third World.' To consider the Third World as distant cultures, exploited but with rich intact literary heritages waiting to be recovered, interpreted, and curricularized in English translation fosters the emergence of 'the Third World' as a signifier that allows us to forget that 'worlding,' even as it expands the empire of the literary discipline (269). Spivak's description of the Third World becoming a "signifier that allows us to forget that 'worlding'" resembles in many ways Marx's notion of the commodity fetish that he describes in volume one of
racism, eurocentrism
Bill Burgess wrote: If I understood Sam's comments correctly, he argues 1) it was Eurocentric to expect a revolution in Germany in 1918-19, No, it wasn't euro-centric to expect a revolution there and then, it was eurocentric to presume that such a revolution was a necessary and maybe even a sufficient condition to lead world socialism. This is the view I was arguing against. Right up until his death Trotsky maintained that the survival of the USSR and world socialism depended on revolution in the imperialist countries. that 2) Lenin rejected Roy's emphasis on the importance of the revolutions in colonial countries, Not really. Lenin and Roy had similiar views but Roy took Lenin's reasoning a bit differently. Roy accepted the importance and centrality of revolution in the imperialist countries and accepted that the docility of the Western proletariat was ,to a large extent, the result of the surplus value generated in the colonies with which the Western bosses could pay off or bribe the worknig class into reformism rather revolution. Roy believed that since no revolution in Germany or elsewhere was forthcoming this surplus value would have to be cut off at the source i.e. through revolutions in the south and east in order to press the western working class into revolutionary agency. And maybe give them some confidence and an example (this was also Marx's argument that I cited previously). Lenin didn't go this far into proto Maoism. and that 3) the Eurocentric policy of the Comintern led to disasterous alliances with the bourgeoisie in countries like China, Turkey and Indonesia. The alliances were disastrous and it was partly because of eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places independent of European revolution. It was a conundrum. The bourgeosie in said countries was acting in important anti-imperialist ways but at the same time repressing (usually savagely) domestic revolutionaries. Kemal asked Lenin for aid to kick out the Greeks and got it, despite the situation in Russia in 1918-1920. Russia signed all sorts of treaties with governments who were murdering communists including the Treaty of Rapallo (1922) with Germany and it was Russia that called the shots at the comintern. 2) In fact, at the Third Congress (or the Second?) Lenin changed his original position and endorsed part of Roy's approach on the colonial revolution. Right, at the second congress, this was later reversed at the 3rd and subsequent congresses. Roy was given 5 minutes to speak at the third congress (!) I have the second congress resolution around here somewhere but can't find it right now. There was also the view that the peoples of the south and east must liberate themselves. I think that part of the shift in the Lenin's position was to accept Roy's sharper formulation of how unreliable allies the colonial bourgeoise classes were, and to clarify that the class struggle in these countries had a different strategic framework than in the imperialist countries. How is it Eurocentric to programitically codify the rejection of the Second International's 'socialist colonial policy'? I don't understand your question. Roy and other southern delegates to the 3rd congress did compare the Comintern's policy to the Second int'l. I can't find the documentation right now. Tomorrow. 3) I'm sure Sam is well aware of it, so I wonder why he ignores the cardinal differences between the Stalinist policy of the Comintern in China, Turkey and Indonesia and the 'Lenin-Roy' approach adopted by the Third Congress? There were important theoretical differences between the Lenin and Stalin-Zinoviev comintern but these differences came to nothing in practice. The Comintern blew it for many reasons, one of them being eurocentrism. Sam Pawlett
Re: racism, eurocentrism
If it was eurocentric, does that mean, you think it was wrong? Rod Sam Pawlett wrote: Bill Burgess wrote: If I understood Sam's comments correctly, he argues 1) it was Eurocentric to expect a revolution in Germany in 1918-19, No, it wasn't euro-centric to expect a revolution there and then, it was eurocentric to presume that such a revolution was a necessary and maybe even a sufficient condition to lead world socialism. This is the view I was arguing against. Right up until his death Trotsky maintained that the survival of the USSR and world socialism depended on revolution in the imperialist countries. that 2) Lenin rejected Roy's emphasis on the importance of the revolutions in colonial countries, Not really. Lenin and Roy had similiar views but Roy took Lenin's reasoning a bit differently. Roy accepted the importance and centrality of revolution in the imperialist countries and accepted that the docility of the Western proletariat was ,to a large extent, the result of the surplus value generated in the colonies with which the Western bosses could pay off or bribe the worknig class into reformism rather revolution. Roy believed that since no revolution in Germany or elsewhere was forthcoming this surplus value would have to be cut off at the source i.e. through revolutions in the south and east in order to press the western working class into revolutionary agency. And maybe give them some confidence and an example (this was also Marx's argument that I cited previously). Lenin didn't go this far into proto Maoism. and that 3) the Eurocentric policy of the Comintern led to disasterous alliances with the bourgeoisie in countries like China, Turkey and Indonesia. The alliances were disastrous and it was partly because of eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places independent of European revolution. It was a conundrum. The bourgeosie in said countries was acting in important anti-imperialist ways but at the same time repressing (usually savagely) domestic revolutionaries. Kemal asked Lenin for aid to kick out the Greeks and got it, despite the situation in Russia in 1918-1920. Russia signed all sorts of treaties with governments who were murdering communists including the Treaty of Rapallo (1922) with Germany and it was Russia that called the shots at the comintern. 2) In fact, at the Third Congress (or the Second?) Lenin changed his original position and endorsed part of Roy's approach on the colonial revolution. Right, at the second congress, this was later reversed at the 3rd and subsequent congresses. Roy was given 5 minutes to speak at the third congress (!) I have the second congress resolution around here somewhere but can't find it right now. There was also the view that the peoples of the south and east must liberate themselves. I think that part of the shift in the Lenin's position was to accept Roy's sharper formulation of how unreliable allies the colonial bourgeoise classes were, and to clarify that the class struggle in these countries had a different strategic framework than in the imperialist countries. How is it Eurocentric to programitically codify the rejection of the Second International's 'socialist colonial policy'? I don't understand your question. Roy and other southern delegates to the 3rd congress did compare the Comintern's policy to the Second int'l. I can't find the documentation right now. Tomorrow. 3) I'm sure Sam is well aware of it, so I wonder why he ignores the cardinal differences between the Stalinist policy of the Comintern in China, Turkey and Indonesia and the 'Lenin-Roy' approach adopted by the Third Congress? There were important theoretical differences between the Lenin and Stalin-Zinoviev comintern but these differences came to nothing in practice. The Comintern blew it for many reasons, one of them being eurocentrism. Sam Pawlett -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
FW: World Bank, Bolivian Water Privatization and Martial Law
From those evil nationalist inside the Beltway critics of free trade. mbs ++ global economy network Campaign for America's Future http://www.ourfuture.org ++ April 14, 2000 Attached below is a media backgrounder on the struggle and government violence in Bolivia surrounding privatization of the public water system. Last year World Bank economists told Bolivia that "no public subsidies" should be allowed to keep water rates affordable. When the Bolivian government tried to privatize the water system in response by selling it to the Bechtel corporation, massive protests began and the government declared the equivalent of martial law on April 8. You can learn more about the Bolivian protests on the web at http://www.americas.org. Also attached is a bio of Oscar Olivera, a Bolivian labor leader who is the most prominent protest leader. Olivera will be present at this weekend's IMF-World Bank protests in Washington, DC and he will remain in the US next week. Please feel free to forward this information to interested journalists or organizations. If any journalists would like to meet with Olivera please call Tom Matzzie at 202-251-8545 (cell phone) or 202-490-7009 (pager). Olivera is also interested in meeting with labor leaders, citizen activists and others. = = MEDIA BACKGROUNDER HOW BOLIVIANS TOOK THEIR WATER BACK FROM THE BECHTEL CORPORATION (Additional information and press-available photos posted at http://www.americas.org) Cochabamba, Bolivia As thousands converge on Washington this week to protest the abuses of economic globalization, from Bolivia comes the story of a corporate giant being chased out by a popular uprising. On Monday, following a week of massive public protests that nearly brought this country of 7 million to a standstill, the Bolivian government declared null and void the agreement it signed last year selling the water system of its third largest city to a subsidiary of the Bechtel Corporation. Like many poor countries, Bolivia is under heavy pressure by the World Bank to sell its public enterprises to international investors, like Bechtel. In a closed door process rife with corruption, Bolivia has sold off one public enterprise after another - the airline, electric utilities, the national train service and finally the public water system for a city with more than a half million people. Price Hikes of More Than Double on the Poorest In January, just as the company posted its new logo over the door, it hit local water users with rate hikes of double and more. In a country where the minimum wage is less that $100 per month, the poorest families were being told to pay water bills of $20 and up. Tanya Paredes, a mother of five who supports her family knitting baby clothes, saw her water bill leap by $15. For the World Bank economists who told Bolivia last year that, "no public subsidies" should be allowed to keep water rates affordable, that's a light dinner in a Georgetown bistro. For Paredes it is food for her family for a week and a half. Public outrage against the rate increases was huge and swift. A mid-January general strike and transportation stoppage, demanding reversal of the rate hikes, brought the city to a total standstill for four days. The government of President Hugo Banzer (who ruled Bolivia as a dictator through much of the 1970s) promised that rates would be rolled back. When those promises evaporated, protest leaders organized a peaceful march on the city's central plaza. Banzer responded with police, tear gas and rubber bullets, leaving more than left more than 175 injured and two youths blinded. The government then agreed to a temporary rate rollback and further negotiations. Water rights leaders and local economists began scrutinizing the Bechtel contract, raising serious questions about the numbers. A leading daily newspaper reported that investors had put up less than $20,000 of up-front capital for a water system worth millions. In March, water rights leaders surveyed more than 60,000 local residents, with more than 90% saying that the government should break the contract and that Bechtel's affiliate should go. "The Last Battle" When the Tuesday April 4th deadline arrived for breaking the contract arrived, the government and the water company refused to budge. Once again, Cochabamba ground to a halt, the streets empty of cars, the schools, stores and businesses all closed. Two days later, when protest leaders sat down with top officials and civic leaders to negotiate, police stormed the meeting and put the water rights leaders in jail. "We were talking with the Mayor, the Governor, and other civil leaders when the police came in and arrested us," says Oscar Olivera, the protest's most visible leader. "It was a trap by the government to have us all together,
Re: racism, eurocentrism
Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/14/00 03:18PM If it was eurocentric, does that mean, you think it was wrong? _ CB: Good point. Europe has , in fact , conquered the whole world ( almost). Regardless of how it originated, it is a fact today. To turn it around, will take getting inside "Eurothinking", to some extent. So, Eurocentric analysis ( with a critical posture for all the reasons given by critics of eurocentrism) is necessary to change the world as it is now. CB
Stiglitz on the IMF
Have people seen the article by Stiglitz in the NEW REPUBLIC? What I learned at the world economic crisis. The Insider By JOSEPH STIGLITZ Issue date: 04.17.00 Post date: 04.06.00 Next week's meeting of the International Monetary Fund will bring to Washington, D.C., many of the same demonstrators who trashed the World Trade Organization in Seattle last fall. They'll say the IMF is arrogant. They'll say the IMF doesn't really listen to the developing countries it is supposed to help. They'll say the IMF is secretive and insulated from democratic accountability. They'll say the IMF's economic "remedies" often make things worse--turning slowdowns into recessions and recessions into depressions. And they'll have a point. I was chief economist at the World Bank from 1996 until last November, during the gravest global economic crisis in a half-century. I saw how the IMF, in tandem with the U.S. Treasury Department, responded. And I was appalled. see http://www.tnr.com/live/coverstory.html Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: racism, eurocentrism
At 10:56 AM 14/04/00 -0700, Sam wrote: No, it wasn't euro-centric to expect a revolution there and then [Germany 1918-19], it was eurocentric to presume that such a revolution was a necessary and maybe even a sufficient condition to lead world socialism. This is the view I was arguing against. Right up until his death Trotsky maintained that the survival of the USSR and world socialism depended on revolution in the imperialist countries. "Expect" was a poor word to use on my part. But are you saying it was wrong in 1918-19 to have the *perspective* of revolution in Germany, that Comintern stragegy should consider that this would be the next key step forward in world socialism, and that the Comintern should instead have counted on revolutions in the colonial countries as the next key step? Otherwise, what is Eurocentric about Lenin and Trotsky's perspective (all this before the Third Congress)? If the idea that the survival of the USSR and world socialism (utlimately) depends on revolution in the imperialist countries is Eurocentric, then I guess I have to plead guilty. Perhaps we should change the name of this list to Progressive Economists for Revolutions Somewhere Else. Roy believed that since no revolution in Germany or elsewhere was forthcoming this surplus value would have to be cut off at the source i.e. through revolutions in the south and east in order to press the western working class into revolutionary agency. And maybe give them some confidence and an example (this was also Marx's argument that I cited previously). Lenin didn't go this far into proto Maoism. I don't know much about Roy, but if this was his position and is an example of non-Eurocentrism, it this idea of pressing into revolutionary agency does not seem to be a gain over Eurocentrism. The alliances [post-Lenin Comintern] were disastrous and it was partly because of eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places independent of European revolution. Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in 'backward' places. How does that make them Eurocentrist, even before Roy and the Third Congress? Right, at the second congress, this [Roy's position] was later reversed at the 3rd and subsequent congresses. Roy was given 5 minutes to speak at the third congress (!) I have the second congress resolution around here somewhere but can't find it right now. Roy and other southern delegates to the 3rd congress did compare the Comintern's policy to the Second int'l. I can't find the documentation right now. Tomorrow. I was not aware of an important change to the 2nd Congress position at the Third or Fourth Congresses, so thanks in advance for finding the references. But I seem to recall that Lenin and/or other Bolshevic leaders also criticized (some) Communist Party leaders for hanging on to Second International-type positions. Again, where is the Eurocentrism here? There were important theoretical differences between the Lenin and Stalin-Zinoviev comintern but these differences came to nothing in practice. The Comintern blew it for many reasons, one of them being eurocentrism. I don't want to reherse the issue of Stalinism (I think Stalin's Comintern turned CPs into border guards of the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy, and was the antithesis of the Lenin's Internationalist Comintern). I took up your comments because of the claim that Eurocentrism was a key problem. It seemed to me this was an example of what Carroll referred to, where a reasonably sound analysis and terminology (imperialism, opportunism, reformism, racism, etc.) already exists. Applying terms like Eurocentrism mistakes the real issues (in this case, the problem of Stalinism). Eurocentrism is real, but it should not be aimed at the 'Europeans' who contributed most, theoretically, organizationally and politically to the fight against this problem, e.g. Lenin. Bill Burgess
racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
Sam Pawlet:
The alliances were disastrous and it was partly because of
eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places
independent of European revolution.
I understand your reasoning, but why is it Eurocentric to expect a
socialist revolution world wide? The main reason behind the establishment
of the Comintern (Lenin, 1919) was to export revolutions to "colonized
countries", or to "promote communism world wide". Lenin's speech submitted
to the second congress of the Third International (1920) proves this
point. so the idea was internationalist, not eurocentric, not even
Russian centric. If you mean by European revolution _Russian revolution_,
Lenin thought Russia could provide a role mother to other revolutions
since it was Russia, historically speaking, outside the west (germany),
that did the revolution. The Comintern became Russian centric under Stalin
(1935), I think, in the seventh or fifth congress of the Third
International, which Trot called "the liquidation of the comintern". Trot
resisted this domestification of communism, and criticized the idea of
"socialism in one country" without having socialism world wide. I am not
after Trot here, but he was right at this point.
It was a conundrum. The bourgeosie
in said countries was acting
in important anti-imperialist ways but at the same time repressing
(usually savagely) domestic revolutionaries. Kemal asked Lenin for aid
to kick out the Greeks and got it, despite the situation in Russia in
1918-1920.
Very True. I don't see the _connection_ however.Lenin's approach to
nationalist liberation movements were strategic and pragmatic. Just as
bourgeois democratic reforms are instrumental in leninist jargon, national
liberationist movements are instrumental too. Marx saw this before.Without
fully consummating bourgeois reforms (minumun wage, right to organize,
right to strike, etc..), you can not have a democratic socialist society
in the future. Whether or not bourgeois democratic rights were existing in
colonized countries is another subject matter of discussion (obviously it
did not exist in Turkey even under the new regime). So one may think
extrapolating bourgeois conditions to societies with entirely different
structures is Eurocentric. but so what? in so far as Kemal was pro-western
("not" pro-Soviet) and commited to capitalism. It was not unexpected that
he ousted the leftist opposition. Kemalist regime was anti-marxist. In my
view, Lenin's approach to national bourgeois regimes was straight forward
as he said in the speech to the communists "strategically ally with them
when necessary but DO NOT MERGE with them". This allience meant "push for
certain reforms". Thus, Lenin was on the side of Turkish Communists
not on the side of Kemal.
Moreover, in 1918-1920 period, new regime in Turkey was not established
yet (1923). The regime was officially ottoman empire backed by British
imperialists, although the natioanalists formed their de facto government
in Ankara (1918). Around those times it was very difficult to pin down who
is what since the Ottoman empire nearly lost its legitimacy and was under
attack from different people. Communists,socialists, liberals allied in
their support to nationalists, while some did not and some were killed;
some changed sides and conspired with ottomans;some came closer to soviets
organized under the name Anatolian socialists. the anti-imperialist
struggle was constituted from a field of ideological struggles.so it is
very difficult to judge retrospectively. In a nut shell, what i can say
is that Lenin wanted to exploit this opportunity by giving guns to
Kemal.He thought he could gain the support of the leftist party line in
the nationalist front. He made a strategic mistake;it did not happene
that way, partly because (and this is important) turkish communists could
_not_ transcend their nationalism yet. but Lenin had no intention of
killing communists or allying with nationalists. If Kemal killed these
people, this is the mistake of Kemal, not Lenin!
Mine
Re: Stiglitz on the IMF
Yeah, Joe, but what about the World Bank? Gene Coyle Jim Devine wrote: Have people seen the article by Stiglitz in the NEW REPUBLIC? What I learned at the world economic crisis. The Insider By JOSEPH STIGLITZ Issue date: 04.17.00 Post date: 04.06.00 Next week's meeting of the International Monetary Fund will bring to Washington, D.C., many of the same demonstrators who trashed the World Trade Organization in Seattle last fall. They'll say the IMF is arrogant. They'll say the IMF doesn't really listen to the developing countries it is supposed to help. They'll say the IMF is secretive and insulated from democratic accountability. They'll say the IMF's economic "remedies" often make things worse--turning slowdowns into recessions and recessions into depressions. And they'll have a point. I was chief economist at the World Bank from 1996 until last November, during the gravest global economic crisis in a half-century. I saw how the IMF, in tandem with the U.S. Treasury Department, responded. And I was appalled. see http://www.tnr.com/live/coverstory.html Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
very true. plus Luxemburg.. Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in 'backward' places. Bill Burgess
Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
Please, can we drop this, and move on to something new. We have only a couple of people involved. And, also, please don't bother with a "this is my last comment on " because others will answer and then you will I am not singling out anyone, but just want the thread to drop. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HK Film Industry (was Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.)
Though the Hong Kong movie industry folks had been anxious about the return of Hong Kong to China, apparently the HK movie industry has lately fallen into dire straits not because of nominal communism of China but because of enterprising pirate video makers. Meanwhile, Hollywood has increased its HK market share, taking advantage of the decline of the HK production. * The Toronto Star May 16, 1999, Sunday, Edition 1 HEADLINE: PIRATES CHOP HONG KONG FILM INDUSTRY Here in the heart of unregulated capitalism, video piracy has reached epidemic proportions. Pirated VCDs have been affectionately dubbed ''People's Heads Pictures'' - a reference to the heads of members of the audience that turn up in pirated videos shot directly off cinema screens. The bobbing heads appear less and less on new bootleg copies. Industry insiders say organized crime syndicates are now getting prints directly from labs and are striking cleaner discs. Hong Kong films have relied on martial arts, fighting and inventive stunts instead of the computerized special effects of American movies. The trick, Chung believes, is to add some Hollywood glitz. If there's no value added, kids will opt for cheap grainy pirated discs. Chung's latest movie, Gen-X Cops, scheduled to be released this summer, promises to be a little more Hollywood and a little less Hong Kong. The usual stunt people are taking a back seat to a California company that specializes in digital effects. Yoshie bit of an update... New legislation making piracy more serious criminal offense went into effect at beginning of 2000. Includes having cops assigned to 'movie theater' patrol to confiscate video cams from movie goers. But as above article points out, fewer bootleg videos are made this way. Cheung Yuen-ting Alex Law's late-1998 release, *City of Glass*, may have been first major HK film to be counterfeited via 'inside job' during post-production process HK film industry has had some box office success in last couple of years. Andrew Lau Wai-keung scored big with high-tech special effects fantasy- actioners *Storm Riders* and *A Man Called Hero*. Above mentioned *Gen-X Cops* (an HK *Mod Squad*) also drew folks into theaters. Current hopes for rebound appear linked to HK-Hollywood joint ventures. Tsui Hark's new film *Time and Tide* was financed by Columbia Pictures. Yim Ho's *Pavilion of Women* (featuring Willem Dafoe) was also an 'international' production (as such films are being called). Miramax, 20th Century Fox Warner Bros. have all set up shop in Hong Kong. Eventual 'prize?' Potential access to the Mainland. Hollywood co-ventures with HK companies are looking to then co-venture with Mainland (either state-run or one of several private) companies in order to circumvent restrictions on film imports that limit number to about 20 per year (up from 10 a few years ago). Michael Hoover
Re: Marshall
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/08/00 02:41PM a very interesting post! Ted Winslow writes: These influences show up in a number of essential ways in Marshall's economics. For instance, Marshall takes a "dialectical" view of social interdependence. This underpins his conception of "caeteris paribus" and his use of the term "normal". I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics? _ CB: Equilibrium can be conceived of as "circular change" or quantitative change,which can transform into qualitative change when it breaks out of equilibrium. The transformation of quantitative change into qualitative change is a principle of dialectics. CB
Structural Adjustment in the USA
I can imagine that if United States were a small economy, that the stock markets swoon would have the IMF at our doors, blaming the crash on the welfare state and economic regulation. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Structural Adjustment in the USA
We have a welfare state and economic regulation? :-) Ian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:18130] Structural Adjustment in the USA I can imagine that if United States were a small economy, that the stock markets swoon would have the IMF at our doors, blaming the crash on the welfare state and economic regulation. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Structural Adjustment in the USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can imagine that if United States were a small economy, that the stock markets swoon would have the IMF at our doors, blaming the crash on the welfare state and economic regulation. The IMF has been saying cautiously critical things about the U.S. over the last few days. Obviously, since the U.S. Treasury practically runs the place, these criticisms don't carry much weight. Doug
Re: RE: Structural Adjustment in the USA
Absolutely yes, in the eyes of the IMF. We have a welfare state and economic regulation? :-) Ian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:18130] Structural Adjustment in the USA I can imagine that if United States were a small economy, that the stock markets swoon would have the IMF at our doors, blaming the crash on the welfare state and economic regulation. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More SAP
I forgot to add that the SAP would include investing social security funds in the stock market. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Structural Adjustment in the USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely yes, in the eyes of the IMF. Well, that's a bit overstated. The U.S. has about the right level of welfare state regulation in the eyes of the IMF. A minimal "safety net" is necessary to get workers to accept unemployment - this was one of the Fund's arguements during the SE Asian crisis: without some unemployment insurance scheme, there's less likelihood of layoffs in a crisis. Too generous and you get Europe; the U.S. is about right Doug
Re: Re: what's happening?
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: The reason that the government has been so spineless with respect to the kidnappers is that it is ambivalent about their role in American society. I would agree about this in part. This view is amendable at any moment. It needs the Miami gusanos as much as US capitalism needed (and needs) the KKK. Yes, but it also needed Noriega and Saddam Hussein. My sense is that in negotiations with the Cuban exiles the INS is ambivalent, but also trying to get the Cubans to recognise that they are expendable, just like Noriega, Marcos...The amount of talk on TV and in the press in th last week about normalization of US-Cuba relations as a final result of this whole 'drama' has increased noticeably. On the other hand, that ambivalence you note is also holding the INS back from taking any decisive action against the defeated Batista leftovers in Miami. BTW, the more I watch this 'drama' on TV, OJ car stuck in freeway traffic jam shots and all, I am reminded of Trotsky's *History of the Russian Revolution*, the discussion of the often seemingly illogical actions of the Csar's obliviousness to the reality that his corrupt dynasty was falling anyday. Sometimes the Miami Cubans are acting like this, unaware of the shifts that have occurred in the ground rules of US-Cuba relations and the implications that has on their real loss of needed support to take back power. They are a defeated class and the Elian affair demonstrates this all too clearly. Steve Instruments of terror such as these can be used to intimidate liberation movements overseas or within our borders. It is interesting to compare FBI collusion with the Klan murderers and CIA support for the criminals who have set off bombs on Cuban civilian airliners, among other things. The criminals are never apprehended for some odd reason. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: M-TH: Gysi steps down
Allegedly because he failed to get the congress to agree to "judge in each case whether the should lend support to UN peace-keeping troops", instead the majority argued there should be no support for the UN in any circumstances. I guess that dented the possibility of an alliance with the Social-Democrats. On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 11:11:50PM +0100, Chris Burford wrote: I missed this news. Can anyone tell me why? I attach the not very idiomatic report of the 3rd Congress of the PDS from their web site.
Gysi steps down
I missed this news. Can anyone tell me why? I attach the not very idiomatic report of the 3rd Congress of the PDS from their web site. Chris Burford London __ PDS International Information on the results of the 3rd Session of the 6th Congress of the PDS This session took place on 7-9 April, 2000 in Münster in North-Rhine Westphalia - for the first time in a West German federal state. The PDS had taken this decision to demonstrate after the successful elections of the years 1998/99 the importance of a growing influence and stronger organisations in the lander of the old FRG. At the same time this was meant as a support of the PDS campaign for the Landtag election in this federal state due on 14 May, 2000. For financial and organisational reasons the PDS had not invited partner organisations from abroad to take part in this session. Representatives of several foreign embassies attended as observers. The main points of the agenda were: Keynote speech of the party chairman General discussion and decision on continuing the programmatic debate in the party Discussion and decisions on the following problems: - Armed military missions of the UN - Future orientated ecological policy - North-South relationship, just world economic order - Gender emancipation Amendments to the party constitution The session attracted considerable media attention. The number of the registered correspondents exceeded that of the delegates. The whole session of 2,5 days was transmitted live by one public TV program and one radio station. The following are the main results of the session: 1.After the general debate on the keynote speech of party chairman, Lothar Bisky, the congress adopted a political resolution which calls for basic changes in the development of society to prevent the destruction of the welfare state. It must be reconstructed under the new circumstances. The party views itself as part of this society and signals from Münster a new opening towards it. It seeks closer co-operation with all forces striving for a sustainable development. It will put forward its own specific propositions and not duplicate erroneous projects of Social democrats and Greens. 2.After a thorough debate the congress decided with a big majority against the vote of delegates of the Communist Platform, the Marxist Forum and others on a revision of the party programme of 1993, thus paving the way for a programmatic renovation of the party. No time limit was set for this work but the national election of autumn 2002 is exerting a certain pressure. The voters of the socialist party in Germany have the right to know about the principal political and programmatic positions of the PDS. Lothar Bisky demanded in his speech neither to exaggerate nor to deny the chances and the potential of reform in this society. 3.The congress stated the necessity to pay more attention to the ecological problems in PDS politics. A socialist party can only be an ecological one. 4.In the debate on development issues delegates demanded more active solidarity with the developing countries. All the more so as the PDS is finding growing acceptance with the NGO's working in this field. 5.The worsening social situation of women in Germany ten years after unification was met with harsh criticism. Their real influence on PDS policies is also seen as insufficient, the decision on 50 % reserved places in all leading bodies of the party notwithstanding. On the last three issues the National Executive presented position papers (see the PDS website on www.pds-online.de). 6.On application of the National Executive the congress adopted several amendments to the party constitution. The most important one concerns the terms of office for the leading posts of the party. As a lesson from SED times a person was allowed to stay maximum eight years on the same post. According to the amendment adopted by the congress this now refers only to party officials elected individually (chairpersons, vice chairpersons, general secretaries, treasurers) on the lander and national levels. After a special decision of the competent body adopted by two thirds of the vote a prolongation of two years is possible. For the lower levels the limit has been lifted altogether. 7.On the position of the party towards armed UN missions according to Chapter VII of the Charter the session continued the passionate, emotional debate which has been going on for several weeks. It adopted by big majority a resolution confirming the anti- militarist consensus of the party, its character as a force of peace. Important points of this consensus are: a civil, non-military foreign and security policy peaceful, non-military solutions to conflicts, their preventive handling no militarisation of the EU general and full disarmament, prohibition of weapons of mass destruction and arms exports no Bundeswehr missions in foreign countries. The
Help please: Currency union
Pressure here in New Zealand to abandon the NZ$ in favour of either the Australian or US dollar is increasing. A Parliamentary select committee will in the next few months hold an inquiry into the "Closer Economic Relations" free trade/investment area with Australia, with a view to expanding it (either in its coverage or geographically). One of the issues on the agenda is the currency. Could anyone refer me to worthwhile papers that analysed the potential effects of the single European currency? Thanks Bill Rosenberg
Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
very true. plus Luxemburg.. Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second International-Menshevik claim that socialism couldn't take root in 'backward' places. Bill Burgess And on all the evidence, all three of them were wrong, and Martov and company were right... Brad DeLong
Re: Against Psychologism
Greetings Economists, I hadn't commented upon Ted Winslow's psychological remarks in part because what is there to say after all? But since Yoshie felt like putting up a statement against psychologism I would add my own thoughts. The core of Freud has to do with instincts in the mind. Rule based views of how the mind works are dominant within the U.S. culture. See Steven Pinker for example, or any of the Evolutionary Psychologists. Of course one does not want to lump them all together as having exactly the same views on the working class and Marxism for example. I am merely saying that rule based views of the human brain are dominant within U.S. culture. Beyond that, what else can we observe about this point of view that psychologizes the content of economics or the political economy? Well the person feels free to make sweeping statements about the nature of human feelings. The paradox in that is in the traditions of Western European Rationality, which is primarily an attempt to exclude emotions from human judgement. While accepting that human beings feel something, Freudians feel compelled to think of that as rule based instincts. Hence thinking or rationality is free while feelings are not. And thus talking therapy can free one self from the instincts of emotions by talking over time with a paid professional medical doctor. The test of that of course from the point of view of capitalism is does it work to make profit? If one sits down with someone besides a neurotic (? whatever that vague term is supposed to allude to in Freudian orthodoxy), that is for example with someone who is chronically depressed, does talk therapy make that depressed person available as a worker and productive of profit? Or does that sort of thing produce a drain upon profits by providing very long and fruitless encounters over years with someone who has a mental dysfunction (from the point of view of an able bodied culture against disabled people). Hence, while the theory of Freud does appeal to Capitalist culture in the sense of positing instincts, the medical claims have subsided about talking therapy in Freudian analysis. That is because even though drug therapies are hardly well understood, they produce results in altering some peoples thoughts, and that person goes back to the job and produces while talking therapies languish stuck in the same old issues back and forth endlessly. Back to rationality, the movement toward rationalism is centuries old now. Primarily one could observe in our times that surgery shows that someone who has had their mind lobotomized cannot make "rational" judgements without their feelings. So what are we to make of the common view that emotions betray people from understanding, decency, humanity, civility, etc? Well, let us take these sentences I write here, the medium of writing does not directly record my states of feelings. I can report my states of feelings (indirectly through words), but I can't use the sound mimicking aspects of writing in an alphabet to record accurately how I feel. Therefore writing systems clumsily (at best) report feelings. Since writing obviously does not convey feelings well, then rationality is obviously like writing. So despite proof that in surgery feelings are necessary to rational judgement, we linger with the old view that rationality is to get away from feelings, trusting as it were that the expertise that writing produces is the only way to understand what is happening. Within that then finding rules to govern feelings is the game to tame feelings. They are instincts, not plastic parts of the thought process. And that is an avenue from which psychologizing is useful upon the political process. That is the intense feelings stirred up in people because of depravation, and deceit, and oppression are explained away as merely instincts of the lower classes against the rational system of capitalism. Now Ted Winslow may not feel that way about Freudianism, but how are we to know the difference from that and taking seriously that working people get the shit kicked out of them over wealth in this polarized society? Feelings are the same, rich or poor? Part two, For PsychologizIng in other ways; Writing was invented a long time ago. Egypt, and China, Sumeria all have claims, valid claims on being original. Writing, how much it has changed since then also. If you look at Noam Chomsky's work, he seems to view grammatical speech and writing as a direct window into the mind, even though otherwise Chomsky is a big believer in instincts. Writing succeeds to the degree it does because it seems so like the way we think. In that sense, the invention of writing is speculation about how we think (a kind of folk psychology). The difference of course is that through practice over time, through development from experience writing has come a long ways. Where one believes that a rule reflects thought, such as Freudian instincts,
