date:20000517


Just last night I learned an interesting little factoid
that bears on the current thread. A psychiatrist lecturing
on medications and pregnancy mentioned that one of the
anti-psychotic drugs had a side effect fortunate for women
nursing their infants but unfortunate for men. It causes
women to produce more milk It causes men to produce *some*
milk. Men who encountered this side effect, he said, tended
to be very upset. :-)

Men *can* lactate. So lactation is *not* a dependable indication
of either sex or gender.

Carrol

 Original Message 
Subject: Political Classification of Biological Fact
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:32:24 -0600
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References:
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
l0313030ab463a77a4c91@[137.92.41.119]
v04220816b463b346a2df@[166.84.250.86]

Doug Henwood wrote:

  Biology is often invoked to
 put an end to debate or analysis. Even such raw biological facts as
 childbirth and lactation take on very different meanings depending on
 social arrangements

Though at some point Doug and I seem to have a disagreement,
here he is almost tautologically correct, and someone who can't
see his point is indeed clueless.

The difficulty comes when classifications to which we are accustomed
come to seem somehow more "real" than unaccustomed categories.
It would be just as "Real" to divide humanity into those under 5'2'' in
height (women) and those over 5'2'' (men). That is every bit as much
a *biological* marker as is lactation. Why in the world should we
pick out lactation rather than height as the basis for splitting the
human species into two categories? Why should gender be
a privileged classification? All classifications are arbitrary.

Any answer given to that question will, upon examination, turn out
to be a social or political rather than a biological proposition. The
division based upon lactation, we will be told, is more "important."
It is only important, however, because of a political decision to
continue the human species indefinitely. We could decide to cease
reproducing but spend most of our time in volleyball playing, with
leagues divided up in a similar fashion to boxing. "Shorties."
"Mediums." "Real Talls." Et cetera. Now capacity to lactate
would be as trivial and invisible as the number of clogged pores
on the back of one's hand.

This is why Kelley has every right to be annoyed when someone
tells her she is ignoring biology. The clueless simply cannot see that
all the "natural" or "biological" differences between "men" and
"women" are only meaningful within a given set of historical
(political) contingencies. The interesting question then becomes
why so many people are so insistent on claiming that two
genders is a "real" and lasting categorization.

I know why I am insistent on the importance of maintaining the
importance of biology in human life (even while insisting that
the meaning of any biological fact is always politically
established) -- the denial of biology is always, at some point,
also the denial of history. But the attempt to assert biology by
ascribing some independent "meaning" to lactation or child
birth also denies history.

Try it yet another way. Kelly's interlocutor admits that women aren't
pregnant all the time and that many women don't ever have children,
while all women sooner or later are unable to have children any
longer. So a classification of "women" based on this pregnancy is
really pretty trivial -- unless he wants to claim that certain forms of
activity or certain social relations should be denied to those who are
merely (at some point in their lives) potentially capable of pregnancy.
THis is really wild. If no political/social decisions are to be made
on the basis of the division, why make it?

Twist and turn as you want, there is no way of saying that such
and such "really" makes one a woman without sneaking in
some political element to give the claim substance. I am potentially
capable of having an utterly crippling headache every 5 to 7
days should I stop taking 12 mg. of a rather expensive medicine
(Zanaflex) each day. Why not divide the human species up into
the Zanaflex-dependent and the Zanaflex-independent. It would
under many conditions be far more useful thatn the division into
male and female genders.

And so forth. And playing with various Logic 101 games is
not relevant, because "If P then Q" is irrelevant until you make
a political decision that Q has some particular meaning.

Someone did try not long ago to give the "capacity for pregnancy"
such an intrinsic meaning by his insistence that the abortion rate
was somehow related to women's fear of motherhood, or
something like that. That is, he insisted that roughly one-half of
all humans were *politically* defined by a physical attribute
which was trivial unless someone chose to make it significant.

Carrol

[Fwd: On Common Sense, was Re: Only one sex?]

 Original Message 
Subject: On Common Sense, was Re: Only one sex?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:43:47 -0600
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: v04220802b4671a5ee03f@[166.84.250.86]

"Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely
realm of our own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he
ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode
of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains
whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of
investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes 
one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluable contradictions. In 
the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection 
between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the 
beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their 
motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees. For everyday purposes we 
know and can say, e.g., whether an animal is alive or not [Cox: "or 
whether X is a male or not"]. But, upon closer inquiry, we find that 
this is, in many cases, a very complex question, as the jurists know 
very well."
F. Engels, *Anti-Duhring* (Moscow 1969, p. 32)

Incidentally, the biologist who invented that silly phrase "selfish
gene," does have one interesting observation: Our confidence that we 
know what a human being (or a chimpanzee) is depends on the 
extermination of all the closely related species of the past. It 
would become very confusing were all the homo species still extant.

Carrol

Re: Re: Genderization


Ricardo can you document any of this with citations from Marx, or is this more
undergraduate sociology.

Rod

Ricardo Duchesne wrote:

 On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote:

  How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects
  of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full
  self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity?

 Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that
 dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The
 Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in
 his hands into a  practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that
 humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations,
 and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean
 by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone
 else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che
 called this reconstructed self  the "new man". But if Hegel was
 right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions
 except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a
 democratic setting).

--
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

BLS Daily Report

2000-05-17 Thread Richardson_D


BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000

RELEASED TODAY:  
   CPI -- On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U was unchanged in April,
following an increase of 0.7 percent in March.  The energy index, which rose
4.9 percent in March, declined 1.9 percent in April, registering its first
decrease since last June.  The index for petroleum-based energy fell 4.1
percent, while the index for energy services rose 0.5 percent.  The food
index rose 0.1 percent in April, the same as in March.  Excluding food and
energy, the CPI-U rose 0.2 percent in April, following an increase of 0.4
percent in March. Shelter costs, which increased 0.5 percent in March, rose
0.2 percent in April, accounting for more than half of the April
deceleration in the index for all items less food and energy.  Also
contributing to the smaller rise in April was the deceleration in the
indexes for airline fares, for apparel, and for household furnishings and
operations. ...  
   REAL EARNINGS -- Real average weekly earnings increased by 0.7 percent
from March to April after seasonal adjustment.  This was due to a 0.4
percent gain in average hourly earnings and a 0.3 percent rise in average
weekly hours.  The CPI-W was unchanged. ...  

The pace of U.S. industrial output rose sharply by 0.9 percent in April,
spurred on by the technology sector and utilities, according to figures
released by the Federal Reserve.  The combined activity of factories, mines,
and utilities sent industrial production up, following an upwardly revised
0.7 percent gain in March.  Utilities rebounded strongly from a negative
posting in March to 2.8 percent growth in April. ...  (Daily Labor Report,
page D-1)_Industrial production last month made its largest gain in 20
months, reinforcing expectations that Federal Reserve policymakers will
raise interest rates when they meet today. ...  (Washington Post, page
E1)_Production of the nation's factories, mines, and utilities grew at
the fastest pace in nearly one and a half years, as businesses scrambled to
meet demand.  Analysts said the report underlined the economy's momentum and
made it nearly certain that the central bank would raise interest rates by
half a percentage point when its policymakers meet. ...  (New York Times,
page C28; Wall Street Journal, page A2).

While labor force participation hovered above 95 percent for both black and
white men in 1955, it has since fallen to less than 85 percent for black
men, while remaining above 90 percent for white and Hispanic men, says
Michael A. Fletcher in a Washington Post article (page A3) reporting on a
jobs boot camp for the marginalized in Baltimore. ...  "The rough rule of
thumb is that the ratio is two to one when you compare the black and white
unemployment rates," says a fellow at the Urban Institute.  "That ratio
holds true in good times as well as bad."  Economists and other analysts say
the reasons for this disparity are complex.  Some factors seem plain:  lower
educational and skill levels among African Americans; the move of many
businesses from central cities to the suburbs; a declining number of
industrial jobs, which employed a disproportionate share of blacks; a lack
of work experience; a shortage of job contacts; and soaring incarceration
rates, drug abuse, and other social ills that disproportionately affect
African Americans.  But those factors do not fully explain the gap.
Instead, researchers say African Americans often suffer from the hazy
assumptions of employers who conclude that blacks lack the attitude,
communications ability, and other "soft skills" needed to succeed in the
workplace.  Analysts cite that as a reason that African Americans are more
likely to be unemployed than Latinos, who as a group have lower educational
levels than African Americans.  Nationwide, the unemployment rate for
Latinos is 5.4 percent. ...  But with unemployment at the lowest point in a
generation, some employers are now recruiting workers they have shunned in
the past.  They are giving second chances to drug addicts or ex-offenders
and offering opportunities to people with little work experience or
confidence. ...  "For the first time, we are tapping into all of the groups
that have historically been left out of this economy," says Labor Secretary
Alexis Herman. ...   

President Clinton signed an executive order banning discrimination against
parents in the Federal workplace; it is now illegal to deny jobs or
promotions to people because they have obligations to children at home, says
Sylvia Ann Hewlett, a fellow at Harvard's Center for the Study of Values in
Public Life and chairman of the National Parenting Association, on the op.
ed. page of The New York Times (page A31). ...  A substantial gap between
men's and women's earnings has been a stubborn feature of the American labor
market.  In 1998, the gap between the earnings of men and women who worked
full time stood at 27 percent, according to the latest census figures.  It
now seems that this gap

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)


Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I think that if I or anyone did so 
characterize her that that would mean that her views did not matter. Whether or not 
Mine or Piercy or you or I adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is 
whether our views are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has 
concluded that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please 
note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not think that 
labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It would not tell Carroll 
anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist, because it would not tell him whether I 
believed the things he things are most important. 

Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological characteristics 
determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however Mine wanted to 
characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no poarticular evidence that 
P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she thinks P holds it. it is 
somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She has written some political 
theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male exploitation of women during 
the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the grand Coolie Damn, but unlike 
you or me, she does not normally write her views down as political propositions 
intended to be directly evaluated. 

I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see 
nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of 
biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in various 
ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate roles, as 
she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the French 
revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly absed to 
very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian 
relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits 
of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She  It of the matriach of her New 
England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my 
reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds.

--jks

In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
 problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
stems  from "biological inequality."  Question: Is that a false
interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
don't matter.

To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.

So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.

Carrol




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
 She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
 poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
 lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
 not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
 thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
 she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks

 In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
  difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
  she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
  Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
  problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
  from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
  Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
  problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
  "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
  problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)


OK, fair enough. I would not focus too much on P's early Women at the Edge of 
Time--she has written a lot of books since--and I would not necessarily try to read a 
novelist's own opinions off the surface of her novels. just because P wrote a book 
about the Weather Underground doesn't mean she advocates bombing. I think P would 
agree with you about why we on the left want men to share childraising; she needn't 
think that we men can't do it unless we have our works fixed. P imagines a utopia, but 
it is not a perfect world; one of her string suits is to write utopian fiction that 
does not depicta n ideal state. Ursula K. LeGuin did that in The Dispossessed too. As 
for Firestone, I think she's great, bit primitive as a theorist, but I learned a lot 
from her work. Perhaps I should say that I am from that period myself, which may be 
why I reacted that way to what I took to be an ignorant slam at one of the people 
important to forming my own (very unbiologically determist) sensibilit!
!
y. --jks

In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:50:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically" 
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..

Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work? 

let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..

Mine

Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her
work.  She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose
novels and poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of
leftists owe a lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an
Marxist Feminist," so not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one
reason I gave up on labels of thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe
to her? I don't thonk so. Has she fought the good fight for almost 40
years? You better believe it. --jks

In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
 difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
 she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
 Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
 problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
 from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
 Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
 problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
 "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
 problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
 (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
 effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
 naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
 feminine practices.
 
 We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should 
 be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
 biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
 equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
 biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
 discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
 intimacy!!

Marx and Malleability


I am surprised to find the canard popping up on thsi list that Marx thought people 
utterly malleable and therefore (!) supported undemocratic "re-education" to make them 
they way theu should be. This is an old right-wing misunderstanding, but it has no 
basis in Marx's own writing.

First, Marx did not think people were utterly malleable. His theory of alienation and 
free labor depends on the idea that it is human nature to want to exercise your 
creative powers in a productive way, and that you will be frustrated and unhappy in 
any society that denies that need. 

Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow from 
malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.

Third, the one dominant theme in Marx's ethics is freedom. In the Manifesto, the free 
develpment of each is the condition for the free development of all. In Capital, the 
transcendence of necesasry labor is the enrtryway to the realm of freedom. Nor does 
Marx hold a Rousseauan view about freedom being attained by "totalitarian" means (if R 
holds such a view,w hich I do not say). In the Manifesto, the first task of the 
proletarit is to win the battle of democracy. In the Rules of the First International, 
the fundamental prewmise is that the emancipation of the working class can only be 
accomplished by thew orking classes themselves. In the Civil War in France, Marx 
approves the Commune's removing a political functions from the police. Etc.

So, I hope this silliness does not come back. It has not merit.

Carroll, is that red enough for you?

--jks


In a message dated Wed, 17 May 2000  9:49:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ricardo 
Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote:
 
 How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects
 of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full
 self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity?

Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that 
dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The 
Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in 
his hands into a  practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that 
humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations, 
and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean 
by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone 
else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che 
called this reconstructed self  the "new man". But if Hegel was 
right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions 
except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a 
democratic setting).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights



this is not really a choice if you run a country that is dominated by 
debt service.

If you have no choice, than the AGOA is a clear, clear winner: you have 
the structural adjustment program anyway, and better to have it with the 
opportunity to export than to have it with one's exports quotaed...

How about debt repudiation? if done by enough countries, no individual 
country can be punished. It's been done before...

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Clintonoids Serve Up Mud Pie Analysis


I know you all love this stuff so I will keep you
posted on it.  New briefing paper from EPI. . . .


50 LOST OPPORTUNITIES
Commerce Departments state-level
review of supposed gains from China trade
betrays hollowness of claims of PNTR proponents


" . . . The Commerce Department claims its 50 state reports go beyond
traditional static analysis of a states trade with China. In fact, the
reports go beyond traditional statistical analysis. They offer no statistics
at all about how much they predict exports to China will increase 
state-by-state or even nationally. Instead, we have State Export Profiles:
a few scant paragraphs of basic information, such as how much the state
exports to China and where China ranks among the states major export
destinations.
These are followed by Sector Snapshots, which supposedly tell how the
leading industries in each state will benefit from more trade with China.
But the snapshots are, with only a few exceptions, virtually the same
for every state. The same paragraphs appear over and over again. How
interesting that the U.S. Commerce Department seems to believe that the
economies of California and Massachusetts are pretty much the same, and
that no business in either state competes with Chinese imports. . . . "


N.B. There is no truth to the rumor that BDL contributed
to the DoC analysis.

mbs

essentialism


Carroll, Doug and Mine have all used the word "essentialism" in a sense
that I do not understand. At first, I thought it might be ignorance on
my part, so I checked the philosophical dictionaries that I have at
hand. And, found that although I had forgotten the subtleties, my
definition more or less matched with those.

I take it from the context that it is meant as a dismissive word.
Someone who is an "essentialist" is not worth further consideration, but
I cannot deduce the meaning intended.

Please enlighten

Rod

--
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

Re: Genderization,[Fwd: Political Classification of Biological Fact] (fwd)



interesting, Carrol. I did not know the effects of anti-psychotic drugs on
men and women respectively. I would say, however, it is still
"unfortunate" that women produce "more milk" as a result of this treatment
during pregnacy. Eventhough men produce "some" milk, they are still
better off. This side effect seems to reinforce traditional gender roles
by allowing the possibility for women to nurse their infants, while men
can still escape from child caring responsibilities.

It must be a really bothering thing to have milk on your breasts all the
time. I have seen women complaining about this fact. If you don't breast
feed your child, you are not considered to be a real mother. This feeding
practice seems to be part of the routine of mothering as it relates to
domestic duties of women.

Mine


Just last night I learned an interesting little factoid that bears on the
current thread. A psychiatrist lecturing on medications and pregnancy
mentioned that one of the anti-psychotic drugs had a side effect
fortunate for women nursing their infants but unfortunate for men. It
causes women to produce more milk It causes men to produce *some* milk.
Men who encountered this side effect, he said, tended to be very upset.
:-) 

Men *can* lactate. So lactation is *not* a dependable indication
of either sex or gender.

Carrol

 Original Message 
Subject: Political Classification of Biological Fact
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:32:24 -0600
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References:
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
l0313030ab463a77a4c91@[137.92.41.119]
v04220816b463b346a2df@[166.84.250.86]

Doug Henwood wrote:

  Biology is often invoked to
 put an end to debate or analysis. Even such raw biological facts as
 childbirth and lactation take on very different meanings depending on
 social arrangements

Though at some point Doug and I seem to have a disagreement,
here he is almost tautologically correct, and someone who can't
see his point is indeed clueless.

The difficulty comes when classifications to which we are accustomed
come to seem somehow more "real" than unaccustomed categories.
It would be just as "Real" to divide humanity into those under 5'2'' in
height (women) and those over 5'2'' (men). That is every bit as much
a *biological* marker as is lactation. Why in the world should we
pick out lactation rather than height as the basis for splitting the
human species into two categories? Why should gender be
a privileged classification? All classifications are arbitrary.

Any answer given to that question will, upon examination, turn out
to be a social or political rather than a biological proposition. The
division based upon lactation, we will be told, is more "important."
It is only important, however, because of a political decision to
continue the human species indefinitely. We could decide to cease
reproducing but spend most of our time in volleyball playing, with
leagues divided up in a similar fashion to boxing. "Shorties."
"Mediums." "Real Talls." Et cetera. Now capacity to lactate
would be as trivial and invisible as the number of clogged pores
on the back of one's hand.

This is why Kelley has every right to be annoyed when someone
tells her she is ignoring biology. The clueless simply cannot see that
all the "natural" or "biological" differences between "men" and
"women" are only meaningful within a given set of historical
(political) contingencies. The interesting question then becomes
why so many people are so insistent on claiming that two
genders is a "real" and lasting categorization.

I know why I am insistent on the importance of maintaining the
importance of biology in human life (even while insisting that
the meaning of any biological fact is always politically
established) -- the denial of biology is always, at some point,
also the denial of history. But the attempt to assert biology by
ascribing some independent "meaning" to lactation or child
birth also denies history.

Try it yet another way. Kelly's interlocutor admits that women aren't
pregnant all the time and that many women don't ever have children,
while all women sooner or later are unable to have children any
longer. So a classification of "women" based on this pregnancy is
really pretty trivial -- unless he wants to claim that certain forms of
activity or certain social relations should be denied to those who are
merely (at some point in their lives) potentially capable of pregnancy.
THis is really wild. If no political/social decisions are to be made
on the basis of the division, why make it?

Twist and turn as you want, there is no way of saying that such
and such "really" makes one a woman without sneaking in
some political element to give the claim substance. I am potentially
capable of having an utterly crippling headache every 5 to 7
days should I stop taking 12 mg. of a rather expensive medicine
(Zanaflex) each day. Why not divide the human species up into
the

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: China

2000-05-17 Thread Martin Hart-Landsberg


This could be interesting.  And exactly what slogans would you be shouting
as part of this group? Marty

  But I do pledge that as head of the MTO, the headquarters will be moved
  from Geneva to Portland, and you can all come to the first session as my
  honored guests.  Even Max.   Marty
 
 But w/your policies I might have to join the Black Bloc
 and jam the meeting.
 
 max

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)



Justin,

my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave
my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her
poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her
poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims.  If you
carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men
should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an
ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do
with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT
which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this
ground.

merci,

Mine


-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27
-0400 (EDT)  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:
Genderization (fwd)  Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I
think that if I or anyone did so characterize her that that would mean
that her views did not matter. Whether or not Mine or Piercy or you or I
adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is whether our views
are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has concluded
that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please
note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not
think that labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It
would not tell Carroll anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist,
because it would not tell him whether I believed the things he things are
most important.

Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological characteristics 
determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however Mine wanted to 
characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no poarticular evidence that 
P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she thinks P holds it. it is 
somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She has written some political 
theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male exploitation of women during 
the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the grand Coolie Damn, but unlike 
you or me, she does not normally write her views down as political propositions 
intended to be directly evaluated. 

I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see 
nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of 
biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in various 
ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate roles, as 
she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the French 
revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly absed to 
very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian 
relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits 
of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She  It of the matriach of her New 
England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my 
reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds.

--jks

In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
 problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
stems  from "biological inequality."  Question: Is that a false
interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
don't matter.

To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.

So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.

Carrol




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
 She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
 poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
 lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
 not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
 thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)



Why don't you relax Justin?

Mine
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:37:30
-0400 (EDT)  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19100] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: 
Genderization (fwd
OK, fair enough. I would not focus too much on P's early Women at the Edge of 
Time--she has written a lot of books since--and I would not necessarily try to read a 
novelist's own opinions off the surface of her novels. just because P wrote a book 
about the Weather Underground doesn't mean she advocates bombing. I think P would 
agree with you about why we on the left want men to share childraising; she needn't 
think that we men can't do it unless we have our works fixed. P imagines a utopia, but 
it is not a perfect world; one of her string suits is to write utopian fiction that 
does not depicta n ideal state. Ursula K. LeGuin did that in The Dispossessed too. As 
for Firestone, I think she's great, bit primitive as a theorist, but I learned a lot 
from her work. Perhaps I should say that I am from that period myself, which may be 
why I reacted that way to what I took to be an ignorant slam at one of the people 
important to forming my own (very unbiologically determist) sensibilit!
!
!
y. --jks

In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:50:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically" 
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..

Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work? 

let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..

Mine

Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her
work.  She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose
novels and poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of
leftists owe a lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an
Marxist Feminist," so not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one
reason I gave up on labels of thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe
to her? I don't thonk so. Has she fought the good fight for almost 40
years? You better believe it. --jks

In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
 difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
 she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
 Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
 problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
 from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
 Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
 problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
 "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
 problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
 (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
 effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
 naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
 feminine practices.
 
 We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should 
 be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
 biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
 equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
 biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
 discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
 intimacy!!

Re: Marx and Malleability


At 10:48 AM 05/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow 
from malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.

Rousseau used the seemingly sinister saying about forcing people to be 
free. But one of his points, I believe, is that _any_ society involves 
forcing people to be free. It's not a matter of assuming the total 
malleability of individuals' characters. For example, Locke's social 
contract -- the theoretical basis of thinkers such as Adam Smith -- 
involves forcing people to be free even though he seems to assume that 
preferences are exogenously given: people must be forced by the state to 
accept individual property rights and the property system that preserves 
those rights. This in turn creates the freedom of property-owners to use 
their property as they wish (as long as they don't violate others' property 
rights).  The property system is what economists call a pure public good, 
which cannot exist without coercion by the state. As long as there is a 
state, people are being "forced to be free."

Rousseau's point is that society creates freedom, since there is no such 
thing as "natural" freedom. Without a society "forcing people to free," a 
totally uncivilized and inhuman "state of nature" results. In some ways, 
Rousseau's hypothetical state of nature (stateless society) is worse than 
that of Hobbes, which involves perpetual war. As with Aristotle, Rousseau 
thought that without society people are mere beasts, slaves to instinct and 
necessity.

Contrary to popular opinion, Rousseau did not believe in the "noble savage" 
before or outside society's strictures; rather, he saw small-town 
democracy, as in his idealized visions of his contemporary Geneva and 
ancient Greek city-states, as what to strive for. "Savages" are not moral 
or immoral in his view. They are amoral, since morality arises with society.

Rousseau did assume that people were malleable (his word was 
"perfectible"). Beyond the two instincts he posits (that of survival and 
that of empathy with others), people seem to be mere empty vessels that are 
filled by society. They don't even have bodies, as in Butler's ideas as 
Doug presents them. (It's preminiscent of modern "structuralist" or 
sociological-determinist thinking, which is what Mine seems to believe in.)

Rousseau's solution is to have people democratically decide how they are to 
be molded by society (via education, censorship, a civic religion, etc.), 
so that even though people are forced to be free, they are the ones who 
decide what they are forced to do.  That his solution doesn't really work 
is well known.  I also talk about its problems in a soon-to-be-published 
article in POLITICS  SOCIETY.

To Marx, people are molded by society, but that society is also created by 
people. (To Marx, people are more complicated than for Rousseau, as Justin 
points out.) This two-way interaction occurs not as some sort of 
hypothetical social contract (as seen in Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau) but 
as an historical process. (See Marx  Engels' discussion of the Social 
Contract in THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY.) In the end, Marx looked for a situation 
where people created a society which produced cooperation so that people no 
longer had to live under a state, so that the difference between state and 
society disappeared. This is what Rousseau was hoping for, but never achieved.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: generization


Rod Hay wrote:

No idea is totally socially constructed (unless the thinker is
completely delusional). Every idea is formed through interactions in
society and in nature.

To argue the constructivist position consistently is to ignore the
second part of the epistomological dialect. To live in a world where
ideas make ideas. Thus an idealist world. Plato's universals may have
real manifestations, but he was still an idealist.

Just curious, did you actually read the excerpt I posted? Or is this 
just off the top of your head?

Doug

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)


Carrol Cox wrote:

So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.

Wow. That's just so clarifying. I've learned so much on PEN-L the 
last few days.

Doug

Marx and Malleability


On 17 May 00, at 10:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am surprised to find the canard popping up on thsi list that Marx thought people 
utterly malleable 
and therefore (!) supported undemocratic "re-education" to make them they way theu 
should be. 

I know I am the only one here under the strict surveillance of 
Michael lest I say anything that comes even half way what Mr JK, 
(or GQ, who knows) says here. All I can say to this is that I did not 
say that Marx said this; I said that some of his followers 
understood Marx to have said this, and even his followers have 
never really said "utterly malleable". But, of course, this is the kind 
of 'either or' language that simple radicals have always operated 
under. 

This is an old right-wing misunderstanding, but it has no basis in Marx's own writing.
 
 First, Marx did not think people were utterly malleable. His theory of alienation 
and free labor depends on the idea that it is human nature to want to exercise your 
creative powers in a productive way, and that you will be frustrated and unhappy in 
any society that denies that need. 
 
 Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow from 
malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
 
 Third, the one dominant theme in Marx's ethics is freedom. In the Manifesto, the 
free develpment of each is the condition for the free development of all. In Capital, 
the transcendence of necesasry labor is the enrtryway to the realm of freedom. Nor 
does Marx hold a Rousseauan view about 
freedom being attained by "totalitarian" means (if R holds such a view,w hich I do not 
say). In the Manifesto, the first task of the proletarit is to win the battle of 
democracy. In the Rules of the First International, the fundamental prewmise is that 
the emancipation of the working class can 
only be accomplished by thew orking classes themselves. In the Civil War in France, 
Marx approves the Commune's removing a political functions from the police. Etc.
 
 So, I hope this silliness does not come back. It has not merit.
 
 Carroll, is that red enough for you?
 
 --jks
 
 
 In a message dated Wed, 17 May 2000  9:49:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ricardo 
Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote:
  
  How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects
  of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full
  self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity?
 
 Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that 
 dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The 
 Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in 
 his hands into a  practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that 
 humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations, 
 and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean 
 by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone 
 else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che 
 called this reconstructed self  the "new man". But if Hegel was 
 right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions 
 except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a 
 democratic setting).

Re: Rousseau is not a social constructivist


As I was beginning to realize during an exchange with Jim Devine last Dec, 
while for Rousseau we have rights (become moral beings) as members 
of society, for it is only in  society that we can relate to others 
and thus speak about rights, this does not mean that R had no concept of "nature".
In some of 
his writings you find expressions like this: "Let us lay it down as 
an incontrovertible rule that the first impulses of nature are always 
right; there is no original sin in the human heart." And society is 
blamed for taking us away from this natural impulse. Those societies 
which he does admire also tend to be those with a 'natural' quality: 
"When we see, among the happiest people in the world, groups of 
peasants directing affairs of state under an oak, and always acting 
wisely, can we help but despise the refinements of those nations 
which render themselves illustrious and miserable by so much art and 
mysery" 
Yes, I get the impression that R still held on to some notion 
about what is "natural", something within us which is "good", 
authentic, and which must be rediscovered in order to us to be true 
to ourselves, follow our conscience. But as he knew we could not go back to 
a solitary natural state - if such a state ever existed, he at least 
longed for, celebrated,  small-town life. 

I would even say that the novelty of R  is really the claim 
that somehow we can act according to our  true sentiments, against 
what is socially expected from us.

Re: Marx and Malleability


Ricardo wrote:

He {i.e, Marx]  also thought that humans are constructed by a determinate set of 
social relations, and that humans can be re-constructed,

To which Justin responded., so this protest is unfounded.

Rod



Ricardo Duchesne wrote:

 On 17 May 00, at 10:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I am surprised to find the canard popping up on thsi list that Marx thought people 
utterly malleable
 and therefore (!) supported undemocratic "re-education" to make them they way theu 
should be.

 I know I am the only one here under the strict surveillance of
 Michael lest I say anything that comes even half way what Mr JK,
 (or GQ, who knows) says here. All I can say to this is that I did not
 say that Marx said this; I said that some of his followers
 understood Marx to have said this, and even his followers have
 never really said "utterly malleable". But, of course, this is the kind
 of 'either or' language that simple radicals have always operated
 under.

 This is an old right-wing misunderstanding, but it has no basis in Marx's own 
writing.
 
  First, Marx did not think people were utterly malleable. His theory of alienation 
and free labor depends on the idea that it is human nature to want to exercise your 
creative powers in a productive way, and that you will be frustrated and unhappy in 
any society that denies that need.
 
  Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow from 
malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
 
  Third, the one dominant theme in Marx's ethics is freedom. In the Manifesto, the 
free develpment of each is the condition for the free development of all. In Capital, 
the transcendence of necesasry labor is the enrtryway to the realm of freedom. Nor 
does Marx hold a Rousseauan view about
 freedom being attained by "totalitarian" means (if R holds such a view,w hich I do 
not say). In the Manifesto, the first task of the proletarit is to win the battle of 
democracy. In the Rules of the First International, the fundamental prewmise is that 
the emancipation of the working class can
 only be accomplished by thew orking classes themselves. In the Civil War in France, 
Marx approves the Commune's removing a political functions from the police. Etc.
 
  So, I hope this silliness does not come back. It has not merit.
 
  Carroll, is that red enough for you?
 
  --jks
 
 
  In a message dated Wed, 17 May 2000  9:49:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ricardo 
Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
   On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote:
 
   How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects
   of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full
   self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity?
 
  Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that
  dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The
  Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in
  his hands into a  practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that
  humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations,
  and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean
  by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone
  else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che
  called this reconstructed self  the "new man". But if Hegel was
  right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions
  except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a
  democratic setting).
 
   
 

--
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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)


George Orwell wrote about a future society in 1984. Aldous Huxley wrote about a future 
society in Brave New World, Margaret Atwood wrote about a future society in Handmaid's 
Tale, Ursula LeGuin wrote about a future society in the Dispossed. I don't thing that 
any one of them were suggesting that the scenarios that they outlined "should" be 
followed. What evidence is there that Piercy says that her scenario "should" be 
followed.

Rod

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Justin,

 my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave
 my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her
 poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her
 poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims.  If you
 carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men
 should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an
 ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do
 with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT
 which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this
 ground.

 merci,

 Mine

 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27
 -0400 (EDT)  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:
 Genderization (fwd)  Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I
 think that if I or anyone did so characterize her that that would mean
 that her views did not matter. Whether or not Mine or Piercy or you or I
 adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is whether our views
 are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has concluded
 that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please
 note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not
 think that labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It
 would not tell Carroll anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist,
 because it would not tell him whether I believed the things he things are
 most important.

 Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological 
characteristics determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however 
Mine wanted to characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no 
poarticular evidence that P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she 
thinks P holds it. it is somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She 
has written some political theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male 
exploitation of women during the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the 
grand Coolie Damn, but unlike you or me, she does not normally write her views down 
as political propositions intended to be directly evaluated.

 I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see 
nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of 
biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in 
various ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate 
roles, as she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the 
French revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly 
absed to very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian 
relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits 
of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She  It of the matriach of her New 
England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my 
reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds.

 --jks

 In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
 not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
 does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
 does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
  problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
 stems  from "biological inequality."  Question: Is that a false
 interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
 don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
 Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
 I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
 and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
 Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
 labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
 don't matter.

 To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
 it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
 out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
 doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.

 So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1.

Re: essentialism


Rod Hay wrote:

Carroll, Doug and Mine have all used the word "essentialism" in a sense
that I do not understand.

Nope, not me. Haven't used the word since March 23.

Doug

Re: Genderization, Nursing, Children's Toys

2000-05-17 Thread enilsson


Mine wrote:
  This side effect seems to reinforce traditional gender roles .. If you
   don't breast feed your child, you are not considered to be a real mother. 

When I was a baby (late 1950s) the fad in the USA was to get babies as quickly 
as possible to a bottle. Nursing a child, at that time, was considered old-
fashioned and great social pressure existed to use a bottle. And, in the "old 
days" in the USA well-to-do women didn't nurse at all but hired someone else (a 
nurse-maid)to nurse their children. And, the attempts of evil MNCs to get poor 
women in poor countries to buy formula -- rather than nursing -- is well-
documented. They were somewhat successful in changing social practices in many 
countries. 

The rise of social pressure to nurse a baby as long as possible returned in the 
1980s, I think, associated in some way with conservative trends then current in 
the USA. Certainly nursing can make holding a job very difficult.

(This doesn't mean this return of social pressure to nurse was bad: there are 
certain health advantages for a baby who nurses for at least a number of 
months.) 

But, the biological ability of women to nurse does not mean society forces 
women to nurse (as when I was a baby in the late 1950s and in "the old days"). 
Biology does not force women to nurse; society does.

And, it is not clear what "capitalism wants" as far as nursing goes. In recent 
years social conservatives (who are also pro-capitalist) and certain capitalist 
firms have disagreed over the desirability of nursing.

Eric

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)



I did *not* say that P meant that her scenario should be followed. we are
moving away from the subejct matter of the discussion!

I have to run to finish my term paper, sorry!!

Mine


-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:24:32
-0400 From: Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:
[PEN-L:19117] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd) 

George Orwell wrote about a future society in 1984. Aldous Huxley wrote about a future 
society in Brave New World, Margaret Atwood wrote about a future society in Handmaid's 
Tale, Ursula LeGuin wrote about a future society in the Dispossed. I don't thing that 
any one of them were suggesting that the scenarios that they outlined "should" be 
followed. What evidence is there that Piercy says that her scenario "should" be 
followed.

Rod

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Justin,

 my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave
 my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her
 poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her
 poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims.  If you
 carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men
 should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an
 ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do
 with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT
 which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this
 ground.

 merci,

 Mine

 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27
 -0400 (EDT)  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:
 Genderization (fwd)  Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I
 think that if I or anyone did so characterize her that that would mean
 that her views did not matter. Whether or not Mine or Piercy or you or I
 adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is whether our views
 are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has concluded
 that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please
 note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not
 think that labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It
 would not tell Carroll anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist,
 because it would not tell him whether I believed the things he things are
 most important.

 Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological 
characteristics determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however 
Mine wanted to characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no 
poarticular evidence that P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she 
thinks P holds it. it is somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She 
has written some political theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male 
exploitation of women during the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the 
grand Coolie Damn, but unlike you or me, she does not normally write her views down 
as political propositions intended to be directly evaluated.

 I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see 
nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of 
biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in 
various ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate 
roles, as she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the 
French revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly 
absed to very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian 
relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits 
of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She  It of the matriach of her New 
England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my 
reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds.

 --jks

 In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
 not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
 does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
 does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
  problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
 stems  from "biological inequality."  Question: Is that a false
 interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
 don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
 Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
 I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
 and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
 Piercy can offer

Re: essentialism (fwd)



I don't put myself in the same category with Doug Henwood. we *crazily*
differ over the work of Butler..

Mine

 
Rod Hay wrote: 

Carroll, Doug and Mine have all used the word "essentialism" in a sense
that I do not understand.

Nope, not me. Haven't used the word since March 23.

Doug

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: China


Given your truncation of my post and your avoidance
of my question, the slogans right now would be:

Marty Landsburg, you can't hide;
A trade regime you must decide.

or how about,

Hey hey, ho ho
Red free trade has got to go.

and then there's always

Professors'
evasions
must never be conceded.

stop me before I rhyme again,
mbs


This could be interesting.  And exactly what slogans would you be shouting
as part of this group? Marty

  But I do pledge that as head of the MTO, the headquarters will be moved
  from Geneva to Portland, and you can all come to the first session as my
  honored guests.  Even Max.   Marty

 But w/your policies I might have to join the Black Bloc
 and jam the meeting.

 max

Re: Re: essentialism


OK, my essentialism story. 

I was at a philosophy conference in NYC in maybe 1992 or 3, and I thought I would try 
to learn something about French feminism, which I had tried to read but found opaque 
(impenetrable, ha!). So I went to a panel where three prominent pomo-type feminist 
theorists, all women, if it's relevant, were discoursing on Irigaray, Krestiva, and 
Spivak, mainly. The chair was a friend, Douglas Kellner of Texas, who has coauthored 
several good books on pomo theory.  I did not find the discussion enlightening, but I 
had the same question Rod had about the use of the term "essentialism." 

So I asked, "You all have said that various claims are 'essentialist' and apparently, 
for this reason, bad; but I don't know exactly what that means. Is it being 
essentialist about women, for example, to say that all women have some property P in 
virtue of which they are female and that is manifested in the same way in all 
circumstances regardless of the social environment?" This charcterization was 
violently disclaimed by all three participants, and I was regarded with scorn and 
contempt for my naive question. 

Afterwards, Kellner came to me, and said, 'That's _exactly_ what it means, but you 
lost them when you said "property P."'

--jks

In a message dated Wed, 17 May 2000  1:28:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Rod Hay wrote:

Carroll, Doug and Mine have all used the word "essentialism" in a sense
that I do not understand.

Nope, not me. Haven't used the word since March 23.

Doug

Re: Re: Rousseau is not a social constructivist


Ricardo wrote:
As I was beginning to realize during an exchange with Jim Devine last Dec, 
while for Rousseau we have rights (become moral beings) as members of 
society, for it is only in  society that we can relate to others and thus 
speak about rights, this does not mean that R had no concept of "nature". 
In some of his writings you find expressions like this: "Let us lay it 
down as an incontrovertible rule that the first impulses of nature are 
always right; there is no original sin in the human heart."

As I read his treatise on the origins of inequality, there's also no 
original morality in the human heart. There's his posited instinct to 
sympathize with others, but that can easily be immoral by almost any 
standard (as when someone euthanizes another because of the other's extreme 
pain, without that other's consent).

And society is blamed for taking us away from this natural impulse.

As I read R (and yes, his stuff is in a box somewhere), society _perverts_ 
the human potential for morality (which is based in the sympathy instinct). 
Society creates morality, in his view, but that "morality" might not stand 
up according to more objective standards.

Those societies which he does admire also tend to be those with a 
'natural' quality: "When we see, among the happiest people in the world, 
groups of peasants directing affairs of state under an oak, and always 
acting wisely, can we help but despise the refinements of those nations 
which render themselves illustrious and miserable by so much art and mysery"

This is R's emphasis on the morality of a small democratic (rural) 
community vs. the Big Bad City of Civilization. It's not the same as his 
"state of nature," in which people do not collectively direct the affairs 
of state, under an oak or elsewhere.

BTW, especially in his early writings, it seems that R liked to tweak the 
city folks with their pretensions of the superiority of the city, 
civilization, and enlightenment. He was one example of the Romantic 
reaction to the Enlightenment.

Yes, I get the impression that R still held on to some notion about what 
is "natural", something within us which is "good", authentic, and which 
must be rediscovered in order to us to be true to ourselves, follow our 
conscience.

As suggested above, that's not the basis for his vision of morality. 
Rather, it is the Social Contract, in which the community chooses its own 
society (and that society shapes people to harmoniously choose it). As some 
have pointed out, this is relativistic, since one can imagine a lot of 
different societies like this, with different conceptions of morality. 
Unlike folks like Aristotle or Marx, R had no conception of the existence 
of a moral potential within individuals that could be realized in a 
non-alienating society.

But as he knew we could not go back to a solitary natural state - if such 
a state ever existed, he at least longed for, celebrated,  small-town life.

Of course, the "solitary natural state," like other "states of nature" was 
a myth. Further, his state of nature was in many ways nastier, more 
brutish, and shorter than that of Hobbes. Look at the first part of his 
essay on the origins of inequality. R objected very strenuously to the 
introduction (by Hobbes  Locke) of elements of society into the state of 
nature, so people end up as mere beasts.

I would even say that the novelty of R  is really the claim that somehow 
we can act according to our  true sentiments, against
what is socially expected from us.

I don't think so. I think the literature's emphasis on R's conception of 
human malleability is accurate.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Genderization

2000-05-17 Thread Ted Winslow


Ricardo wrote:

 
 Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that
 dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The
 Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in
 his hands into a  practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that
 humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations,
 and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean
 by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone
 else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che
 called this reconstructed self  the "new man". But if Hegel was
 right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions
 except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a
 democratic setting).

Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as
self-determination from Kant and Hegel.

"We presuppose labour in a form in which it is an exclusively human
characteristic.  A spider conducts operations which resemble those of the
weaver, and a bee would put many a human architect to shame by the
construction of its honeycomb cells.  But what distinguishes the worst
architect from the best of bees is that the architect builds the cell in his
mind before he constructs it in wax.  At the end of every labour process, a
result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the
beginning, hence already existed ideally.  Man not only effects a change of
form in the materials of nature; he also realizes his own purpose in those
materials.  And this is a purpose he is conscious of, it determines the mode
of his activity with the rigidity of a law, and he must subordinate his will
to it."  Capital, vol. 1, pp. 283-4

"By right we ought only to describe as art, production through freedom, i.e.
through a will that places reason at the basis of its actions.  For although
we like to call the product of bees (regularly built cells of wax) a work of
art, this is only by way of analogy; as soon as we feel that this work of
theirs is based on no proper rational deliberation, we say that it is a
product of nature (of instinct).
"If, as sometimes happens, in searching through a bog we come upon a bit
of shaped wood, we do not say, this is a product of nature, but of art.  Its
producing cause has conceived a purpose to which the plank owes its form.
Elsewhere too we should see art in everything which is made, so that a
representative of it in its cause must have preceded its actual existence
(as even in the case of bees), though without the effect of it even being
capable of being thought.  But if we call anything absolutely a work of art,
in order to distinguish it from a natural effect, we always understand by
that a work of man." Kant, Critique of Judgement (Bernard translation),
p.145-6

"Man is not only immediate and single, like all other natural things; as
mind, he also reduplicates himself, existing for himself because he thinks
himself.  He does this, in the first place, theoretically, by bringing
himself into his own consciousness, so as to form an idea of himself.  But
he also realizes himself for himself through practical activity.  This he
does by reshaping external things, by setting the seal of his inner being
upon them, thereby endowing them with his own characteristics.  Man's
spiritual freedom consists in this reduplicating process of human
consciousness, whereby all that exists is made explicit within him and all
that is in him is realized without.  Here not only artistic making but all
human behaving and explaining whether in the forms of political and moral
action, religious imaginative awareness, or scientific knowledge--has its
ground and necessary origin."  (Hegel, Aesthetics, pp. 3-4)

As I suggested in an earlier post, Marx treats "relations of production" as
key to the development of "freedom" in the Kant/Hegel sense.  Prior to the
"end of history" these relations are less than fully compatible with such
development ("less than fully compatible" does not mean wholly incompatible
with any positive development, however; the developmental process is
"dialectical").  

This is in no small part because they involve coercion - it is the kind and
degree of coercion entailed in their relations of production that identify
the successive "stages" in this process.

The relations necessary for the full development of individual autonomy are
completely free of coercion.

In the third thesis on Feuerbach, Marx explicitly rejects the "materialism"
which excludes any role for self-determination and which implicitly
underpins the idea that "good" people can be "constructed"  through
coercive imposition.

"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and
upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that the
educator must himself be educated.  This doctrine must, therefore, divide
society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
"The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human

Re: Re: Re: essentialism


At 01:58 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote:
   I did not find the discussion enlightening, but I had the same question 
 Rod had about the use of the term "essentialism."

since those who regularly employ the term "essentialism" are 
anti-Enlightenment, should it be a surprise that their discussion isn't 
enlightening?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)


:-)
Can't reds have fun?

Carrol

Doug Henwood wrote:

 Carrol Cox wrote:

 So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
 wins, zero to minus 1.

 Wow. That's just so clarifying. I've learned so much on PEN-L the
 last few days.

 Doug

Re: Re: essentialism


At 01:35 PM 5/17/00 -0500, you wrote:
I don't think I've ever used the term -- though Mine's use of it, 
*qualified*, in the phrase "biological essentialism," seems 
unobjectionable. Justin's friend was probably correct about the use of it 
by French feminists and their followers, but I'm no expert there.

As I understand it, the word "essence" refers to what I would instead call 
the "shared characteristics" of some set of objects or people (or ideas) 
being studied. ("Essence" has the Platonic connotation of the "ideal form." 
So I would drop the term altogether, using "shared characteristics" instead.)

Men (male humans) are different is lots of ways, but they share a lot of 
characteristics, including having the XY chromosome pairing.

It would be "essentialist" to reduce men to that characteristic (or set of 
characteristics), to abstract from their concrete differences from each 
other (and the characteristics they share with women). It would also be 
reductionist to forget human heterogeneity in this way. By abstracting from 
heterogeneity, one also abstracts from the social interactions amongst men 
(and with women).

One version of this type of essentialism would be to reduce the cultural 
(gender) dimension of men -- masculinity -- to this kind of "essence." This 
would be biological determinism.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: essentialism


It would be "essentialist" to reduce men to that characteristic...


It is also "essentialist" to speak of "men" as a category that a
single thought can "reduce"...

It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism" as a
single intellectual move that has common effects in a wide
range of domains...

It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism"
as if it has an "essence" that can be unproblematically
labeled...

It is also "essentialist" to label "essentialism"
as "essentialist"...

It is also "essentialist" to subject all
"essentialism" to the common criticism of
being "essentialist"...

To deny the heterogeneity of the
different things collected under
the heading of "essentialism" is
"essentially" "essentialist"...


:-)

Genderization




 Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 06:45PM 
Jim Devine wrote:

I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. 
If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, 
then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so 
well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they 
should be flushed down the toilet?

Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" 
means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no 
existence apart from the system of monetary representation that it 
emerged from. It doesn't feed people or make them happy, but 
important folks pay lots of attention to it and it guides their 
actions.

)))

CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ?



Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always 
important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or 
"nature" - is invoked.

__

CB: Ideologically what is happening is an aspect of a materialist analysis. The 
distinction between materialism and idealism is important in ideology




When people start talking about hormones, 
there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment 
there's no appeal. 

_

CB: This should be "when some people start talking about hormones". Talking about 
hormones does not at all necessarily imply invocation of physical necessity against 
whose judgment there is no appeal. It can be discussion of a  tendency which exists 
amidst other tendencies and influences, including cultural influences.  Attributing 
absolute biologism to ANY reference to biology is not too difficult to see around.

People are cultural and natural beings, both. Distain of our biology is as foolish as 
disdain of our culture.  We have not transcended our biological natures utterly. So, 
discussion of hormones, and the biology of hormones is sensible, though it doesn't 
mean culture cannot also be discussed. It doesn't at all mean we must discuss hormones 
as if they are a physical necessity against whose judgment there is no appeal, rather 
as an factor intertwined with cultural factors.

___


Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of 
interest or unemployment. As Keynes said of the "natural" rate of 
interest, it's the one that is most likely to preserve the status 
quo; I think you'll find the same when "natural" differences between 
the sexes (not genders) are invoked.

___

CB: Isn't it clear that biology impinges more directly on sex than on the rate of 
unemployment or interest ? Does the difference really have to be explained ?  Do you 
really think there are no natural differences between the sexes ?  Do you really think 
there is no natural such that you write "natural" in quotes ?

CB

Re: GDP


At 03:07 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote:
CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ?

no, it's a pretty good measure of the extent of market activity (or 
exchange-value). However, the "hoodwinking" comes in when economists treat 
(real) GDP as a measure of what's good for society (as a measure of 
use-value) and nature.

And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds like a 
conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the national income 
and product accounts in order to get some idea of what was happening to the 
economy as a whole. Compared to the microeconomic perspective, it was a 
step forward. In fact, the NIPAs reflect Keynesian ideas, just as the old 
Soviet system of Material Product Accounts reflect (a misinterpretation of) 
Marx's ideas.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

[Fwd: RE: General status of gender relations vs.Quibbles]




 Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 07:28PM 
This was one of the most illuminating of the contributions
to lbo on the questions of sex and gender, "social construction"
and biology.



On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Seth Ackerman wrote:



I smell a fallacy here, or perhaps a few.  

First off, it may be possible that social/discursive phenomena in fact
are
real.  

More fundamentally, it seems that much of the recent gender talk has
been
based on a category error.  The question seems to be whether
such-and-such
gender phenomena is really social/discursive or really based on nature
(genes, etc). Specifically, is gender difference in regard to sexual
preferences based on nature, or is it socialized.  Its not clear to me
that this is an appropriate (exclusive) disjunction.  It may be
analogous
to asking whether something is white or warm-blooded (versus e.g. white
or
black). The 'nature basedness' of a phenomenon does not necessarily
preclude it being social, and a fortiori does not make a sociological
analysis of the phenomena inappropriate  

-clip-

_

CB: Butler and following seem to tend to make the converse error. The fact that human 
sex is a social, historical and cultural fact does necessarily preclude it being a 
biological fact at the same time , does not make a biological analysis of the 
phenomenon inappropriate.

That human sex is discursive does not mean that hormones have nothing to do with 
shaping it. 


CB

Re: Marx and Malleability


On 17 May 00, at 13:20, Rod Hay wrote:

 Ricardo wrote:
 
 He {i.e, Marx]  also thought that humans are constructed by a determinate set of 
social relations,
and that humans can be re-constructed,
 
 To which Justin responded., so this protest is unfounded.
 
 Rod

yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well 
aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be 
democratic and the one who tends to be dictatorial.

Re: Genderization


Charles Brown wrote:

CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ?

You channeling Chang?

No it wasn't constructed to hoodwink the people. It was constructed 
to get a picture of the macroeconomy. Planning for WW II accelerated 
the process in the U.S., but national income accounting in general 
has a long history that has little to do with hoodwinking the people.

Doug

RE: Re: Re: Re: essentialism

2000-05-17 Thread Mark Jones


J Bradford De Long:

It is also "essentialist" to speak of "men" as a category that a
 single thought can "reduce"...

   It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism" as a
   single intellectual move that has common effects in a wide
   range of domains...

   It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism"
   as if it has an "essence" that can be unproblematically
   labeled...

   It is also "essentialist" to label "essentialism"
   as "essentialist"...

   It is also "essentialist" to subject all
   "essentialism" to the common criticism of
   being "essentialist"...

   To deny the heterogeneity of the
   different things collected under
   the heading of "essentialism" is
   "essentially" "essentialist"...


Listen, I have a small jar of vanilla essence in my kitchen, what does that
make me? Vanilla or essential?

Mark Jones

Re: Re: GDP


Jim Devine wrote:

And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds 
like a conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the 
national income and product accounts in order to get some idea of 
what was happening to the economy as a whole.

No it doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. The idea of "the 
economy as a whole" is a relatively recent historical innovation; 
people didn't think of an abstraction known as the economy until 
about 150 years ago. Why do we keep our accounts in national form? 
Why do we think of The Economy as nationally bounded? Why is it that 
only final sales are counted? (I think about half of all transactions 
are intermediate, and don't appear in the NIPAs.) Why is it that most 
nonmonetary transactions are excluded? Why is it that homeowner's 
rent is imputed? (Ever look at the imputations table in the annual 
NIPAs? Lots of stuff is imputed.) Why was software once counted as an 
expense, and now appears as an investment? Why do the flow of funds 
accountants treat consumer durables as an investment, and the NIPA 
folks treat them as consumption? Why do we separate the flow of funds 
and the NIPAs, though the SNA model unifies them? There are a whole 
lot of assumptions embedded in the NIPAs that we think of as 
perfectly "natural," but aren't natural at all.

Doug

Re: Re: Re: essentialism (fwd)



actually, you are describing yourself, since you "misrepresented" the
marxist position as built upon false dichotomies like biological versus
cultural determinism.

marxist position is not essentialist. it is dialectial and dynamic,which
is what makes it a very "enlightenment" thinking..

Mine


 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:12:56
-0700 From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:
[PEN-L:19126] Re: Re: Re: essentialis At 01:58 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you
wrote:   I did not find the discussion enlightening, but I had the same
question  Rod had about the use of the term "essentialism."

since those who regularly employ the term "essentialism" are 
anti-Enlightenment, should it be a surprise that their discussion isn't 
enlightening?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: GDP


At 03:50 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:

And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds like a 
conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the national 
income and product accounts in order to get some idea of what was 
happening to the economy as a whole.

No it doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. The idea of "the economy as 
a whole" is a relatively recent historical innovation; people didn't think 
of an abstraction known as the economy until about 150 years ago. Why do 
we keep our accounts in national form? Why do we think of The Economy as 
nationally bounded? Why is it that only final sales are counted? (I think 
about half of all transactions are intermediate, and don't appear in the 
NIPAs.) Why is it that most nonmonetary transactions are excluded? Why is 
it that homeowner's rent is imputed? (Ever look at the imputations table 
in the annual NIPAs? Lots of stuff is imputed.) Why was software once 
counted as an expense, and now appears as an investment? Why do the flow 
of funds accountants treat consumer durables as an investment, and the 
NIPA folks treat them as consumption? Why do we separate the flow of funds 
and the NIPAs, though the SNA model unifies them? There are a whole lot of 
assumptions embedded in the NIPAs that we think of as perfectly "natural," 
but aren't natural at all.

it sounds conspiratorial the way Charles said it. But you're right that the 
NIPAs reflect the process of political conflict.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights



If one really wants the world to improve, one has to make an effort 
to _change_ the balance of power. That involves _organizing_ people 
to counteract the powers that be.

It does not mean that we say "oh, there's only one choice: a bogus 
'free trade' bill that forces African countries to toe the 
neoliberal Party Line OR continued protection for the evil Roger 
Miliken and his puppets." It means that we have to look for better 
alternatives, like the bill proposed by JJJr.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine

I think that removing quotas on U.S. imports of African-made textiles 
will make the world a better place: more better jobs at better wages 
for Africans. It isn't "bogus."

As Michel Foucault once said: "There is a difference between 
criticizing 'reformism' as a political practice, and criticizing a 
political practice because it might lead to a reform."

The first involves criticizing people who think that whatever is 
currently politically attainable is enough--that one should do what 
is immediately possible, and then stop and go home.

The second involves refusing to do what is currently politically 
attainable on the grounds that it isn't enough...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


At 10:48 AM 05/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not 
follow from malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.

Rousseau used the seemingly sinister saying about forcing people to 
be free. But one of his points, I believe, is that _any_ society 
involves forcing people to be free.

Well, most societies force people to be *not* free.

It is very important to maintain a proper distinction between 
"forcing people to be free" and "forcing people not to be free"...

Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: essentialism


Listen, I have a small jar of vanilla essence in my kitchen, what does that
make me? Vanilla or essential?

Mark Jones

You cannot have such a jar. The critique of essentialism has finally, 
totally, and completely demonstrated that the "essence" of vanilla 
does not exist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: essentialism (fwd)



since those who regularly employ the term "essentialism" are
anti-Enlightenment, should it be a surprise that their discussion isn't
enlightening?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

ROFLOL...

Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
democratic and the one who tends to be dictatorial.

A kinder, gentler way to put it is that there are two Marxes, the one 
who believes in the free development of each and the one who believes 
that when they fight their oppressors the people have one single 
general will that the dictatorship of the proletariat expresses...

Ole Charlie didn't understand much about political organization, or 
tyranny of the majority, or bureaucratic process, or separation of 
powers, or rights that people should be able to exercise against 
every form of state. In many ways Tocqueville thought deeper and saw 
further as far as political sociology is concerned...


Brad DeLong

Re: Genderization


On 17 May 00, at 14:05, Ted Winslow wrote:


 
 Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as
 self-determination from Kant and Hegel.


in the process transforming its meaning and, as Habermas would 
say, reducing it to "techne", and though there is a critical reflective 
aspect to Marx, it is still strictly in terms of class consciousness.

Kant: 
 "By right we ought only to describe as art, production through freedom, i.e.
 through a will that places reason at the basis of its actions.  For although
 we like to call the product of bees (regularly built cells of wax) a work of
 art, this is only by way of analogy; as soon as we feel that this work of
 theirs is based on no proper rational deliberation, we say that it is a
 product of nature (of instinct).
 "If, as sometimes happens, in searching through a bog we come upon a bit
 of shaped wood, we do not say, this is a product of nature, but of art.  Its
 producing cause has conceived a purpose to which the plank owes its form.
 Elsewhere too we should see art in everything which is made, so that a
 representative of it in its cause must have preceded its actual existence
 (as even in the case of bees), though without the effect of it even being
 capable of being thought.  But if we call anything absolutely a work of art,
 in order to distinguish it from a natural effect, we always understand by
 that a work of man." Kant, Critique of Judgement (Bernard translation),
 p.145-6


This is one cognitive faculty among two others; Marx goes too far 
in his reduction of Kant's practical (ethical) judgement to bourgeois 
consciousness; it is true that this is a form of judgement *that has 
developed* and is not the self-expression of an abstract ego, but I 
think it is important that we understand that the French 
revolutionaries were actually realizing this rational moral agent.

Hegel:
 "Man is not only immediate and single, like all other natural things; as
 mind, he also reduplicates himself, existing for himself because he thinks
 himself.  He does this, in the first place, theoretically, by bringing
 himself into his own consciousness, so as to form an idea of himself.  But
 he also realizes himself for himself through practical activity.  This he
 does by reshaping external things, by setting the seal of his inner being
 upon them, thereby endowing them with his own characteristics.  Man's
 spiritual freedom consists in this reduplicating process of human
 consciousness, whereby all that exists is made explicit within him and all
 that is in him is realized without.  Here not only artistic making but all
 human behaving and explaining whether in the forms of political and moral
 action, religious imaginative awareness, or scientific knowledge--has its
 ground and necessary origin."  (Hegel, Aesthetics, pp. 3-4)


Hegel thought that Kant's three forms of judgement could be 
reconstituted under Reason...runnning out of time, see below for a 
bit more.

 In the third thesis on Feuerbach, Marx explicitly rejects the "materialism"
 which excludes any role for self-determination and which implicitly
 underpins the idea that "good" people can be "constructed"  through
 coercive imposition.

That's just one sentence about which too much fuss has been 
made due to a religious reading of Marx. But I think Lenin was right 
that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is already 
there in Marx: you have to be naive politically to think that the 
radical policies which Marx is calling for - as in the Manifesto - can 
be accomplished without coercion.
 
The concept of self-determination in Faust has to be sublated, and 
it in fact was sublated later in European thinking, as Hegel showed 
in the Phen.
 
 The nature of "autonomy" is such that individuals can only attain it through
 their own efforts.  This is, by the way, also the ultimate insight to which
 Goethe's Faust is brought by his own process of "bildung".
 
 I work that millions may possess this space,
 If not secure, a free and active race.
 Here man and beast, in green and fertile fields,
 Will know the joys that new-won region yields,
 Will settle on the firm slopes of a hill
 Raised by a bold and zealous people's skill.
 A paradise our closed-in land provides,
 Though to its margin rage the blustering tides;
 When they eat through, in fierce devouring flood,
 All swiftly join to make the damage good.
 Ay, in this thought I pledge my faith unswerving,
 Here wisdom speaks its final word and true,
 None is of freedom or of life deserving
 unless he daily conquers it anew.
 With dangers thus begirt, defying fears,
 Childhood, youth, age shall strive through strenuous
 years
 Such busy, teeming throngs I long to see,
 Standing on freedom's soil, a people free.
 Then to the moment could I say:
 Linger you now, you are so fair!
 Now records of my earthly day
 No flight of aeons can

African trade (was lots of re:) Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights

2000-05-17 Thread Eugene Coyle




Brad De Long wrote:

 I think that removing quotas on U.S. imports of African-made textiles
 will make the world a better place: more better jobs at better wages
 for Africans. It isn't "bogus."


If there are going to be better jobs at better wages in Africa, where
are the folks who lose their jobs?

Guatamala?  China?  Indonesia? USA?

Somebody has to pay with their livelihood.

Or is your argument that clothes will become so much cheaper we will
throw them away just that much more rapidly that demand will meet the
new supply?

Gene Coyle

Re: Re: Re: Re: essentialism (fwd)


In response to Justin's comment, I made the following joke: since those 
who regularly employ the term "essentialism" are anti-Enlightenment, should 
it be a surprise that their discussion isn't enlightening?

responding to this, Mine wrote:
actually, you are describing yourself, since you "misrepresented" the 
marxist position as built upon false dichotomies like biological versus 
cultural determinism.

I don't understand why the word "misrepresented" is in quotation marks.

I didn't know that one could refer to "the marxist position" as if all 
Marxists had exactly the same position on this issue -- or any other. 
Marxism isn't a dogma, a bunch of formulas, or a catechism. Rather, it's a 
debate (though there are important agreements amongst Marxists).

I didn't apply a "dichotomy" between biological vs. cultural determinism, 
because there are other alternatives, including a dialectical and dynamic 
view of the sort I would advocate.

Are you trying to insult me?

marxist position is not essentialist. it is dialectial and dynamic,which 
is what makes it a very "enlightenment" thinking..

That's easy to say, but hard to actually do. I was trying to start to 
develop that view.

The connection between Marx and the Enlightenment is complex. He learned a 
lot from Kant (et al.) but also was quite critical of the Enlightenment 
perspective. He added to (and subtracted from) the Enlightenment 
perspective(s).

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


Not contradictory.  As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
temporary waystation to allow the future free development.

Brad De Long wrote:

 yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
 aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
 democratic and the one who tends to be dictatorial.

 A kinder, gentler way to put it is that there are two Marxes, the one
 who believes in the free development of each and the one who believes
 that when they fight their oppressors the people have one single
 general will that the dictatorship of the proletariat expresses...

 Ole Charlie didn't understand much about political organization, or
 tyranny of the majority, or bureaucratic process, or separation of
 powers, or rights that people should be able to exercise against
 every form of state. In many ways Tocqueville thought deeper and saw
 further as far as political sociology is concerned...

 Brad DeLong

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

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

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: China

2000-05-17 Thread Martin Hart-Landsberg


Max,

Your post was truncated to be kind to you.  Keeping China out of the WTO
has little to do with creating a new or improved trade regime, much less
promoting progressive politics in the U.S. or international solidarity.
And this is my reward -- more insults!  I have posted your rhymes on
culture.com and will forward the experts feedback and perhaps a
contract for a new cd.  RAP by MBS. 

As to defending my honor from these slurs 

1. Ordinarily I would not mind people misspelling my name but as head of a
new trade organization it must be done right: Sir Marty Hart-Landsberg.

2. I am for managed trade, capital controls, etc.  I do not have a
complete trade regime to present.  That is what secret green room meetings
are to determine; and I now withdraw my invitation to you to participate.
However, I do not see that as a serious problem for the moment.  It
certainly does not keep me from recognizing that the issue of China in the
WTO is a distraction from doing two things: reshaping the international
trade regime and building a radicalized working class movement in the U.S.

3. The WTO is a serious problem, so is the IMF and WB. The fact that
people are working on these problems is not sufficient.  We need to give
them the priority over the China question.  Getting rid of the IMF and WB
would do more to transform the international trading regime then keeping
China out of the WTO.  Focusign on the China question creates confusion as
to the nature of the movement we are or should be trying to build.

4.  Finally, the question of a new trade regime -- by which I take it you
mean a new worked out WTO or MTO -- is secondary to building real poltical
movements that are anti-capitalist in their orientation.  Only with such
movements can we really challenge the existing regime.  Again, that does
not keep me from seeing the value of supporting debt cancellation, capital
controls, resisting the WTO and MAI, etc.  

5.  And finally, finally, I concede to your superior rhyme making. Your
invitation is reextended.  

Sir MHL.



On Wed, 17 May 2000, Max Sawicky wrote:

 Given your truncation of my post and your avoidance
 of my question, the slogans right now would be:
 
 Marty Landsburg, you can't hide;
 A trade regime you must decide.
 
 or how about,
 
 Hey hey, ho ho
 Red free trade has got to go.
 
 and then there's always
 
 Professors'
 evasions
 must never be conceded.
 
 stop me before I rhyme again,
 mbs
 
 
 This could be interesting.  And exactly what slogans would you be shouting
 as part of this group? Marty
 
   But I do pledge that as head of the MTO, the headquarters will be moved
   from Geneva to Portland, and you can all come to the first session as my
   honored guests.  Even Max.   Marty
 
  But w/your policies I might have to join the Black Bloc
  and jam the meeting.
 
  max

Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


Brad writes:
... there are two Marxes, the one who believes in the free development of 
each and the one who believes that when they fight their oppressors the 
people have one single general will that the dictatorship of the 
proletariat expresses...

There are clearly two traditions in _Marxism_, but Marx himself fits only 
the first Marx that Brad describes. Hal Draper's book on Marx's political 
writings shows this very clearly. Draper also has a useful little essay, 
"the Two Souls of Socialism," which distinguishes between the two 
traditions in Marxism and in socialism in general. There's socialism from 
above (Stalinism, social democracy, most utopians) and socialism from 
below, which is summarized by Marx's slogan that socialism can only be won 
by the working class itself.

(One could extend this distinction to that between capitalism from above 
(Yeltsin, the World Bank, the IMF, etc.) and capitalism from below (the 
small business perspective).)

Draper also argues that during the period that Marx wrote, the word 
"dictatorship" had a different meaning than it does today. Meanings change 
over time, just as the phrase "the dictatorship of the proletariat" has 
taken on the meaning of "the dictatorship for, or in the name of, the 
proletariat" or "the dictatorship over the proletariat" (as a result of the 
Soviet and Chinese experiences).

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" for Marx was an alternative to what 
he saw as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" ruling capitalism. Since 
Marx didn't see an opposition between dictatorship and democracy of the 
sort that we posit today, this can be restated as saying that he favored 
"proletarian democracy" over "bourgeois democracy." Of course, this is not 
an argument for using the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the 
present context, since it has taken on new meaning.

Ole Charlie [Marx?] didn't understand much about political organization, 
or tyranny of the majority, or bureaucratic process, or separation of 
powers, or rights that people should be able to exercise against every 
form of state. In many ways Tocqueville thought deeper and saw further as 
far as political sociology is concerned...

Just as people should read Marge Piercy before jumping to conclusions about 
her perspectives, you should read Draper's multi-volume KARL MARX'S THEORY 
OF REVOLUTION, which is a quite exhaustive (and exhausting). In fact, the 
first volume has the word "bureaucracy" in its title. Guess what? Marx was 
against bureaucracy, while his experience with the Prussian monarchy 
encouraged a general anti-statism on his part. His main distinction 
vis-a-vis the anarchists on this question was that he didn't want to smash 
the state immediately. Instead, he saw workers' control of the state as 
needed first.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: GDP


Wasn't there a rush to improve data as in important element of WW I by the
people associated with what became the NBER?  I assume that Kuznets was
connected to that effort, or at least some residue of it.

Jim Devine wrote:

 At 03:50 PM 5/17/00 -0400, you wrote:
 Jim Devine wrote:
 
 And the idea that GDP was "socio-politically constructed" sounds like a
 conspiracy theory. People like Simon Kuznets developed the national
 income and product accounts in order to get some idea of what was
 happening to the economy as a whole.
 
 No it doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. The idea of "the economy as
 a whole" is a relatively recent historical innovation; people didn't think
 of an abstraction known as the economy until about 150 years ago. Why do
 we keep our accounts in national form? Why do we think of The Economy as
 nationally bounded? Why is it that only final sales are counted? (I think
 about half of all transactions are intermediate, and don't appear in the
 NIPAs.) Why is it that most nonmonetary transactions are excluded? Why is
 it that homeowner's rent is imputed? (Ever look at the imputations table
 in the annual NIPAs? Lots of stuff is imputed.) Why was software once
 counted as an expense, and now appears as an investment? Why do the flow
 of funds accountants treat consumer durables as an investment, and the
 NIPA folks treat them as consumption? Why do we separate the flow of funds
 and the NIPAs, though the SNA model unifies them? There are a whole lot of
 assumptions embedded in the NIPAs that we think of as perfectly "natural,"
 but aren't natural at all.

 it sounds conspiratorial the way Charles said it. But you're right that the
 NIPAs reflect the process of political conflict.

 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

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

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

Re: Genderization




 Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/17/00 03:43PM 
Charles Brown wrote:

CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ?

You channeling Chang?

No it wasn't constructed to hoodwink the people. It was constructed 
to get a picture of the macroeconomy. 

___

CB: The economists who wanted to get a picture of the macroeconomy wanted the picture 
to help the overwhelming majority of the people or to help the small minority make 
profits ?  I don't trust those economists' motives in getting this overall picture of 
the economy. 

_



Planning for WW II accelerated 
the process in the U.S., but national income accounting in general 
has a long history that has little to do with hoodwinking the people.

__

Marx and Malleability



 Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/17/00 04:36PM
 Ole Charlie didn't understand much about political organization, or
 tyranny of the majority, or bureaucratic process, or separation of
 powers, or rights that people should be able to exercise against
 every form of state. In many ways Tocqueville thought deeper and saw
 further as far as political sociology is concerned...

_

CB: What is your theory of democracy ? Do you start with popular sovereignty like the 
U.S. Constitution ?

You know tyranny of the majority is a much lesser problem. Madison's attention to that 
is UNdemocratic on his part and the others. They are trying to undermine democracy 
when they focus on that rather than fulfiling popular sovereignty.  The main problem 
in history is tyranny of minorities.
Marx knew this by the way.


CB

Re: Re: Genderization

2000-05-17 Thread Stephen E Philion


If Charles is channelling Chang, he's doing a bad job of it. He forgot to
add that we have nothing to fear from unemployment...

Steve

On Wed, 17 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:

 Charles Brown wrote:
 
 CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ?
 
 You channeling Chang?
 
 No it wasn't constructed to hoodwink the people. It was constructed 
 to get a picture of the macroeconomy. Planning for WW II accelerated 
 the process in the U.S., but national income accounting in general 
 has a long history that has little to do with hoodwinking the people.
 
 Doug

Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability



I think Brad is right that Marx didn't think much about political sociology from the 
perspective of institutional design, or about how group dynamics might work in a 
postrevolutionary society. I do not think that supportds the "two Marx" thesis, one 
democratic and one dictatorisl. Marx was entirely democratic, but he was also pretty 
naive in a sort of willfull way about practical postrevolutionary politics. See his 
marginal comments on Bakunin's prescient criticisms of Marxism. 

I do not think that much can be read into the "dictatorship of the proletariat," and 
certainly not that it is a temporary "dictatorship" in the modern  sense of 
unrestrained lawless repressive rule. I think Marx meant something like temporary 
class rule, in the sense that a postrevolutionary state would be, he thought, a 
worker's state. I think it is clear that he did not conceive it as a rule of force 
unrestrained by law, as Lenin put it--L was advocating this.

It is stuff like this that makes me a liberal democrat in politics. I am aware, of 
course, a transition to a noncapiatlist society is not likely to bea ccomplished 
through the ordinary process of voting and campaigning, and that if it is ever 
established over probable violent resistance by procapitalist forces, the rule of law 
is likely to be a bit dicey for a bit, as it has been with every major social 
transformation. The loyalists were brutalized after the American Revolution, for 
example. 
However, if we are to think about a society worth fighting for having, there are norms 
it is essential to uphold and maintain,a nd these are, for the most part, embodied in 
liberal democratic values: equal citizenship, universal suffrage, competitive 
elections, extensive civil and political liberties, and the rule of law. These were 
things we might liearn something about from Tocqueville, as Brad says. ANd from 
Rousseau, who thougtht about them deeply.

--jks

* * * 

Michael Perlman writes:

 Not contradictory.  As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
temporary waystation to allow the future free development.

Brad De Long wrote:

 yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
 aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
 democratic and the one who tends to be dictatorial.

 A kinder, gentler way to put it is that there are two Marxes, the one
 who believes in the free development of each and the one who believes
 that when they fight their oppressors the people have one single
 general will that the dictatorship of the proletariat expresses...

 Ole Charlie didn't understand much about political organization, or
 tyranny of the majority, or bureaucratic process, or separation of
 powers, or rights that people should be able to exercise against
 every form of state. In many ways Tocqueville thought deeper and saw
 further as far as political sociology is concerned...

 Brad DeLong

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

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

RE: [Fwd: On Common Sense, was Re: Only one sex?]


CB: I was just discussing a related issue with an anthropology professor
friend of mine. She was giving me the latest on the two main theories on
origin of homo sapiens. The one called "regionalism" has members of the
genus homo ( but not homo sapiens), homo erectus , I think, on several
continents ,not just in Africa. Following regionalism she thought all
continents would likely be the origin of homo sapiens OUT OF THE OTHER GENUS
HOMOS. . . .



Left barber college
Searching for knowledge,
Went to the university;

I must confess, sir,
This lady professor
Turned me on to anthropology;

Now I'm a Homo Erectus,
Got to connect this
Bone that I discovered yesterday;
Tyrannosaurus
Lived in the forest,
Died because his heart got in the way

Dear Doctor Howard,
Come down from your tower,
And join me for lunch at the Y,
Although you're thirty,
I still think you're purty;
Let's give it
That good old college try.

I'm Doctor Homo Erectus,
got to connect this
bone that I discovered yesterday;
Tyrannosaurus
Lived in the forest
Died because his heart got in the way.

[repeat]

-- Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: China


. . .
2. I am for managed trade, capital controls, etc.  I do not have a
complete trade regime to present.  . . .


Well just give us a rough idea.  You
will not be graded on style points,
precision, or rhyming.  Simple is fine.
I'm not interested in a blueprint for a
new WTO.  I certainly don't have one.
What basic regulations would you promulgate
with respect to merchandise trade?

I must decline participation in your green room
meetings in any event because I don't do trade.
I just yak about it on PEN-L.  Call me if you
need ideas about taxes or privatization.

My misspelling of your name was unintentional.
Don't anyone accuse me of using spelling to
liken you to a hamburger.  I do have some
decency.  Usually.  Most of the time.
Pretty often.

mbs

Re: Re: Re: Re: essentialism




Brad De Long wrote:

 It would be "essentialist" to reduce men to that characteristic...

 It is also "essentialist" to speak of "men" as a category that a
 single thought can "reduce"...

 It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism" as a
 single intellectual move that has common effects in a wide
 range of domains...

 It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism"
 as if it has an "essence" that can be unproblematically
 labeled...

 It is also "essentialist" to label "essentialism"

[snip]

Brad just touches on the various "paradoxes of substance."  May
I repeat that Kenneth Burke is really fascinating on this.

Carrol

Marx's Daughter Son-In-Law was, Re: Marx and Malleability




"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:

  I think that
 it is worth keeping in mind that his own daughter and son-in-
 law were gunned down at le mur des Communards in the Pere
 Lachaise cemetary at the end of that sad episode,

As I recall, they had a hairy time of it, but they lived to commit
suicide together some decades later.

Carrol

Re: Re: Genderization


Although Marx certainly emphasized "techne" I doubt if there is any passage where
he rejects the other aspects. And again with class consciousness, it is
emphasized, because it is one of the main fault lines in the capitalism system,
but I have never seen any indication that Marx thought that it was the totality of
critical refection. Habermas and the rest of the critical theorists are simply
wrong.

Rod

Ricardo Duchesne wrote:

 On 17 May 00, at 14:05, Ted Winslow wrote:


  Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as
  self-determination from Kant and Hegel.

 in the process transforming its meaning and, as Habermas would
 say, reducing it to "techne", and though there is a critical reflective
 aspect to Marx, it is still strictly in terms of class consciousness.



--
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

Genderization

2000-05-17 Thread Sam Pawlett




Doug Henwood wrote:
 
 Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always
 important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or
 "nature" - is invoked.

Yes.

 When people start talking about hormones,
 there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment
 there's no appeal.

Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species
will fail to reproduce itself. This is a physical necessity given that
humans reproduce sexually -with all its evolutionary benefits e.g.
against disease-- rather than asexually. It is possible now for the
species to reproduce through artificial insemination and even it were
desirable I don't see it making much of a difference in the
socialization/genderization process. 


As for 'gender' there are enormous cross-cultural differences in how
children are reared and the sexual division of labor they are placed in.
There are (were?) matrilineal(sp) societies, all suggesting that most if
not all differences in gender are socially constructed.
Of course sociobiologists try to explain (away)these cross cultural
differences (as well as everything else) through adaptationism but the
sob's aren't convincing.

I still don't understand the hostility towards essentialism.
Essentialism is just the idea that an object has a property that it
cannot do without and still be the same object. You might say that an
essential property of a car is that it have wheels; if doesn't have
wheels then it is something else. Anti-essentialism comes from
Wittgenstein who argued (his example was 'games') that no class of
objects or concepts have a common property essential to each. 

Here's how sociobiologists talk:

"The human mating system is not like any other's. BUt that does not mean
it escapes the laws governing mating systems, which have been documented
in  hundreds of species. Any gene predisposing a male to be cuckolded or
a female to receive less paternal help than her neighbors, would quickly
be tossed from the gene pool. Any gene that allowed a male to impregnate
all the females, or a female to bear the most indulged offspring of the
best male, would quickly take over. These selection pressures are not
small. For human sexuality to be "socially constructed" and independent
of biology, as the popular academic view has it, not only must have
miraculously escaped these powerful pressures of a different kind. If a
person played  out a socially constructed role, other people could shape
the role to prosper at his or her expense. Powerful men could brainwash
the others to enjoy being celibate or cuckolded, leaving the women for
them. Any willingness to accept socially constructed gender roles would
be selected out and genes for resisting the roles would take over."
Steven Pinker *How the Mind Works* p467.

Sam P

China

2000-05-17 Thread Sam Pawlett



  Brad De Long wrote:
 
 
 So why not go with David Ricardo on this one?

Depends on what your objectives are. Yes, if you want to preserve the
current lopsided trading regime, reproduce imperialism and the growing
polarisation betwen nations.

  Ricardo believed that capital was immobile, for one. And for two, his
  example countries, Britain and Portugal, and his example commodities,
  cloth and wine, were perfect examples of uneven development.
 

 Ricardo did anticipate factor mobility  but thought that capital would
stay in the home country for patriotic reasons. A similiar fantasy to
calling on the American capitalist class to protect American jobs.

   Ricardo is wrong and irrelevant. Comparative advantage
evolves not
because of shifting productivity differentials but from Malthusianism.
Ricardo was a Malthusian and thought
that agriculture was subject to diminishing returns. As population grew,
less and less fertile land would have to be sown leading to higher
(above market)
prices for food. Production will have to move into higher cost soils
leading to prices that are above the marginal cost of production which
leads to economic rents or superprofits. Thus the so called developing
countries should not industrialize and remain exporters of food and raw
materials and importers of manufactured goods from the core. Over time
as the peripheral countries became fully populated (!) they too would
experience diminishing returns to agriculture. Comparative costs with
the core would equalize forcing the country to industrialize as it can
no longer export its food to pay for manufactures.

Ricardo failed to see that increasing returns of investment in industry
and "human capital" is the rule.

Sam Pawlett

Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


Not contradictory.  As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
temporary waystation to allow the future free development.

Brad De Long wrote:

  yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
  aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
  democratic and the one who tends to be dictatorial.

  A kinder, gentler way to put it is that there are two Marxes, the one
  who believes in the free development of each and the one who believes
  that when they fight their oppressors the people have one single
  general will that the dictatorship of the proletariat expresses...

  Ole Charlie didn't understand much about political organization, or
  tyranny of the majority, or bureaucratic process, or separation of
  powers, or rights that people should be able to exercise against
  every form of state. In many ways Tocqueville thought deeper and saw
  further as far as political sociology is concerned...

  Brad DeLong

--
Michael Perelman

Or, in other words: "Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy! 
We directly express the general will!"


I would think that Cromwell was the first to make this mistake, when 
he dismissed the Long Parliament. Robespierre certainly made it--and 
then executed both Hebert and Danton when it became clear that their 
vision of direct expression of the general will was different from 
his.

Dictatorship is not a temporary waystation but a switchpoint that--as 
Camille Desmoulins, Nikolai Bukharin, Peng Dehuai, and many, many 
others learned--led straight to Hell.

But the point was made a long time ago by Rosa Luxemburg:

"The suppression of political life in the whole of the country must 
bring in its wake a progressive paralysis of life in the Soviets 
themselves. In the absence of universal franchise, of unrestricted 
freedom of press and assembly and of free discussion, life in any 
public body is bound to wither, to become a mere semblance of life in 
which only bureaucracy can remain an active element. This is a law 
from which nobody is exempt. Public life gradually becomes dormant 
while a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustable energy and boundless 
idealism do the ruling and directing; from among these a dozen 
outstanding intellectuals do the real leading while an elite from the 
working class is summoned from time to time to meetings, there to 
applaud the speeches of the leaders and to give unanimous approval to 
the resolutions laid before them - in fact, power in the hands of 
cliques, a dictatorship certainly, but a dictatorship not of the 
proletariats but of a handful of politicians"

Re: African trade (was lots of re:) Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights


Brad De Long wrote:

  I think that removing quotas on U.S. imports of African-made textiles
  will make the world a better place: more better jobs at better wages
  for Africans. It isn't "bogus."


If there are going to be better jobs at better wages in Africa, where
are the folks who lose their jobs?

Guatamala?  China?  Indonesia? USA?

Somebody has to pay with their livelihood.

Or is your argument that clothes will become so much cheaper we will
throw them away just that much more rapidly that demand will meet the
new supply?

Gene Coyle

Probably the U.S.: Africa sends us textiles; we send Africa backhoes, 
VCR tapes, and more opportunities for African elite families to shop 
on 5th Avenue. Effects on the U.S. economy are impossible to see--the 
U.S. economy is so big. Effects on African economies may be 
substantial. Average labor productivity in both Africa and the U.S. 
rises. Real wages in Africa for urban workers surely rise, and for 
rural workers probably rise. Real wages in the U.S. for unskilled 
manufacturing and service workers probably fall. (In a 
new-growth-theory world, however, the fall in the price of clothing 
may lead to rising real wages in the U.S., at least for non-textile 
industry workers.) Income inequality in both Africa and the U.S. 
probably rises too...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


Jim,
  Hi.  I'm back, at least for a few weeks.
  Guess I'll side with Brad D. on this one, although only
slightly.  I agree that the first Marx is clearly the dominant
one in most of his writings, the one for free development of
people.  But he did at certain points issue some rather
sulphurous diatribes about the wretchedness of bourgeois
democracy and also painted a not so nice picture of the
dictatorship of the proletariat as well in certain passages,
these getting picked up by good old Lenin to justify some
of his more unpleasant Bolshevik excesses...



So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why 
was the world afflicted with, say, Paul Sweezy's claim that "One need 
not have a specific idea of a... beautiful musical composition, to 
recognize that the... the rock-and-roll that blares at us exemplify a 
pattern of utilization of human and material resources which is 
inimical to human welfare"?

I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about 
how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I 
suspect it was his refusal to imagine his version of socialism that 
has made the currents of thought that flowed from him in many cases 
positively hostile to forms of free development that they do not 
like...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


In a message dated 5/17/00 5:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

 But he did at certain points issue some rather
 sulphurous diatribes about the wretchedness of bourgeois
 democracy and also painted a not so nice picture of the
 dictatorship of the proletariat as well in certain passages,
 these getting picked up by good old Lenin to justify some
 of his more unpleasant Bolshevik excesses (See _The
 State and Revolution_ for example). 

Hi, Barklay, glad to have you back.

As is well known in the environs hereabouts, I am a great fan of bourgeois 
democracy, and I am happy to say that every sulpherous thing Marx had to say 
about it is true in spades. It is rule by the rich that ignores the real 
differences in power created by wealth; its virtues evaporate quickly under 
the heat of class warfare; and it helps to stabilize and legitimate an 
indefensile system. Do you deny these (obviously true) propositions? And in 
asserting them, am I subscribing to any sort of antidemocratic politics? 

As for the dictatorship of the proletariat, what is the not-nice stuff you 
have in mind? But I will agree, without myself adopting the expression, that 
any sort of large-scale systematic political change is goiung to involve some 
not-nice stuff. To get rid of slavery, we had a not-nice civil war. Marx was 
a political realist, and knew that the properties were not going to lie down 
and roll over even a proletarian majority democratically voted away their 
property rights in a peaceful manner, as he imagined might happen in the 19th 
century US. So, does it make him undemocratic to recognize this reality?

Now, I agree that Marx is not a liberal democrat. But there is nothing in 
what little he says about politics to suggest that he would have been 
anything but horrified at the perversions of Leninism--rule by one party, 
political police, censorship, repression of independent unions and worker's 
organizations, etc.--never mind Stalinism. Btw, these perversions are not 
advocated in The State and Revolution, which seem to envision a weak state 
based in a worker's militia with functioning soviets operating a relatively 
direct democracy. This vision is close of Marx's, attracted the anarchists, 
and didn't last a week in the hurricane of the Russian civil war. 

--jks

substitute for Draper


I cite Hal Draper's magisterial books on Marx's politics too often. People 
bored with it should instead read Richard Hunt's two-volume THE POLITICAL 
IDEAS OF MARX AND ENGELS, Pittsburgh UP, 1984. His conclusions are similar 
to Draper's.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


In a message dated 5/17/00 10:02:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? 
 
 I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about 
 how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I 
 suspect it was his refusal to imagine his version of socialism that 
 has made the currents of thought that flowed from him in many cases 
 positively hostile to forms of free development that they do not 
 like... 

This is an important question. Hal Draper thought about it a lot and 
addressed it in The two Souls of Socialism, and elsewhere. Draper's theory 
was that institutional Marxism reflected the undemocratic interests of 
bureaucracies in the workers' movement, in trade unions and mass parties, 
ultimately in the postrevolutioanry states: the functionaries in these 
bureaucracies are opposed in their interests to capital to a greater or 
lesser degrewe, insofar as their success depends on a strong workers' 
movement, but also to worker self rule that might limit their prerogatives. 
The "new class" theory of Djilas is obvious;y related to this sort of view. 
Draper thought that the democratic Marx who advocated worker 
self-emanicipation could only catch on when workers became mobilized, 
activized, and capable of self rule through a process of struggle against 
their own bureaucratic leadership as well as against the domination of 
capital.

I would add to this analysis that I think the democratic Marx was a lot more 
popular until the rise of the USSR; you see this in people like Rosa 
Luxemburg and, in his own way (Draperw ould kill me for saying this) Erduard 
Bernstein. But the Soviet Unuion claimed the mantle of Marx and squelched 
democracy, So in the shadow of its prestige, the democratic Marx went rather 
by the wayside, to be salavged in margins by people like Draper.

I agree with Brad, too, that Marx's refusal to think about recipes for the 
cookshops of the future didn't hepp.

--jks

Re: substitute for Draper


In a message dated 5/17/00 10:21:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I cite Hal Draper's magisterial books on Marx's politics too often. 
 Impossible. --jks

Re: Marx and Malleability


Jim Devine is doing an excellent job explaining this problem.  I dealt with
it a bit in my new book, Transforming the Economy.  Marx felt that it could
take generations for people to become ready to live in a cooperative society
without ANY outside authority.  The word Dictatorship was an ancient practice
-- during times of emergency someone would take the helm for a SHORT time and
then retire with not material benefits.  Dictatorship did not imply at the
time military troops going about coercing people.  The word used for that
situation was tyranny.

Brad De Long wrote:

 Not contradictory.  As Draper has shown, the Dictatorship of the P. is a
 temporary waystation to allow the future free development.
 
 Brad De Long wrote:
 
   yea, and why do you stop the citation in the comma? I am well
   aware that there are two Marxes, the one who tends to be
   democratic and the one who tends to be dictatorial.
 
   A kinder, gentler way to put it is that there are two Marxes, the one
   who believes in the free development of each and the one who believes
   that when they fight their oppressors the people have one single
   general will that the dictatorship of the proletariat expresses...
 
   Ole Charlie didn't understand much about political organization, or
   tyranny of the majority, or bureaucratic process, or separation of
   powers, or rights that people should be able to exercise against
   every form of state. In many ways Tocqueville thought deeper and saw
   further as far as political sociology is concerned...
 
   Brad DeLong
 
 --
 Michael Perelman

 Or, in other words: "Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy!
 We directly express the general will!"

 I would think that Cromwell was the first to make this mistake, when
 he dismissed the Long Parliament. Robespierre certainly made it--and
 then executed both Hebert and Danton when it became clear that their
 vision of direct expression of the general will was different from
 his.

 Dictatorship is not a temporary waystation but a switchpoint that--as
 Camille Desmoulins, Nikolai Bukharin, Peng Dehuai, and many, many
 others learned--led straight to Hell.

 But the point was made a long time ago by Rosa Luxemburg:

 "The suppression of political life in the whole of the country must
 bring in its wake a progressive paralysis of life in the Soviets
 themselves. In the absence of universal franchise, of unrestricted
 freedom of press and assembly and of free discussion, life in any
 public body is bound to wither, to become a mere semblance of life in
 which only bureaucracy can remain an active element. This is a law
 from which nobody is exempt. Public life gradually becomes dormant
 while a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustable energy and boundless
 idealism do the ruling and directing; from among these a dozen
 outstanding intellectuals do the real leading while an elite from the
 working class is summoned from time to time to meetings, there to
 applaud the speeches of the leaders and to give unanimous approval to
 the resolutions laid before them - in fact, power in the hands of
 cliques, a dictatorship certainly, but a dictatorship not of the
 proletariats but of a handful of politicians"

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

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


Yes, Marx was distrustful of the ideas of utopians, who laid out plans
for the future.  He thought that people should organize such things on
their own when the time came.

Brad De Long wrote:

 I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
 how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I
 suspect it was his refusal to imagine his version of socialism that
 has made the currents of thought that flowed from him in many cases
 positively hostile to forms of free development that they do not
 like...


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

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class divisions,
might decide things that he could not imagine.

Rod

Brad De Long wrote:



 I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
 how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I
 suspect it was his refusal to imagine his version of socialism that
 has made the currents of thought that flowed from him in many cases
 positively hostile to forms of free development that they do not
 like...

 Brad DeLong

--
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

ILWU On China

2000-05-17 Thread Stephen E Philion


Recalling my appeal to would be maligners of the labor movement as a
monolithic arm of US foreign policy.
Steve

Subject: ILWU Position on China Trade


International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Thirty-first International Convention
Portland, Oregon
May 1 - 5, 2000 Resolution # R-39

The ILWU, China and Human Rights

WHEREAS:The labor movement has made defeat of the normal trade
relations with China a major priority this year. The ILWU agrees with the
goals of eradicating human rights abuses in China and the rest of the world
and we urge all countries to adopt the core labor standards embodied in the
International Labor Organization. The fight over trade with China should not
overshadow or sidetrack the momentum built by the Seattle protest over
globalization and the corporate-led exploitation of workers worldwide; and

WHEREAS:The press reports of the Chinese government curtailing
personal freedoms of speech, expression and association are deeply
troubling; we do find that anti-China rhetoric is not helpful to the goal of
promoting human rights. Racially-tinged pronouncements like "you've sold
your last pair of chopsticks in any mall in America," spoken at a labor
rally are indefensible and cause distress among all people of Chinese
descent; and

WHEREAS:Historically, the ILWU has always made its own assessments
of the human rights conditions around the world, worked with individual
workers, labor organizations, and human rights activists to make the world
more just and peaceful. In the case of China, we need more independent
knowledge to conclude that denying normal trade relations with that country
is the best way to improve the conditions of workers in China and to enhance
worker-to-worker relations between our two nations; THEREFORE BE IT

RESOLVED:   That the ILWU will continue its tradition of assisting
workers throughout the world and reserving our right to take positions
independent of the AFL-CIO on issues relating to foreign policy and trade;
and BE IT FURTHER

RESOLVED:   That the ILWU believes the struggle for human rights
worldwide requires a long-term commitment ; and BE IT FINALLY

RESOLVED:   That the ILWU will prioritize and prepare for a delegation
of rank and file members to travel to China to make contact with trade
unionists from China including government sanctioned unions as well as
opposition leaders and report to the ILWU on recommendations for enhancing
worker conditions and human rights in our two nations.





__

You can subscribe to Solidarity4Ever by sending a message to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] and unsubscribe by sending an email to: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

This is a read-only list, but if you have an item you want posted, send it to the list moderator at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who will determine whether it is appropriate for redistribution.  You can temporarily suspend delivery by sending a request to the same address.  Notify the moderator at the time you want delivery resumed.  You can also manage this function yourself by going to the list at 

___

T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16

Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability


In a message dated 5/17/00 11:28:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
 democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
 freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class divisions,
 might decide things that he could not imagine.
 
 Rod 

Marx's antiutopianism has a number of sources:

1. Democracy, or anyway the commitment to the self-emancipation of the 
working class, in contrast to the top-down schemes of utopian socialists like 
Fourier and Owen, who planned out the lives of the peopled in their ideal 
societies in excessive detail;

2. Science, the recognition that he didn't then have much concrete knowledge 
of how people might arrange matters. Note tahtw hen he got some data, he 
discussed it, as in the Paris Commune,

3.  Hegelianism: the Owl of Minerva flies only at twilight; we can theorize 
adequately only what is in some sense actual;

But the anti-utopianism is not wholly consistent. Marx purports to know that 
the people in a postrevolutionary society will not have a society organized 
around markets, or anything that amounts, in the end, to a state.

Be that as it may. Whatever excuses Marx had for not writing recipes for the 
cookshops of the future, we have no such excuses. No one will believe us if 
we don't have a credible alternative that at least starts to answer many 
questions people actually and reasonably have about why we think a big and 
dangerous change will be an improvement. We also know a lot more than he did, 
after a century of experiments, about what doesn't work. The democracy point 
is valid, but we are not in a position to impose our conceptions on future 
cooks in any event. Writing recipes just gives them more choices about the 
menues they might want to make up.

--jks

Re: [PEN-L:9384] Re: help on readings on socio-economics?


If by "social economics" you mean "economic sociology", there is a large
and very interesting literature out there.  A recent survey that I've
dipped into is THE HANDBOOK OF ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY edited by Smelser and
Swedberg (Princeton U P, 1994).

Peter Dorman

Re: [PEN-L:9438] Re: text book hell


I would like to register a strong dissent about AMERICA: WHAT WENT
WRONG?  The book presents excellent information about declining wages,
rampaging inequality, etc. in an engaging, easy to understand way (this
is the good part), but its analysis is *terrible*.  They blame
everything on corrupt politicians and an out-of-control federal
government.  I suppose one could use this book and then try to lead
students to a different analysis, but why add more twisted politics to a
course that already has to cope with a mainstream econ text?  I'm
waiting for Bill Greider's new book to come out in paper.

Peter Dorman

Re: [PEN-L:9478] geometric-mean CPI


One point should be made concerning the geometric-mean CPI.  Press
reports of the BLS briefing made it seem as though a new, more
technically accurate method was being used which, on being applied,
revealed a quarter-point lower inflation rate.  I will withhold judgment
(for now) on the merits of the geometric mean approach, but anyone who
has worked with alternative statistics knows that the geometric mean
*automatically* gives you a lower number than the arithmetic mean.  It
comes right out of the algebra.  So the issue is not, what does this
approach "show" compared to what old approach showed, but what is the
justification for using a geometric mean approach in the first place? 
If I understand the matter correctly, the case for a geometric mean
(either at the detailed level, as with the experimental CPI, or at
higher levels as the Boskin posse wanted) is ultimately axiomatic.  It
is based on hypotheses derived from utility theory, not on empirical
research.

Peter Dorman

Re: [PEN-L:9572] questions on trade:


Robert R Naiman wrote:
 
 what significance to we attribute to the fact that a given country
 consistently runs a trade deficit? a surplus?
 
 at bretton woods, keynes proposed that international trade be managed
 so that no country ran a consistent (global) surplus or deficit, and
 that in the event of an imbalance, the onus would fall equally on the
 surplus and the deficit countries to remove the imbalance. The US (at
 the time, running a large surplus) rejected the proposal of Keynes
 (representing Britain, running a large deficit). do pen-lers support
 Keynes' proposal today? what would it solve/leave unsolved?
 
 what is the difference between an import and an export? that is, in
 what way are imports and exports symmetric in their economic effects,
 in what ways fundamentally different?
 
 these questions, particularly the last one, are motivated by my
 current readings in the relatively-more-honest pro-NAFTA literature,
 particularly R. Hinojosa's pro-NAFTA study, wherein it is argued, to
 use Charles II's phrase, that imports and exports are "clean different
 things."
 
In the simplest neoclassical models, imports in a sense *are* exports,
since trade is automatically and instantaneously balanced.  In more
sophisticated models, balance is achieved through either automatic or
discretionary changes in exchange rates.  Nearly all mainstream analyses
of NAFTA employed this type of approach.

In the real world, exchange rates affect trade balances but hardly
determine them.  Above all, austerity (both macro and micro, i.e.
suppression of labor) is the necessary adjustment recipe for chronic
deficit countries, once foreign holders of their currency become
reluctant to accept more.  The asymmetry is this: deficit countries must
adjust due to the problem of getting foreigners to accept their currency
(or due to the foreign exchange constraint if foreigners decide they
want other currencies instead), but surplus countries are under no such
pressure.  Keynes' point was that this asymmetry would lead to a
systematic bias toward macro contraction in the global economy. 
(Deficit economies would be forced to accept austerity while surplus
economies would not be forced to "accept" offsetting expansions.)  He
hoped that a more balanced system would put equal pressure on net
exporters and net importers.

Chronic deficits are bad for the countries that have them (greater
impediments to high-employment macropolicy, susceptibility to foreign
exchange crises, etc.), and bad for the global economy given that
Keynes' ideas were not adopted.  (The main exception to the domestic
cost of a trade deficit would be a situation in which the deficit is
financed by imports of productive capital investment, as happened in the
case of Korea during the early portion of its industrialization drive. 
This doesn't describe the US!)

That's how I see it

Peter Dorman

Re: [PEN-L:9581] LatAm Marxism


Doug Henwood wrote:
 
 What's good to read on Marxism in Latin America? Are there any specifically
 Cuban versions of Marxism worth studying?
 
As much as I disagree with portions of his analysis (especially his
conclusions), I think Jorge Castaneda's UTOPIA DISARMED is a mighty
impressive and important book.  But I am far from being well informed on
Latin American Marxism.

Peter Dorman

Geography of International Conflict

2000-05-17 Thread Dennis Grammenos


Hello,

In the Fall semester I will be teaching an undergraduate course in Geography,
Geography 110 "Geography of International Conflict."

I was wondering what kind of suggestions some of the subscribers to this 
list might have, since I am interested in using more of a political 
economy approach rather than the usual (and stale) geopolitical stuff.

Already I have decided to include an 18 minute video as part of the 
course called "School of Assasins" (a 1995 Academy Award Nominee narrated 
by Susan Sarandon).  It deals with the U.S. Army School of the Americas 
which used U.S. taxpayers money to train thousands of Latin American and 
Caribbean military personnel.

Any and all suggestions and input is welcome.

Regards,
Dennis Grammenos

Re: [PEN-L:9493] RE: geometric-mean CPI


I would like to second Mark's points, and stress that the utility theory
underlying the use of geomeans has now been shown to be a poor guide to
actual behavior.  The literature is full of tests that reveal anomalies;
perhaps the biggest growth industry in microtheory these days is
extensions and alterations to the classical utility model to cope with
this or that troublesome result.  In these circumstances it is absurd to
invoke the classical model in order to perform fundamental surgery on
our economic data.

Peter Dorman

Re: [PEN-L:9132] Re: utopianism


One final thought on the subject of utopianism:

All real-world judgments are comparative.  People don't have a utility
thermometer that reads "97" when they evaluate a situation; instead,
they compare it to some benchmark and decide whether it's better or
worse, by a lot or a little.  (This is the message of the prospect
theory literature.)  The left is in the business of trying to persuade
people that they should not be content with the status quo.  The right
is in the opposite business, more or less.  In this context, everything
depends on what the standard for comparison is.  The political right
says that the alternative to the American political system as we know it
is totalitarianism; that's why liberal-capitalist-democracy is the "end
of history".  Mainstream economics (the economic right) says that the
alternative to free markets is bureaucratic stagnation (USSR), the
alternative to free trade is autarcky, etc.  I honestly don't understand
how one can be on the left without a *different* standard for
comparison, a vision of how the world could be under a better, socialist
order.  After all, for most Americans life in 1997 is better than it was
50 years ago, and it's better than life for most Mexicans today.  Why
should anyone try to change this?  According to what standard is this
state of affairs not good enough?  (Yes, I know that conditions have
declined compared to 1969, but I remember that in 1969 the left thought
we were in somewhere other than heaven.)

As the song from the 60s said, "trying to make it real compared to
what..."

Peter Dorman

Re: [PEN-L:9179] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report


Michael Perelman wrote:
 
 Very interesting.  Does this mean that more manufacturing jobs are going
 abroad and that service jobs are safer than manufacturing?
 
 Certainly, it is not a growing interest in safety.
 
 Richardson_D wrote:
 
   BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997
  
   Workplace injuries fell in 1995 to their lowest rate in nearly a
   decade, says BLS, according to an item in The Wall Street Journal's
   "Work Week" column (page A1).  A total of 6.6 million injuries and
   illnesses were reported that year, the latest for which statistics 

Well, I guess I'm supposed to chime in here.  I haven't seen the latest
data yet, but when I do the first thing I'll do to it will be to adjust
for industrial composition.  One thing works in favor of an optimistic
interpretation, however: safety is countercyclical, so if accidents go
down while unemployment holds steady, that's good news.  Raw safety
numbers should be approached carefully

Peter Dorman

Re: Yesterday's NYT article about job competition from welfare reform


Oops!  This article was just reposted on another list (labor-l).  Sorry.

Peter Dorman

Yesterday's NYT article about job competition from welfare reform


Did anyone on the list capture yesterday's New York Times article about
competition in the low-wage labor market stemming from new welfare
requirements?  I tried downloading it but was unable for some reason. 
If you have an electronic copy I would appreciate it if you could e-mail
it to me.  Thanks!

Peter Dorman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Marx's Daughter Son-In-Law was, Re: Marx and Malleability

2000-05-17 Thread J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.


Carrol,
 I think that was another daughter and son-in-law.
But, I could be wrong.  One of his daughters is
mentioned on the plaque at the site in question.
Barkley
-Original Message-
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 6:26 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19162] Marx's Daughter  Son-In-Law was, Re: Marx and
Malleability




"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:

  I think that
 it is worth keeping in mind that his own daughter and son-in-
 law were gunned down at le mur des Communards in the Pere
 Lachaise cemetary at the end of that sad episode,

As I recall, they had a hairy time of it, but they lived to commit
suicide together some decades later.

Carrol

Re: Genderization

2000-05-17 Thread Doyle Saylor

Title: Re: [PEN-L:19164] Genderization

Greetings Economists,
Sam Pawlett observes,

Sam,
I still don't understand the hostility towards essentialism.
Essentialism is just the idea that an object has a property that it
cannot do without and still be the same object. You might say that an
essential property of a car is that it have wheels; if doesn't have
wheels then it is something else. Anti-essentialism comes from
Wittgenstein who argued (his example was 'games') that no class of
objects or concepts have a common property essential to each.

Doyle
One point against essentialism that makes some sense to me, is that it does not reflect how we really think. Wittgenstein used games to explore what not work within the concept of essentials, but what is interesting is the movement Wittgenstein was making away from logical positivism. In other words Wittgenstein found logic wanting in giving insight into how the mind works. I also think it interesting that Sam uses an emotion about questioning essentialism. How does one account for emotion in a rationalistic debate about the physical nature of thinking, or essences? Of course it is my view that emotion is part of the process of thinking, but oddly, Sam uses hostility as the chief descriptive of why some might not hold or believe, or credit, or posit essentials as really central to meaning of thinking.

Here is some brief quotes from Social Cognition, Making Sense of People, Ziva Kunda, Bradford Book, Mit Press 2000,

page 28,
Wittgenstein, who launched the initial attack on the classical view also laid down the foundations for the probabilistic view that psychologiest turned to nest (Wittgenstein1953). According to the probabilistic view, a category can be described by a list of features that are typical of it, yet do not define it

page 47,
Associative Network Models,
These models view mental representations as networks of nodes that are connected to each other by way of links

page 49,
Parallel-Constraint-Satisfaction Models
These Models, which are often referred to as connectionist models, also view representations as networks of interconnected nodes, and assume that activation spreads along these connections. But they add an important assumption: Activated nodes not only can activate their neighbors, they also can deactivate them (Rumelhart and McClelland 1986). There are two basic kinds of links between modes: If two nodes have a positive excitatory link, then activating one will increase the activation of the other. ...

Doyle
The point of the brief quotes is the view emerging in the combined fields of research in to the brain are going toward dropping away from classical views as explaining how the mind works until the evidence supports the theory (or at least putting one theory on the same ground as others). This sort of approach I think also has called into account philosophy by demanding that philosophy be grounded by how the brain really works, which takes philosophy off a pedestal of authority. The classical view emerges from a long history of speculation arose without direct knowledge of the brain (one may argue as Chomsky does language is direct knowledge of the brain). Like similar views of the stars the ancients created an essential that might disappear into a grander synthesis with ways of accounting for conceptual processes that indicate non essential workings to mind understanding. Essentials do seem to have a quality about them like a model. We might be able to point neural networks at something and think another way. Which suggests to me at least there is no essential to essentials, except as artifacts of a particular mode of brain. Do other animals know what an essential is? I ask that question as a way to test the truly essential of essence. If other animals can't think of an essential but we can, what does that mean? And if our minds are enhanced and we move away from an essential way of thinking, did essentials exist?
thanks,
Doyle

Re: Marx's Daughter Son-In-Law was, Re: Marx and Malleability