Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DefendingChina'sRighttoSelf-Determination (fwd)
Brad, are you suggesting that it is only the pull of the city, and not push of people being dispossessed from the farms? Brad De Long wrote: Mine, I do not disagree that the wages suck. But, are they better than what those workers got on the ejidos? The voting-with-the-feet pattern suggests an answer... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frankfurters,fascism and ecology (fwd)
Around the mid 1920s, with the increasing presence of Nazi political activism, Jews were substantially prohibited from participating in economic, social and political activities such as investing, teaching, working, forming associations and other citizenhip entitlements. Nazis came to power slowly, but when they came, everything was already set for them! btw, Neumann was not a Marxist. He was a social democratic leftish just as Karl Mannheim who lived in the same period. That being said, however,I think his book is still a profound historical illustration of how Nazis seized power, and the party politics of the Weimar era. Mine Not republishing Behemoth because it was too Marxist is kind of icky, no? Doug Well, it's also substantially wrong... especially those parts where Neumann says that the Nazis have to keep the Jews around or else the people will turn on the bosses and the rulers... Brad DeLong -- This is the Unix version of the 'I Love You' virus. It works on the honor system. If you receive this mail, please delete a bunch of GIFs, MP3s and binaries from your home directory. Then send a copy of this e-mail to everyone you know...
China -WTO --USA = capital against the workers
friends; Jim devine quotes the LA Times , W. Greider, etc. Greider has taken leave of his wits as he sows more illusions that the Democrats are/were ever any kind of Party of Labor. The fact that the AF of Hell unions support the DP religiously only helps to show they are as tied to the laws of the preservation of capitalist waged slavery as are the Democrats (and Republicans). N.Newman takes as good coin the rigged up congressional voting figures-a la on PNTR. He hides the fact that many liberal and conservatives there wheel and deal their votes-- they know the final tally before final roll call so that some of those facing heat at home can vote to cover their ass knowing that only a final one vote majority is needed anyway! So the final #s are irrelevent , the rich get their way 99% of the time. Nathan, the big bosses don't really give a dump if its 435-0 or 218-217 , as long as capitals overall needs are satisfied. We need to rid ourselves of bourgeois Government 101 twaddle. Same rules as horse racing, whether its a neck win or 8 lengths--same win payoff for the exploiters.! If reforms were in the past granted , it is not out of kindness of the DP liberals . On the contrary it is beacause of working class struggles that forced the rich and their 'democratic' state to disgorge a slightly larger fraction of their stolen booty albeit only temporarily-- until the social movements, struggles are brought back under reformist, liberal , unionist sway or a bout of open rightist bourgeois rule commences, Reaganism, Thatcherism, etc.. this period of labor concessions (needed by capital ---and the unions that accept the laws of the market wage slavery, privatizations (promoting more profits to capital to compete/expand) and now vast globalization -not just of productive capital but now more speculative capital) temporarily shores up the overall falling RATE of profit (the MASS of profits squeezed continues to grow) is a policy of all nation states to draw in capital and help the national ruling class compete better-- and this goes for the USA, UK, Germany, etc. as well as the state cap regimes like China, etc. The WTO is a robbers club necessary to try to control deadly contradictions from expanding quicker than would otherwise be the norm. All the nation states today are based on the rule of capital -- against the workers in every land-- be their superstructure democratic, social democratic,royalist, junta-ist or stalinist. Groups like Workers World Party-- (still mourning the death of Ceaucescu in Rumania and cheering on the tanks in Tienanmen square) only can shake a similar political rattle as the western bourgeoisie ,e.g. that state caps rule is socialism and/or "workers states". This was one of the great lies of the 20th cent., thus helping tie ideologically the workers to the lies of the 'democratic' bourgeois states and their ruling classes. Using Sweatshop Heaven in China, et al. as an example of a worker ruled society only plays right into the hands of our own ruling class here. We should promote new organization based on the class action of the masses against capitals waged and social slavery and oppose bourgeois nationalism with workers internationalism in theory and practice.. neil http://www.ibrp.org
Re: [PEN-L:100] microsoft
michael wrote: I have posted a copy of Nathan's Microsoft Monitor, because his was rejected. Marx said that concentration of capital would make the transition to socialism easier. The state would have an easier time taking over the few supermarket chains than the motley collection of bakeries, vegetable stores and butcher shops that distributed food in earlier times. Yet, Microsoft wants to put itself in a position to collect vig [a gambling term for the share of the pot that the house takes] from everything that goes on within the net. What does the Microsoft case tell us about our economy and the possible transition to a better society? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] The OS Solution that seems most appealing is a simple change in the duration of operating system copyright protection. If vendors could only protect, say 2 generations, of operating systems (or other software), then the windows 3 series and DOS would enter the public domain. There's lots of talent out there that could create many excellent choices from either platform. I suspect many of us would like to have a non-crashing OS. Rich
Re: [PEN-L:188] RE: pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subjec t line
If I remember correctly, the original request was to remove just the message number rather than the whole header. It would seem to be helpful if "[PEN-L]" were prefixed to the subject line without the message number. This would provide an easy method of identifying messages from the list while allowing thread or sort by subject features of mail readers to work properly. As things are now, the message number prevents proper sorting of messages by subject and seems to provide no useful function. However, I don't know what constraints the list software places on controlling this prefix. Ryan Reid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dialectical materialism and ecology
At 08:44 25/05/00 -0700, Jim D wrote: I don't want to get into quote-mongering (or to rehearsing old debates from Marxism-thaxis -- BTW, what in 'ell is "thaxis"?) Marxism-thaxis is one of the life forms in virtual marxism-space, which had its own evolutionary history, birth, childhood, adolescence, and maturation. Whether it goes on to be a white dwarf or a red giant is beyond the individual will of any one individual. But I will leave Rob Schaap as one of the co-moderators to give you more personal details. It's probably true that Marx made a lot of analogies between society and non-human nature without the qualification that nature-like processes in society only "seem" that way. However, in terms of his own theory of commodity fetishism (i.e., alienation), it makes the most sense to interpret Marx as seeing nature-like processes as not really being natural. Further, capitalism's laws of motion (which seem nature-like) are the products of capitalism, which itself is a product of human struggle, as seen (for example) in the discussion of primitive accumulation at the end of volume I of CAPITAL. We are broadly on similar wavelengths on these questions. I took the subject up, not because I disagree strongly but because I think those who are consciously committed to dialectical materialism as a core issue in marxism, need to debate to strengthen our position and to learn how to explain its relevance to more sceptical but serious participants. The difference of nuance here may be around the status and meaning of Marx's writings about alienation. I am perhaps a little less committed to the centrality of the concept of alienation. Marx emphasised this in the earlier forties when he was settling accounts from left-Hegelianism and emphasising the polarities inherent in a dialectical approach. Judging from the number of references in his collected works there was less interest in dialectics from the later 40's till he renewed his interest in the later 50's in conjunction with scientific discoveries. Volume 1 of Capital is (among other important things) his most dialectical work. It was of course written after Darwin had finally published his Origin of Species. I am hesitating therefore at your proposition in terms of his own theory of commodity fetishism (i.e., alienation), it makes the most sense to interpret Marx as seeing nature-like processes as not really being natural I would say the processes that Marx describes are natural, in that they are part of nature, just not overtly transparent to the human mind. An important sub issue here is the understanding of Marx's concept of "commodity fetishism". I have become convinced by Hans Ehrbar, who runs regular textual readings of Capital with the German text in parallel, that in Volume 1 Marx was not describing the idolatry of commodities in commodity society. He was describing the strange idol-like power of commodities to express the social character that lies within their nature. This is where he goes into the different "determinations" of value (presumably the Hegelian ways of expression, with which he coquetted). I feel it important to say that marxism, marxism-informed socialism, will not wipe away every tear, will not abolish every contradiction, and that our present problems and battles are on a continuum of the contradictions of the rest of the natural world. I am looking for bridges with the partial consciousness of the ecologists and of those concerned about the psychological damage of modern life. I do not think commodities as such can be abolished within a century but I do think that the social control of land and of finance capital could proceed much more rapidly than we currently expect providing we can catch the wave of concern about what is happening in the world. I am looking for a revolutionary process that will not abolish all aspects of "alienation", since producers of commodities will still have to part with their commodities. You might agree with large amounts of this. I make the points here not to prolong the thread under an inappropriate title but to illustrate where I am coming from and why these shades of presentation seem to me possibly important. I feel those marxists who have emphasised the concept of alienation are open to the criticism of having lost the plot about how this connects with revolutionary change. I would not dismiss them - I think some important things have come out of the Frankfurt school about how to keep an intelligent marxism alive in triumphant bourgeois consumer democracy. However this approach is not quite sharp enough to see the connection with qualitative political change. Similarly I want to sharpen the civilised critique against those who wish to preserve a concept of Marx's historical materialism but reject a concept of dialectical materialism. I am with you of course that there are qualitative changes in the nature of the
Re: Frankfurters, fascism and ecology
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: Jay points out that the Frankfurters reject the notion that class conflict is the locomotive of history, a basic Marxist theory. Nonsense. Walter Benjamin once wrote that the Revolution is really the emergency handbrake on Progress. The greatness of the Frankfurt School is that they insist that the objective tide of history is catastrophic, an outrageous violence done to vulnerable bodies, and that we must think this catastrophe through, understand how it is that the total system works, if we're going to fight it properly (meaning, we have to stop the violence, even the kind we do to ourselves). Here's Adorno on how even the most ethereal theory relates to the dignity of the body: "Both, body and mind, are abstractions of their experience, their radical difference a decree. They reflect the historically-achieved 'self-consciousness' of the mind and the casting off of that which it negated, due to its own identity. Everything spiritual is modified corporeal impulse, and such modification qualitatively redounds into what is not merely such. Compulsion is, according to Schelling's insight, the forerunner of mind. The presumed essential facts of consciousness are anything but. In the dimension of pleasure and displeasure, the bodily reaches deep into them. All pain and all negativity, the motor of dialectical thought, are the ceaselessly mediated, occasionally unconscious shape of the physical, which like all happiness aims at sensual fulfillment and garners its objectivity by it. If any aspect of happiness is frustrated, then it is none whatsoever." Negative Dialectics:202 (my translation) What the IMF/WB bean-counters and Wall Street punters do not wish to see is precisely this negativity: the economy ought to be an instrument of human happiness, not an engine of inhuman, murderous accumulation. But the Frankfurters give us the tools to look at it, and draw strength from that knowledge. -- Dennis
Henry Wallace
K Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 25/5/00 10:39 pm, Nathan Newman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just don't see what is gained by the campaign. Third party folks make so many wondrous claims for such third party efforts, yet historically Lafayette in 1924 delivered the reactionary era of Coolidge; Wallace the Cold War and McCarthyism; and we can go on. The exception is Debs pushing both parties to a more progressive politics, but that reflected the general upsurge of socialist organizing as much as Debs campaign itself. THe problem with Nader is that it is largely a campaign without a social movement. That is what seems like a waste to me. Further to Carrol's welcome defence of Wallace, the logic of the above is less than apparent. The Cold War and McCarthyism came from the Democrats, primarily, notwithstanding Joe's party tag (McCarthy had defeated the junior LaFollette to take the latter's senate seat, incidentally). Wallace also defended the involvement of communists in his campaign against the censure of ADA, that nominally liberal outfit. And these and many other "liberals" were quite happy to entrust national "security" to the most illiberal J. Edgar Hoover, no questions asked. That Wallace's campaign "delivered" anything other than a radical alternative requires much stronger justification. Similarly, it is not clear that the deeply conservative John Davis would have been any more progressive than Coolidge, given the capture of the Democratic leadership by east coast business interests which opposed the "progressivism" of McAdoo. Like Michael P., I shudder at the thought of dubya. Michael K.
Re: Henry Wallace
on 25/5/00 10:39 pm, Nathan Newman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Third party folks make so many wondrous claims for such third party efforts, yet historically Lafayette in 1924 delivered the reactionary era of Coolidge; Wallace the Cold War and McCarthyism; and we can go on. The Cold War and McCarthyism came from the Democrats, primarily, notwithstanding Joe's party tag Similarly, it is not clear that the deeply conservative John Davis would have been any more progressive than Coolidge, given the capture of the Democratic leadership by east coast business interests which opposed the "progressivism" of McAdoo. Michael K. Combined, LaFollette Davis received 2.5 million fewer votes than Coolidge in '24. Several factors contributed to Coolidge landslide: economic expansion, Harding scandals were minimized, Dems took about 2 1/2 weeks and over 100 convention ballots to select Davis as 'compromise' nominee, LaFollette had limited financing and was smeared as 'red.' Re. '24 Dems, California's McAdoo was supported by rural southern delegates who blocked platform plank repudiating Klan. Urban northern progressives in party supported New York's Al Smith. As this was first convention to be broadcast on radio, internal bickering was heard by prospective voters throughout country and likelihood of any Dem winning decreased as convention dragged on. Eventual candidate, West Virginia's Davis, with ties to Wall Street, was indistiguishable from Coolidge. As for 1948, 'first shot' of domestic Cold War was fired by Dems/FDR dropped Wallace as VP in favor of Truman in '44. And Truman would remove Wallace as Commerce Secretary in '46 (and initiate loyalty oaths and Smith Act investigations in '47). Michael Hoover
Trespassing in Cyberspace: Corporations Seek Control
I rank this case up as one of the top cases likely to shape property rights in the new Net economy. The judge in the case declared even publicly available web sites to be private property from which any person can be excluded based on "trespass" law. In this case, the goal is to exclude comparison shopping services, but the broader point is to allow companies to condition access to information on the customer not using that information in any way the provider objects to. Potentially, this could extend to prohibiting hostile reviews and without question is a way to gut Supreme Court decisions that clearly made facts in database outside copyright law and inherently in the public domain. Here's the case: Judge Halts eBay's Unwanted Hits Judge says eBay likely to win suit against rival that uses Web crawler to catalog auction site Brenda Sandburg The Recorder May 26, 2000 Clarifying what constitutes trespassing on the Internet, a California federal judge has blocked Bidder's Edge Inc. from using its Web crawler to access eBay Inc.'s Internet auction site. Bidder's Edge, an auction aggregation site, allows consumers to comparison shop online auctions. The company posts items that are available through eBay, as well as other auction sites. When negotiations over a licensing agreement broke down, eBay demanded that Bidder's Edge stop searching its site. Bidder's Edge refused, and eBay filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction. In eBay Inc. v. Bidder's Edge Inc., 99-21200, California Northern District Court Judge Ronald Whyte concluded that eBay is likely to prevail on its trespassing claim. "Under the circumstances present here, BE's ongoing violation of eBay's fundamental property right to exclude others from its computer system potentially causes sufficient irreparable harm to support a preliminary injunction," Whyte wrote. Whyte dismissed the argument by Bidder's Edge that it cannot "trespass" eBay's Web site because the site is publicly accessible. "EBay's servers are private property, conditional access to which eBay grants the public," Whyte said. Some attorneys are concerned that the ruling could impact the free flow of information over the Internet. Depending on how broadly the ruling is construed, "it means everybody's got a right to pick and choose who comes to their Web site and for what purposes," said Mark Lemley, a professor at Boalt Hall School of Law. He said comparison shopping sites will go out of business since "there will always be one party who doesn't like the idea that a consumer will find out they can get a product for less money." But more troubling, Lemley added, the decision "makes the whole concept of search engines tenuous." Under Whyte's ruling, anyone who is not authorized to come to a site could be deemed a trespasser after the fact, he said. Thus, "anyone who wants to block access to a search engine can do so or give preferential treatment to a search engine." While not specifically addressing Whyte's ruling, Daniel Harris, a partner at Brobeck, Phleger Harrison's Palo Alto, Calif., office who is representing Tickets.com in a case that poses similar issues, said applying trespass laws to the online community would be a "dangerous precedent." He distinguished cases involving spam assaults on a server or hackers breaking into a site and carrying out mischief to the activity of search engines. However, eBay attorney Janet Cullum, a partner at Cooley Godward's Palo Alto office, said Whyte "was careful to point out that Internet search engines are not an issue here." For Cullum, the ruling establishes the right of Web-based businesses "to control access to and use of their Web sites." Bidder's Edge disagrees that using its Web crawler to access eBay's Web site constitutes electronic trespassing. The company's attorney, John Cotter, a partner with Boston-based Testa, Hurwitz Thibeault, said he was "pleased that the court recognized that accessing of eBay's system has no impact on eBay operations." However, Whyte's ruling states that "if BE's activity is allowed to continue unchecked, it would encourage other auction aggregators to engage in similar recursive searching of the eBay system, such that eBay would suffer irreparable harm from reduced system performance, system unavailability or data losses." Whyte noted that Bidder's Edge had accessed eBay's site approximately 100,000 times a day. Bidder's Edge plans to appeal Whyte's decision. A trial date has been set for early in 2001.
Gore or Dubya?
Like Michael P., I shudder at the thought of dubya. My speculation from over here, where we too have seen our socdems do all the things to us that a conservative government would find much harder to do, is that the bush baby would indeed be a disaster. Like ol' Raygun, the bloke is too dense and noncommittal to moderate the psychopaths that run his party, his intelligence comoonity and his military. I've a lot of uninformed and shapeless ideas about this, and it'd be nice to be enlightened about the world's next deity by an American. Gore, it seems to me, would be preferable for other reasons, too. After all, most of the transformation of the political culture to slack-jawed, venal or fatalistic market worship is already done - past its zenith, mebbe (the Carter administration paving the path, and Ronny Raygun walking all the way down it). From here, it's really a matter of how diabolical shall be the liberties taken with a culture of complacency/apathy/resignation that has been thirty years in the making. That, and perhaps how the administration might react to the recent, and still promising, upturn in pwog activism - which still needs room to develop, coalesce and make itself coherent. I don't know if I'm stretching things too far, and putting way too much emphasis on administrations, but the last time the streets got interesting was under Democrat stewardship (and during the latter stages of a prosperous period), too, no? China's gonna be an interesting presence within the WTO, and the introduction of far more capacity than consumption into the world economy (plus possibly huge social upheavals in China - I'm given to believe there are still sixty million workers for the chop there in the short run) is going to exacerbate every worrying little trend in that economy. I reckon a big question is, how would the two candidates and their likely cabinets contribute to, and react to, a financial crisis and the social upheavals that would ensue. Coz this one could be be pretty hard to keep off-shore, what with domestic bankruptcies and pressure on the greenback likely to be early manifestations. The Repugs would not move far from their entrenched but potentially disastrously contradictory policy possies, would they? Say, high-level tax cuts and high military investment on the Keynesian side, but social security cuts, more 'job-market deregulation' and pressing rate rises on the other? And that's not counting the rejuvenation the radical right would experience under dubya on stuff like incarceration, capital punishment, abortion, single mums, carte blanche for the cops the FBI, school curricula etc. D'ya really reckon a Gore administartion would do, and allow to be done, all of that? I know it ain't pretty reading on either side of the ledger, but is it really conceivable Gore would be quite as horrific a prospect? Just wondering - he'll effectively be our president, too, after all. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Gore or Dubya?
I know it ain't pretty reading on either side of the ledger, but is it really conceivable Gore would be quite as horrific a prospect? Just wondering - he'll effectively be our president, too, after all. Cheers, Rob. Society is divided into classes. The state is the executive committee of the ruling class. Gore or Bush take their marching orders from the ruling class. If the ruling class sees the need to get rid of aid to dependent children, they will give Clinton his marching orders. If it sees the need to implement affirmative action and end the pariah treatment of China, it will give Nixon his marching orders. The Reagan counter-revolution was not some kind of rightist coup. It conformed to the needs of the US ruling class during a period of increased global competition. For the US economy to take off, it had to suppress the working class--hence Reagan's assault on the airline controllers. It is often advisable for Marxists to give critical support to social democratic candidates, such as the Labor Party in the immediate post-WWII period in England. But there is a class line that should not be crossed when it comes to a party like the Democratic Party. This is the party of the bosses. Before the 1930s, endorsing bourgeois candidates was considered class treachery. But with the advent of Stalin's Popular Front and the rightward shift of the mass social democratic parties, this no longer was the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
Reckon you're making this out to be a little simpler than it is, Lou! The ruling class need not be particularly united on a host of particular policy issues (China's gonna present 'em with some pretty divisive stimuli, I reckon), there are often different ways to do someone's bidding (allocating cuts, for instance), and then there's the little matter of the superstructure sometimes preponderating in shaping particular events (as per that famous Bloch letter). I also think a lot of work had to be done to get America ready for Reaganism - the competitive pains of which you speak were, after all, more than evident to US capital nearly a decade before. Even the mighty US ruling class needs time, planning and patience to get big things (like the reversal of a political culture) done. And the more time it takes, the more luck you need (chaos, complexity, uncertainty etc). As things speed up, room for manoeuvre and time for planning/preparing the punters shrink, I reckon. Mebbe that'd be the forces of production falling out of kilter with the relations of production? Some of those qualifications are sorta Marxist in tone, no? And anyway, the lesser of two evils might come to mean anything in times where there is absolutely no other thing, good or evil, on the horizon. That said, I'm in search of views here, and am happy for my speculations to be convincingly contradicted. Cheers, Rob. Society is divided into classes. The state is the executive committee of the ruling class. Gore or Bush take their marching orders from the ruling class. If the ruling class sees the need to get rid of aid to dependent children, they will give Clinton his marching orders. If it sees the need to implement affirmative action and end the pariah treatment of China, it will give Nixon his marching orders. The Reagan counter-revolution was not some kind of rightist coup. It conformed to the needs of the US ruling class during a period of increased global competition. For the US economy to take off, it had to suppress the working class--hence Reagan's assault on the airline controllers. It is often advisable for Marxists to give critical support to social democratic candidates, such as the Labor Party in the immediate post-WWII period in England. But there is a class line that should not be crossed when it comes to a party like the Democratic Party. This is the party of the bosses. Before the 1930s, endorsing bourgeois candidates was considered class treachery. But with the advent of Stalin's Popular Front and the rightward shift of the mass social democratic parties, this no longer was the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: Frankfurters, fascism and ecology
Dennis R Redmond wrote: Nonsense. Walter Benjamin once wrote that the Revolution is really the emergency handbrake on Progress. The greatness of the Frankfurt School is that they insist that the objective tide of history is catastrophic, an outrageous violence done to vulnerable bodies, and that we must think this catastrophe through, understand how it is that the total system works, if we're going to fight it properly (meaning, we have to stop the violence, even the kind we do to ourselves). Here's Adorno on how even the most ethereal theory relates to the dignity of the body: Dennis, what do you make of the post-WW II Adorno, who took CIA money to rebuild the Frankfurt School, and refused to republish Neumann's Behemoth because it was too Marxist? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
Rob wrote: Reckon you're making this out to be a little simpler than it is, Lou! The ruling class need not be particularly united on a host of particular policy issues (China's gonna present 'em with some pretty divisive stimuli, I reckon), there are often different ways to do someone's bidding (allocating cuts, for instance), and then there's the little matter of the superstructure sometimes preponderating in shaping particular events (as per that famous Bloch letter). Of course there are divisions in the ruling class. In Germany the fraction that was based on heavy industry, like the Krupps, tended to support ultranationalists and then Nazis because the heavy investment in fixed capital was highly vulnerable to strikes, etc. The fraction that was based on light industry, retail, real estate and finance tended to back liberal or social democratic candidates. The problem is that this fraction had no commitment to defeating Hitler in the final analysis because when push came to shove, it preferred Nazism to proletarian revolution. So by tailing after the "lesser evil", you pave the way for fascism. That is history's lesson. The way to drive back rightist assaults is found in the Seattle protests, independent candidacies like McReynolds or Nader, etc. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Gore or Dubya?
Louis Proyect wrote: there's the little matter of the superstructure sometimes preponderating in shaping particular events (as per that famous Bloch letter). Of course there are divisions in the ruling class. . . . Also there is the matter of distinguishing the superstructure (however you define that slippery term) from bird shit on the rooftop -- which is more or less what Gore and Bush represent. The most apparent difference between Kennedy and Nixon was that the former preferred haute cuisine and the latter hamburgers -- and then it turned out that Kennedy also preferred hamburgers. Kennedy also appointed one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices -- Whizzer White. Carrol
from Marx to Brezhnev: Fetishizing American democraticforms
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/00 06:04PM Charles, Thanks for the response. Clearly we disagree on the nature of democracy. I do think it involves voting with at least more than one candidate. I also think that it should involve some degree of tolerance for dissent, free speech, etc., liberal bourgeois virtues that they are. CB: Are you saying these are the fundamental principles of democracy ? Isn't the fundamental principle of democracy more like majority rule ? And then voting is a derivative method of trying to achieve this , but not the most fundamental goal. Voting is a means to the end of majority rule, no ? If leaders accurately reflect what the majority wants , then the method by which leaders come to office or communicate with the majority is successfully democratic. Are you willing to consider that the American method is not the only way to achieve or pursue majority rule ? "Some degree" is a sort of fudge factor in what you say. Again , just because it didn't fit the American model does not mean that the Soviet Union did not have "some degree" of tolerance for dissent, free speech, etc. On the other hand, the U.S. ruling class has perfected the process of corrupting these American means to democracy. After two hundred years of playing the game this way, bourgeois political science and all that, the U.S. bourgeoisie have very much robbed elections with more than one candidate ( but no difference between them on the key issues), dissent and "free" speech, of their effectiveness as means to majority rule. The majority does not rule in the U.S. A tiny minority rules and does so through the ruse of corrupted democratic forms that are really fetishized rituals now. So, the typical American rap that they like a dash of this and a pinch of that in their democracy , and the Soviet Union wasn't to their "democratic" tastes is part of the American democratic farce coveringup the U.S. tyranny of a minority. CB I think the failure to have this kind of democracy was a major reason for the collapse of the Soviet system. It is depressing that when democracy was introduced, the system moved away from socialism. So far, what has replaced socialism has not been anything particularly admirable on the economic front. I find it particularly depressing to read that Putin has just shut down Russia's admittedly ineffective environmental agency. Barkley Rosser -
Re: Re: Re: Marx's life and theory
Louis Proyect wrote: Leibniz and Whitehead are key to Harvey (while obviously having nothing to do with Marx) It's not obvious to me. Leibniz is part of the German idealist tradition sublated by Marx. The dialectical relation of "sublation" is not a relation of identity. That Whitehead's ontology, like Marx's, sublates Leibniz' doesn't mean that it is identical to Leibniz'. (Whitehead's ontology is not, by the way, a species of "holism" if you mean by this the idea of the "whole" as something apart from, independent of and superior to the individuals which compose it. In so far as part/whole relations are concerned, the identifying concept of Whitehead's ontology, as of Marx's, is "internal relations".) The Panglossian conclusion you attempt to foist on Harvey and Whitehead in this way is in fact more consistent with scientific materialism since the latter has no logical space for the idea of self-determination. Whatever is must be. As for Whitehead "obviously having nothing to do with Marx": "When we think of freedom, we are apt to confine ourselves to freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom for religious opinions. Then the limitations to freedom are conceived as wholly arising from the antagonisms of our fellow men. This is a thorough mistake. The massive habits of physical nature, its iron laws, determine the scene for the sufferings of men. Birth and death, heat, cold, hunger, separation, disease, the general impracticability of purpose, all bring their quota to imprison the souls of women and of men. Our experiences do not keep step with our hopes. The Platonic Eros, which is the soul stirring itself to life and motion, is maimed. The essence of freedom is the practicability of purpose. Mankind has chiefly suffered from the frustration of its prevalent purposes, even such as belong to the very definition of the species. The literary exposition of freedom deals mainly with the frills. The Greek myth was more to the point. Prometheus did not bring to mankind freedom of the press. He procured fire, which obediently to human purposes cooks and gives warmth. In fact, freedom of action is a primary human need. In modern thought, the expression of this truth has taken the form of 'the economic interpretation of history'." Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, p. 66. Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
Carrol Cox wrote: Also there is the matter of distinguishing the superstructure (however you define that slippery term) from bird shit on the rooftop -- which is more or less what Gore and Bush represent. The most apparent difference between Kennedy and Nixon was that the former preferred haute cuisine and the latter hamburgers -- and then it turned out that Kennedy also preferred hamburgers. Kennedy also appointed one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices -- Whizzer White. The only thing you can say for JFK is what Garry Wills said in Nixon Agonistes. During the 1950s, people said "It's all Ike. If only we can get a Democrat in there, everything will be better." They did, but everything still sucked, which is Wills's explanation for why things exploded in the 60s. I'm wondering if the upsurge in radicalism in the U.S. in the last several years is the result of a similar mechanism. Doug
Re: Marx's life and theory
Whitehead: "When we think of freedom, we are apt to confine ourselves to freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom for religious opinions. Then the limitations to freedom are conceived as wholly arising from the antagonisms of our fellow men. This is a thorough mistake. The massive habits of physical nature, its iron laws, determine the scene for the sufferings of men. Birth and death, heat, cold, hunger, separation, disease, the general impracticability of purpose, all bring their quota to imprison the souls of women and of men. This sounds like Malthus to me, not Marx. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Krugman Watch: Workers vs. Workers
It's scary when a columnist who practices an anti-working class form of economics writes a column for the most prestigious capitalist newspaper in the US (if not the world) preaching to workers that the only organizations they have -- the trade-unions -- are working against the workers' own interest, whereas the economist is working (or at least talking) in their favor. It seems reminiscent of the common management tactic in a strike of saying that the rank-and-file workers aren't really endorsing the strike -- instead, it's the unresponsive and undemocratic union bureaucracy. But it shouldn't be forgotten that such tactics aren't totally separated of reality, since the vast majority of US unions (especially the large ones) are indeed run by unresponsive bureaucracies. The problem is that it's only the rank-and-file workers themselves who can make this judgement, while any strike that does not have rank-and-file support goes nowhere fast, likely undermining the union organization severely. Trade-union bureaucracy undermines the union's long-term ability to grow and to resist management, which is of course why business prefers such unionism, as exemplified by Hoffa Junior quoted below (while giving them the opportunity to denounce it). (It's also strange, to say the least, that the leaders of a bureaucratic organization would denounce bureaucracy as a matter of principle.) Despite the antagonistic tone of the first paragraph, the second paragraph this analogy says that PK's column need not be totally wrong -- so that something useful can be gleaned from it. Further, few "working stiffs" read the New York TIMES op-ed page, so in fact, PK is addressing its upper-income and upper-middle-income constituency rather than preaching to the workers. So let's see what he says. It's interesting that in the end, he isn't blaming labor for its protectionism as much as pitying it. May 21, 2000 / New York TIMES RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN Workers vs. Workers ... The U.S. labor movement is not as brutally direct in its slogans [as the old South African labor slogan "Workers of the world unite for a white South Africa!"]. Probably its leaders don't even admit to themselves that their increasingly vociferous opposition to imports is, in effect, an effort to improve the condition of American workers by denying opportunity to workers in the rest of the world. It's important to note that PK takes this last proposition (that opposition to "free trade" denies opportunities to workers in other countries) as an _axiom_. It's not proven in this column (nor anywhere else that I've seen). Note also that he assumes that the "vociferous opposition" is only to _imports_. This ignores the whole issue of capital mobility (as usual), along with the kinds of side-agreements that go along with many "free trade" agreements (as with the recent African "free trade" agreement) which leverage the poor countries' debt peonage, often incurred by unrepresentative regimes long out of power, into forcing the recipients of the "benefits of free trade" into restructuring their economies to fit the neoliberal model. (By the way, the refusal to address the way in which international capital mobility and international trade are dynamically intertwined is standard among orthodox economists, including PK. Instead, capital mobility is treated as a form of free trade.) PK also assumes that the general rise in efficiency that eventually comes from freer trade (following the standard models that he implicitly assumes as Gospel) actually accrues to the _workers_ in Africa or China. But this does not follow. The increasing mobility of capital between countries (also encouraged as part of the on-going neoliberal revolution) means that any countries that allow their workers to participate in the benefits of direct foreign investment will not attract that investment. Instead, the mobility encourages these countries to compete to keep wages down to attract capital. The vast majority of poor-country governments are perfectly willing to engage in the repressive tactics needed to participate in this competition, busting unions, heads, and worse. Further, the commercialization of agriculture, with its rapid labor-saving technological change and its redefinition of property rights to favor the large landholders, encourages a flow of workers to the industrial areas, as do other rural disruptions (such as Colombia's civil war). It's likely, therefore, that to the extent that efficiency gains from trade appear in the poor countries, they will be captured by the multinational corporations that invest their and their governmental allies. It should be noted that the increase in efficiency presumed to arise with freer trade need not happen. A shift of industrial production to countries with lower environmental standards (and competing to offer low environmental standards to attract capital) would raise
Re: Henry Wallace
Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/26/00 08:32AM As for 1948, 'first shot' of domestic Cold War was fired by Dems/FDR dropped Wallace as VP in favor of Truman in '44. And Truman would remove Wallace as Commerce Secretary in '46 (and initiate loyalty oaths and Smith Act investigations in '47). __ CB: Yes, I often think that the Wallace would have been president without the switch. Was Wallace for real ? A red ? Don't mean to be too counterfactual hypothetical. The U.S. ruling class was starting the Cold War with the removal of Wallace from Vice President.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dialectical materialism and ecology
At 08:05 AM 05/26/2000 +0100, you wrote: At 08:44 25/05/00 -0700, Jim D wrote: I don't want to get into quote-mongering (or to rehearsing old debates from Marxism-thaxis -- BTW, what in 'ell is "thaxis"?) Marxism-thaxis is one of the life forms in virtual marxism-space, which had its own evolutionary history, birth, childhood, adolescence, and maturation. Whether it goes on to be a white dwarf or a red giant is beyond the individual will of any one individual. But I will leave Rob Schaap as one of the co-moderators to give you more personal details. but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. snip You might agree with large amounts of this. snip I do, so I won't comment further. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: [[Fwd: [CrashList-talk] re: FT: Israel completes along goodbye]] (fwd)] (fwd)
I got it. I was not strongly aware of those divisions before. Thanks for the clarification.. revolutionary greetings! Mine Dear Mine! Actually the Amal movement was formed back during the Lebanese Civil War and is totally independent of Hizb Allah. In fact there are areas in South Lebanon where the two groups are not so friendly rivals for village authority. Amal was created among the Shi'i Lebanese, but its leader, Nabih Barri, always rejected the idea of an Islamic state. One can't say they are totally secular especially since the predominantly Shi'i south of Lebanon was originally a hot-bed of support for the Communist party and then Amal won much of that away. Still, they are not the same in their aspirations as Hizb Allah. Nabih Barri, by the way, is the "third president" in Lebanon's ruling troika, with Emil Lahud (Maronite Christian, president of the republic), Salim al-Huss (Sunni Muslim, prime minister) and Nabih Barri (Shi'i Muslim, speaker of parliament). At the end of the Lebanese Civil War when a solution was thrashed out, it was not yet possible to dismantle the sectarian system, although the Left always pushed for that. But the final settlement that gave Lebanon its current form of government was signed in al-Ta'if, Saudi Arabia, so that tells you something. As to Hizb Allah, I don't think the Lebanese Hizb Allah have anything to do with the Turkish Hizb Allah. The Lebanese are Shi'i and really preoccupied with Lebanon. I have read that Iran has been inciting Islamic activism in Turkey, so maybe the Lebanese Hizb Allah is not toally innocent of this; I don't know, but I would think that is minor for them. Of course religion is used to divide the people of Lebanon (and elsewhere) and all these religious movements serve that purpose. But at the same time, they also remind us in the Left that sometimes we have proved unable to communicate with the masses effectively. How many Leftist writers write tracts that even college graduates can't read, let alone textile workers or shoe-shine boys?! Meanwhile the religious people talk about Zulm (oppression) and everybody understands (even though the ideology of the religious people is vague and unscientific). At present the anti-Zionist front does include Islamists, Arab Nationalists, and Marxists. It's true that all have different perspectives on the future, but all are agreed on fighting the Zionists and imperialism and that is what the masses are looking for. Basically they support whoever seems most effective at doing that. These days it's the religious people. I think at the moment, it's impossible for the religious groups to wipe out the Left, or for the Left to wipe out the religious groups, so, despite their differences they are trying to work together for the current aims they share. It's not easy or uncomplicated, but it's the reality we must work with. With revolutionary anti-imperialist greetings! Abu Nasr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Abu-Nasr, Comrade, your knowledge of the communist activism in the Arab world is more profound than mine. I don't know the sects in details since they are very much related to other factors such as religion (Shiite vesus Sunni) and ethnicity.. Is Amal, the Communist Party, part of Hizb Allah? To my knowledge, Hizb Allah must be Shiite Islamic fundamentalist group, fighting against both secular nationalists and communist intrusion in the Middle East. Imperialist powers in the region (US and Isreal) have tolerated them in the past to set off communists, and recently, for example, to curb Kurdish ethnic resistance (socialist PKK) as well as Palestinian nationalism. As you know, when the civil war was going on in the Southern part of Turkey between the Turkish government and Kurds (PKK), Hizb Allah guarillas were effectively mobilizing support among Kurds in order to establish an Islamic based Kurdish movement as opposed to PKK who was still following a socialist brand of kurdish nationalism. Furthermore, Islamic Republic of Iran had always wanted to co-opt Kurds (Sunni Muslims, majority) by strategically mobilizing Hizb Allah within and outside Iran. For example, when many times Turkish and Kurdish leftists and secularists were assasinated by Hizb Allah, the turkish government put the blame on PKK to weaken the popularity of the movement among Kurds. Now it is playing the same strategy with Hizb Allah after the Kurds are defeated. It seems to me that what is going on in the region is more a like rule and divide strategy among imperialist powers. This strategy aims to maintain islam within _limits_ but to butress socialism more strongly since the latter is still perceived to be a more dangerous enemy than religion. Is Amal an effective faction within Hizb Allah? Shiite radicals tolerating communists or communists becoming shiite radicals? (yes, in the begining of the Iranian revolution that was the case, but then Islamists turned out to be the strongest faction, unfortunately).
Dialectical materialism andecology
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/26/00 01:46PM At 08:05 AM 05/26/2000 +0100, you wrote: At 08:44 25/05/00 -0700, Jim D wrote: I don't want to get into quote-mongering (or to rehearsing old debates from Marxism-thaxis -- BTW, what in 'ell is "thaxis"?) Marxism-thaxis is one of the life forms in virtual marxism-space, which had its own evolutionary history, birth, childhood, adolescence, and maturation. Whether it goes on to be a white dwarf or a red giant is beyond the individual will of any one individual. But I will leave Rob Schaap as one of the co-moderators to give you more personal details. but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. )) CB: I've always thought it was sort of thaxis is to theory as praxis is to practice.
Re: Re: Marx's life and theory
Louis writes: This sounds like Malthus to me, not Marx. This must be the same hearing problem that led you mistakenly to attribute to Whitehead the Leibnizian theory of the 'best of possible worlds'. "the Malthusian Law, with its sociological consequences, is not an iron necessity. ... "In the first three hundred years of the slow development of the Feudal System after Charlemagne, we see a population barely gaining a livelihood by hard toil. This state of things exemplifies the application of Malthus' Doctrine in the primitive stages of civilization. The only way of coping with an increase in population was to cut down another forest, and arithmetically to add field to field, till fertile land was fully occupied. Also fertility became exhausted, so that until the close of the eighteenth century fallow fields bore witness to the iron limits that nature set to agriculture. The essence of technology is to enable mankind to transcend such limitations of unguided nature. For example, the rotation of crops, the scientific understanding of fertilizers and of genetics, have already altered the bounds set to food production. ... "Nature is plastic, although to every prevalent state of mind there corresponds iron nature setting its bounds to life. Modern history begins when Europeans passed into a new phase of understanding which enabled them to introduce new selective agencies, unguessed by the older civilizations. It is a false dichotomy to think of Nature and Man. Mankind is that factor *in* Nature which exhibits in its most intense form the plasticity of nature. Plasticity is the introduction of novel law. The doctrine of the Uniformity of Nature is to be ranked with the contrasted doctrine of magic and miracle, as an expression of partial truth, unguarded and uncoordinated with the immensities of the Universe." Adventures of Ideas, pp. 73-8 Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dialectical materialism and ecology
Jim Devine wrote: but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. Theory + practice = thaxis. No relation to Thurn und Thaxis, or whatever that thing from Pynchon's Lot 49 is. Doug
Re: Gore or Dubya? (fwd)
the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. Louis Proyect Very true. Actually, if one looks at the party politics of the pre-nazi germany, one can easily see that social democrats, the reformist left, were partially responsible for the rise of Hitler. Although social democrats were fully aware of the danger of Nazism, they preferred to go with the wind. Neumann, in _Behemoth_ goes into details of explaining the tension between social democrats and socialists before Hitler. When Hitler won perceivable number of seats in Reichtag, Rudolf Hilferding, a leading theoretician of social democracy and editor of the party gazette, wrote to the party saying that Hitler was not a big deal, and their major concern was to fight against communists and to prevent the spread of communism.Isn't this stupidly unstrategic when Hitler was on the horse? Almost few months after Hilferding's bold speech, Hitler took the power from the president. Neumann offers a counterfactual reading of history and epxlains why his counterfactual could not have worked under specific circumstances, looking at both the likelihood and limitations of a certain occurance (similar to Gramsci, but he was not a Marxist strictly speaking, of course, although leftish).What could have happened if social democrats had gone to a united front with communists (asuming that they would both constitute a majority in Reichtag, and oust Hitler)? N argues that this scenario although perceivable was still unlikely. Social democrats did not want to sacrifice the Weimar Constitution of which they were the architects, but they sacrificed the whole Germany and Jew people.It was a serious tactical mistakeMaybe, communists could have been more tactical too, and sacrificied a litle bit of Stalinism... Mine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defending China's RighttoSelf-Determination (fwd)
Mine, So, did these increased jobs replace lost ones in the US? That is the issue. Are you unhappy that this employment has increased in and of itself? These jobs may not be great, but are they not better than the alternatives available to these people in Mexico? Actually the textile industry in the US is one of the ones that is most threatened by import competition. It was initially protected after 1968 when Strom Thurmond gave the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon rather than to Ronald Reagan because Nixon promised to arrange a textile protection agreement, which he did. Passing PNTR is not going to increase access to the US market in either textiles or steel, both industries facing serious import competition. I see no reason to believe that passing PNTR will lead to a decline in employment in any of these industries in the US, much less the auto industry with its very vocal and outraged UAW. Until very recently support for protectionism in the US came more from the right wing than the left wing in terms of standard domestic politics. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:04 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19599] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defending China's RighttoSelf-Determination (fwd) "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: [snip] the outcome of NAFTA was not a "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing to Mexico but a large fall in the unemployment rate, and, last time I checked, an increase in auto employment (although steelworkers are hurting right now, but not because of NAFTA). I do not understand how, in a world of such an immense number of interacting forces, economists can be so confident in picking two of them out of the heap and saying, "A causes B." In many cases it would seem the "cause" of B might well not be any economic fact whatever, but (say) political or even some undetectable combination of contingencies. Carrol I don't know the figures of auto-employment in Mexico, but the indicators of the Apparel Maquiladora Industy show the following. Mexico's export Maquiladora industry is the one that is more directly related to NAFTA and US-Mexico free trade liberalization arrangements (reduction of tarrif exemptions and on-going tax exemptions to foreign ownership). Hence apparel is more vulnerable to foreign capital domination as an export industry compared to steel industry that is more likely to be state dominated. The employment in the apparel industy is increasing due to increasing number of plants in free trade zones. While the employment opportunies have been increasing and maquiladoras show some signs of growth, workers are hired on the basis of cheap labor. On the other hand, some influential firms prefer to improve working conditions and pay more to avoid unionization. According to Carillo, "wages in the apparel industry are lower than those in other maquiladora activities, especially the electronics. In 1990, the average hourly wage (with benefits) for apparel workers was $1.20 compared to $1.57 in the electronics industry" (Jorge Carillo, "The Apparel Maquiladora Industry at the Mexican Border in Bonacich _Global Production: The Apparel Industry in the Pacific Rim_, p.224). "In auto parts industry, for example, the average hourly wage for production workers was $2.27 in plants lacking a collective agrement, and $1.85 per hour in plants with a collective agreement" (p.225). Here are the Mexican employment and wage figures in Apparel Industry: 1981 1991 1996 Plants 117 297 425 Gross Production (US mil) 340 800 1.820 Value added (US mil) 100.2 236.8 559.2 Raw materials processed Value in US mil 0.247 0.567 1.273 Distribution (%) Domestic 1.04 1.07 1.07 Foreign 98.96 98.93 98.93 Workers Total number 18,060 43,830 70,830 Disribution (%) Production workers 88.3 84.9 83.0 Technicians 8.5 10.8 12.9 Management 3.2 4.4 4.1 Wages (US hour) Composition 1.64 1.44 2.15 BAse 1.32 1.15 1.73 Fringe Benefits 0.32 0.29 0.42 Distribution Production workers 1.50 1.14 1.80 TEchnicians 2.42 2.63 3.48 Management 3.55 4.27 5.21 (Source CIMEX-WEFA 1992, in Carillo's article). Charecteristics of Apparel and Eloctronics Maquiladora Production Workers Apparel Electronics Male 23.15% 32.63% Female 76.85% 67.37% with children 36.42% 36.41% Umarried 45.81% 57.25% With previous work experi 68.02% 60.31% Average number of years in school 6.03 6.60 Average age 26.15 22.05 Average number of years at job 3.55 2.44 Source: Ministry of Labor and Social and El Colegio de la Frontera Norte "Maquiladora Plants Survey", Mexico, 1990. International Wage Comparisons for Production in Exporting Industries (US$ hour). 1981 1983 1990 Maxico Excluding benefits 1.27 0.69 0.82 Including ben 1.58 0.87 1.16 Taiwan Exc ben 1.08 1.12 3.31 Inc ben 1.12 1.16 3.45 South Korea Exc ben 0.74 0.82 2.13 Inc ben 0.88 0.96 2.62 Singapore Exc ben 1.09 1.19
RE: Krugman Watch: Workers vs. Workers
JD: . . . The health care example seems totally off the agenda at present, while the earned income credit (unlike classic income-support measures) make workers more dependent on their employers' good wishes, i.e., hardly helps their bargaining power. . . . What in the world does this mean? How does the EITC make a worker any more dependent on an employer (who else can you work for?) than a wage increase? The problem w/direct aid for trade adjustment is the problem of narrow entitlements -- they fail to excite mass support and without elite backing, tend to wither on the vine. mbs
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dialectical materialism and ecology
Jim Devine wrote: but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. Theory + practice = thaxis. No relation to Thurn und Thaxis, or whatever that thing from Pynchon's Lot 49 is. Doug I thought it went back to the old saying, the only certain things are debt and thaxis. Or something like that. mbs
Re: RE: Krugman Watch: Workers vs. Workers
Max Sawicky wrote: What in the world does this mean? How does the EITC make a worker any more dependent on an employer (who else can you work for?) than a wage increase? You only get the EITC if you have a job, so it doesn't reduce the cost of job loss. Wasn't the political point of the EITC to drive a wedge between the deserving and the undeserving poor? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defending China'sRighttoSelf-Determination (fwd)
I don't disagree about the US part of your post. but my post was about Mexico and the impacts of US-Mexico free trade liberalization on Apparel Industry and labor composition of maquiladoras.. Regarding employment, number seems to increase (as the increasing number of employed workers show), but the wages really suck, especially among production workers, technicians are still better of! (See the tables). Typical "hire as many slaves as possible" philosophy.. Mine Mine, So, did these increased jobs replace lost ones in the US? That is the issue. Are you unhappy that this employment has increased in and of itself? These jobs may not be great, but are they not better than the alternatives available to these people in Mexico? Actually the textile industry in the US is one of the ones that is most threatened by import competition. It was initially protected after 1968 when Strom Thurmond gave the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon rather than to Ronald Reagan because Nixon promised to arrange a textile protection agreement, which he did. Passing PNTR is not going to increase access to the US market in either textiles or steel, both industries facing serious import competition. I see no reason to believe that passing PNTR will lead to a decline in employment in any of these industries in the US, much less the auto industry with its very vocal and outraged UAW. Until very recently support for protectionism in the US came more from the right wing than the left wing in terms of standard domestic politics. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:04 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19599] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defending China's RighttoSelf-Determination (fwd) "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: [snip] the outcome of NAFTA was not a "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing to Mexico but a large fall in the unemployment rate, and, last time I checked, an increase in auto employment (although steelworkers are hurting right now, but not because of NAFTA). I do not understand how, in a world of such an immense number of interacting forces, economists can be so confident in picking two of them out of the heap and saying, "A causes B." In many cases it would seem the "cause" of B might well not be any economic fact whatever, but (say) political or even some undetectable combination of contingencies. Carrol I don't know the figures of auto-employment in Mexico, but the indicators of the Apparel Maquiladora Industy show the following. Mexico's export Maquiladora industry is the one that is more directly related to NAFTA and US-Mexico free trade liberalization arrangements (reduction of tarrif exemptions and on-going tax exemptions to foreign ownership). Hence apparel is more vulnerable to foreign capital domination as an export industry compared to steel industry that is more likely to be state dominated. The employment in the apparel industy is increasing due to increasing number of plants in free trade zones. While the employment opportunies have been increasing and maquiladoras show some signs of growth, workers are hired on the basis of cheap labor. On the other hand, some influential firms prefer to improve working conditions and pay more to avoid unionization. According to Carillo, "wages in the apparel industry are lower than those in other maquiladora activities, especially the electronics. In 1990, the average hourly wage (with benefits) for apparel workers was $1.20 compared to $1.57 in the electronics industry" (Jorge Carillo, "The Apparel Maquiladora Industry at the Mexican Border in Bonacich _Global Production: The Apparel Industry in the Pacific Rim_, p.224). "In auto parts industry, for example, the average hourly wage for production workers was $2.27 in plants lacking a collective agrement, and $1.85 per hour in plants with a collective agreement" (p.225). Here are the Mexican employment and wage figures in Apparel Industry: 1981 1991 1996 Plants 117 297 425 Gross Production (US mil) 340 800 1.820 Value added (US mil) 100.2 236.8 559.2 Raw materials processed Value in US mil 0.247 0.567 1.273 Distribution (%) Domestic 1.04 1.07 1.07 Foreign 98.96 98.93 98.93 Workers Total number 18,060 43,830 70,830 Disribution (%) Production workers 88.3 84.9 83.0 Technicians 8.5 10.8 12.9 Management 3.2 4.4 4.1 Wages (US hour) Composition 1.64 1.44 2.15 BAse 1.32 1.15 1.73 Fringe Benefits 0.32 0.29 0.42 Distribution Production workers 1.50 1.14 1.80 TEchnicians 2.42 2.63 3.48 Management 3.55 4.27 5.21 (Source CIMEX-WEFA 1992, in Carillo's article). Charecteristics of Apparel and Eloctronics Maquiladora Production Workers Apparel Electronics Male 23.15% 32.63% Female 76.85% 67.37% with children 36.42% 36.41% Umarried 45.81% 57.25% With previous work experi 68.02% 60.31% Average number of years in school 6.03 6.60 Average age 26.15 22.05 Average
RE: Re: RE: Krugman Watch: Workers vs. Workers
Max Sawicky wrote: What in the world does this mean? How does the EITC make a worker any more dependent on an employer (who else can you work for?) than a wage increase? You only get the EITC if you have a job, so it doesn't reduce the cost of job loss. Wasn't the political point of the EITC to drive a wedge between the deserving and the undeserving poor? Doug A wage subsidy implies higher income, which income ought to be of some help in getting thru the rough spots. You still didn't answer my question, which is why is the EITC any worse than a wage increase? If it isn't, then the statement amounts to saying a bus is bad because it can't get you across the ocean. If you mean the credit is an incomplete substitute for income-maintenance, that is true (as is the reverse). I would say the political point of the EITC was that it was a politically feasible way of getting money to low- income families with children. A detailed history is in a paper by Dennis Ventry at Berkeley: http://www.jcpr.org/wp/WPprofile.cfm?ID=153 mbs
Re: Marx's life and theory
Whitehead: "Nature is plastic, although to every prevalent state of mind there corresponds iron nature setting its bounds to life. Modern history begins when Europeans passed into a new phase of understanding which enabled them to introduce new selective agencies, unguessed by the older civilizations. It is a false dichotomy to think of Nature and Man. Mankind is that factor *in* Nature which exhibits in its most intense form the plasticity of nature. Plasticity is the introduction of novel law. The doctrine of the Uniformity of Nature is to be ranked with the contrasted doctrine of magic and miracle, as an expression of partial truth, unguarded and uncoordinated with the immensities of the Universe." Adventures of Ideas, pp. 73-8 This sounds like Will and Ariel Durant. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
China 'Short-term pain, long-term gain'
SCMP Friday, May 26, 2000 PNTR VOTE 'Short-term pain, long-term gain' WILLIAM KAZER in Shanghai While Beijing has applauded its likely entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO), joining the global body could contribute to slower economic growth, more job losses and a weaker trade position next year as pain offsets early gains. Economists, speaking shortly after the US House of Representatives voted to smooth the way for WTO accession by backing Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status for the mainland, said the real benefits for Beijing would be substantial but would take time to emerge. "There will be big shocks to the economy next year," said Yin Xinming, an economist at Fudan University. "There will be more negatives in the short run." Other economists agreed with that view. "GDP [gross domestic product] growth could slow to seven per cent next year from about eight per cent this year," said Chi Lo, regional head of research at Standard Chartered Bank in Hong Kong. That would reflect a variety of factors, including weaker global economic growth as well as the restructuring of the mainland's inefficient state industry under pressure from increased competition from abroad. Beijing has been warning its state enterprises, many of which are overstaffed and unable to operate profitably, that they would have to prepare for new challenges after entry to the WTO. It has agreed to reduce import duties gradually and to scrap several non-tariff barriers to trade and investment that have long angered foreign businessmen. Import duties on cars, for example, will fall to 25 per cent by 2006 from 80 to 100 per cent now. Agricultural duties will drop to 17.5 per cent from 22 per cent, while a host of restrictions will be eased in areas from telecommunications to finance and retailing to transport. As a result, economists are predicting more mergers and closures among state-run companies. This was likely to mean increased layoffs, which in turn would drag down economic growth. Mr Chi said the mainland could have a current account deficit of US$16 billion (HK$123 billion) next year. While that would still be manageable, it would compare with an expected surplus of US$4 billion this year and an actual surplus of US$12 billion last year. A slower expansion in main markets could slow the mainland's export growth next year to 12 per cent from a forecast 15 per cent this year. Meanwhile, imports could climb by 18 per cent next year against 20 per cent this year, the economist said. The bright spot in the near-term economic picture is foreign direct investment (FDI), where a moderate upturn could be expected fairly soon. Mr Chi expects to see FDI rising to US$50 billion next year from US$45.6 billion this year. Government officials have been quick to play up this aspect of the expected entry into the WTO. Liu Zuozhang, deputy director of foreign investment at the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation, said accession to the WTO would promote foreign investment. He called this a "win-win" situation. But more companies competing for a share of the domestic market will put pressure on unemployment, which officially stands at 3.1 per cent in urban areas but is believed to be considerably higher. "Short-term pain and long-term gain," said Merrill Lynch economist Ma Guonan, in a description of the overall impact of WTO entry. But he and other economists said Beijing still had several ways to cushion the blow from increased competition - and one of them was its currency. Beijing has already been testing the waters, allowing more flexibility in the exchange rate for the yuan, which had been held firmly at about 8.27 to the US dollar. Analysts said a slight weakening of the yuan could offset some of the pressure for more imports due to lower tariffs.
Re: Re: Marx's life and theory
Louis writes: This sounds like Will and Ariel Durant. This sounds like Louis Proyect. Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defending China'sRighttoSelf-Determination (fwd)
Mine, I do not disagree that the wages suck. But, are they better than what those workers got on the ejidos? Your post was in response to mine noting that the forecast of various folks that NAFTA would lead to job losses in the US was wrong. I am not going to defend all aspects of NAFTA or claim that all of its effects on Mexico are good. In fact, some of its effects on Mexico clearly were not, notably in agriculture with regard to corn/maize production. This strikes me as a much bigger deal than the maquiladora situation. In fact NAFTA had little to do with the maquiladoras. They had already been provided with favoritism long before. If anything, NAFTA extended that favoritism to all of Mexico and tilted the balance away from the border zone. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, May 26, 2000 3:47 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19633] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defending China'sRighttoSelf-Determination (fwd) I don't disagree about the US part of your post. but my post was about Mexico and the impacts of US-Mexico free trade liberalization on Apparel Industry and labor composition of maquiladoras.. Regarding employment, number seems to increase (as the increasing number of employed workers show), but the wages really suck, especially among production workers, technicians are still better of! (See the tables). Typical "hire as many slaves as possible" philosophy.. Mine Mine, So, did these increased jobs replace lost ones in the US? That is the issue. Are you unhappy that this employment has increased in and of itself? These jobs may not be great, but are they not better than the alternatives available to these people in Mexico? Actually the textile industry in the US is one of the ones that is most threatened by import competition. It was initially protected after 1968 when Strom Thurmond gave the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon rather than to Ronald Reagan because Nixon promised to arrange a textile protection agreement, which he did. Passing PNTR is not going to increase access to the US market in either textiles or steel, both industries facing serious import competition. I see no reason to believe that passing PNTR will lead to a decline in employment in any of these industries in the US, much less the auto industry with its very vocal and outraged UAW. Until very recently support for protectionism in the US came more from the right wing than the left wing in terms of standard domestic politics. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:04 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19599] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defending China's RighttoSelf-Determination (fwd) "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: [snip] the outcome of NAFTA was not a "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing to Mexico but a large fall in the unemployment rate, and, last time I checked, an increase in auto employment (although steelworkers are hurting right now, but not because of NAFTA). I do not understand how, in a world of such an immense number of interacting forces, economists can be so confident in picking two of them out of the heap and saying, "A causes B." In many cases it would seem the "cause" of B might well not be any economic fact whatever, but (say) political or even some undetectable combination of contingencies. Carrol I don't know the figures of auto-employment in Mexico, but the indicators of the Apparel Maquiladora Industy show the following. Mexico's export Maquiladora industry is the one that is more directly related to NAFTA and US-Mexico free trade liberalization arrangements (reduction of tarrif exemptions and on-going tax exemptions to foreign ownership). Hence apparel is more vulnerable to foreign capital domination as an export industry compared to steel industry that is more likely to be state dominated. The employment in the apparel industy is increasing due to increasing number of plants in free trade zones. While the employment opportunies have been increasing and maquiladoras show some signs of growth, workers are hired on the basis of cheap labor. On the other hand, some influential firms prefer to improve working conditions and pay more to avoid unionization. According to Carillo, "wages in the apparel industry are lower than those in other maquiladora activities, especially the electronics. In 1990, the average hourly wage (with benefits) for apparel workers was $1.20 compared to $1.57 in the electronics industry" (Jorge Carillo, "The Apparel Maquiladora Industry at the Mexican Border in Bonacich _Global Production: The Apparel Industry in the Pacific Rim_, p.224). "In auto parts industry, for example, the average hourly wage for production workers was $2.27 in plants lacking a collective agrement, and $1.85 per hour in plants with a collective agreement" (p.225).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lukacs versus Frankfurt School (fwd)
Mine: I did not doubt about it. Adorno's _Aesthetic Theory_ offers morepossibilities to conceive art as a "praxis making" human enterprise,whereas _Dialectic Of Enlightenment_ ,seems to me, a more pessimistic textreflecting the circumstanes of declining liberal democracy and rise oforganized capitalism and state terror (Nazism and Stalinism). George: But surely there exists a link between both publications. Adorno's aesthetic presents art as a "praxis making" human enterprise, as perhaps a limited form of emancipation, precisely because DOE presents a pessimistic picture concerning conditions for social emancipation. IWarm regardsGeorge Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Barkin on Globalization
Too bad David is not still on pen-l Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:24:51 -0500 (CDT) From: David Barkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Globalization E-Conference [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [globalization] A time for reflection. I am a Mexican economist teaching the theories of development and working with communities attempting to build alternatives to defend themselves against globalization. The conference is a clear demonstration of a dialogue of deaf people: people talking past each other, interested in different objectives and with vastly divergent value systems. There are, if you wish, two polar extremes among the participants who might be systematically classified and pigeon holed [but I will refrain from doing so]. Simply put: One group is convinced that the free trade and investment model will raise world income and therefore eventually improve welfare for all: A rising tide raises all boats. The other group observes that not everyone is on a boat, to continue the analogy. Many, if not most are excluded for institutional, political or economic reasons from even getting near. In Mexico, as in many other countries, important segments of the population are desperately aware of their exclusion. A few have the capability to turn to protests, or to other strategies to negotiate some sort of unequal settlement that bets them a bribe of some sort in return for their quiescence; others turn to less savory or more dangerous routes to stake out claim for some small part of the vast quantities of wealth that are being generated. But many have opted for a far daring path in this day and age: They are attempting to build an alternative for themselves and in the process many are making important contributions to improving life for others, many of us included. The search for paths to reclaim a forgotten or maligned past often includes efforts to combine rich heritages and traditional ways of survival with new approaches, that sometimes involve technological innovations and alliances with outsiders. In other cases, however, it involves an explicit rejection of a "good deal" in trade or a production opportunity that the group may deem inappropriate. In our work here we are involved in a number of such alliances. In one instance, we have joined with an indigenous mountain group to attempt to make back-yard hog raising profitable once again [it became unprofitable with the change in hog genetics and the use of factory methods for intensive fattening with grains]; using local knowledge and scientific testing, we are introducing waste avocados into the diet: this lowers feed costs and reduces cholesterol in the hogs to produce a "lite" pork that commands a premium in the market. In the process we contribute to environmental cleanup, reduce the use of water in parts of the system and strengthen the role of women in community governance and productive systems [since the backyard economy is their domain]. Another example involves an alliance of several ethic groups that are participating in a program to rehabilitate a deteriorated watershed [because of commercial logging] to attempt to recharge an aquifer on which a major Pacific coast tourist resort depends. In the process, they have started several major agroindustries and are initiating a ecotourism facility to service guests from the tourist resort. This project is explicitly designed to reinforce traditional social institutions and their leadership. Both of these examples are applications of the three principles of Autonomy, Self-Sufficiency, and Productive Diversification, that are at the heart of any alternative program in this era of globalization. There are other practical projects with which are involved. I realize that one cannot hope to offer a complete explanation in a short statement for an email conference. I invite people to contact me for more details and look at my book that explains this a little further: WEALTH, POVERTY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (available in English and Spanish, published in Mexico, available from me or Amazon.com in the USA) David BarkinProfesor de Economia Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana / Unidad Xochimilco Apartado 23-181 16000 Xochimilco, D.F. MEXICO Tel: (525) 483-7100 Fax: (525) 483-7235 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lukacs versus Frankfurt School (fwd)
Mine: I did not doubt about it. Adorno's _Aesthetic Theory_ offers more possibilities to conceive art as a "praxis making" human enterprise, whereas _Dialectic Of Enlightenment_ ,seems to me, a more pessimistic text reflecting the circumstanes of declining liberal democracy and rise of organized capitalism and state terror (Nazism and Stalinism). George: But surely there exists a link between both publications. Adorno's aesthetic presents art as a "praxis making" human enterprise, as perhaps a limited form of emancipation, precisely because DOE presents a pessimistic picture concerning conditions for social emancipation. True. _Aesthetic Theory_ is a litte bit more difficult to digest though, while still carrying the Nietzschean elitist bias that there is "high" art and "low" art, Wagner versus "mass music". I never see jazz in the way that Adorno sees. What about the aesthetic beauty of Moroccon jazz? or Cuban jazz? or Jamaican jazz? Mine IWarm regards George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community by simply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dialectical materialism andecology
I asked: but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. CB: I've always thought it was sort of thaxis is to theory as praxis is to practice. but praxis is supposed to be the unity of theory and practice, no? Doug writes: Theory + practice = thaxis. but practice + theory = praxis. Which by the transitivity principle of definitions means that praxis = thaxis, which agrees with CB. MBS writes: I thought it went back to the old saying, the only certain things are debt and thaxis. hey, don't make fun of people with speech defeks! all of this is getting nowhere. Did someone simply make the word up? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: RE: Krugman Watch: Workers vs. Workers
At 03:52 PM 5/26/00 -0400, you wrote: Max Sawicky wrote: How does the EITC [earned income tax credit] make a worker any more dependent on an employer (who else can you work for?) than a wage increase? Doug writes: You only get the EITC if you have a job, so it doesn't reduce the cost of job loss. Wasn't the political point of the EITC to drive a wedge between the deserving and the undeserving poor? msg writes: A wage subsidy implies higher income, which income ought to be of some help in getting thru the rough spots. You still didn't answer my question, which is why is the EITC any worse than a wage increase? The EITC is works through the IRS [internal revenue service], an organization which scares most people to death, especially now that the IRS has decided to pump that cash-cow, the poor. Humor aside, it's traditional to help the poor in the most bureaucratic, nosy, and authoritarian way. Since the EITC got the IRS in the business of helping the poor, Congress pushed it to make sure that it acted as bad as (or worse than) the welfare case-worker. All of (or almost all of) the attention that the IRS is giving to low-income tax payers is to make sure that there aren't "welfare cheats." I bet that the involvement of the IRS keeps many of the working poor away, keeping them from filing for it. Also, unlike a wage increase, which works within the space limited by supply and demand, the EITC is subject to decisions by Congress and/or the President. That means that it cut be cut if the budget takes a turn toward being a deficit or if the political balance shifts further to the right. It's hard to tell which of these (a wage increase vs. the EITC) is worse, but they do work according to different logics. I would say the political point of the EITC was that it was a politically feasible way of getting money to low-income families with children. In the absence of the minimum wage, the wage subsidy would also allow employers to hire people for less. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Krugman Watch: Workers vs. Workers
mbs writes: The problem w/direct aid for trade adjustment is the problem of narrow entitlements -- they fail to excite mass support and without elite backing, tend to wither on the vine. that's right. But economists who are pushing free trade as the solution to the world's ills should be aware of the costs of their program and try to compensate those who suffer from those costs. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lukacs versus Frankfurt School (fwd)
On Fri, 26 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "high" art and "low" art, Wagner versus "mass music". I never see jazz in the way that Adorno sees. What about the aesthetic beauty of Moroccon jazz? or Cuban jazz? or Jamaican jazz? Adorno is useless vis-a-vis jazz. He didn't know the great jazz modernisms and never bothered to learn. Nor did he know zip about cinema or the cartoon or Third World revolutions. For those genres, you need folks like Sartre and Jameson, Spivak and Ngugi. What Adorno does give us, though, is an unparalleled set of tools to analyze the Second World, the border-zone between the metropole and periphery. Put another way, he wrote operating system kernel for the global Left, rather than end-user applications or middleware. -- Dennis
Re: Re: Dialectical materialism andecology
Jim, "Thaxis" was neologized by somebody (don't remember who) involved with what was once called the marxism-2 list. This was the original spinoff, although perhaps preceded by the OPE list crowd, from the old marxism list that had everybody and their whole families, tribes, cliques, and sects on it. Open warfare led to the defection of the marxism-2 people who objected to death-threatening Stalinists on the marxism list. A while later there was a general decision to proliferate lots of marxism-space lists which then happened. Around that time the marxism-2 list changed its name to marxism-thaxis. Perhaps one of those responsible will 'fess up as to whodunit. Rob Schaap? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, May 26, 2000 5:33 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19642] Re: Dialectical materialism andecology I asked: but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. CB: I've always thought it was sort of thaxis is to theory as praxis is to practice. but praxis is supposed to be the unity of theory and practice, no? Doug writes: Theory + practice = thaxis. but practice + theory = praxis. Which by the transitivity principle of definitions means that praxis = thaxis, which agrees with CB. MBS writes: I thought it went back to the old saying, the only certain things are debt and thaxis. hey, don't make fun of people with speech defeks! all of this is getting nowhere. Did someone simply make the word up? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
anthropology question
I have a question for anyone with a passing knowledge of anthropology. The speaker on our campus made these two statements that some very interesting. Are they true? cuneiform was only used for business transactions 800 years before people realized that it could be used for other purposes. Early humans only sharpened one side of a stone by chipping it for 800,000 years before they began to chip the other side. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Frankfurters, fascism and ecology
On Fri, 26 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: Dennis, what do you make of the post-WW II Adorno, who took CIA money to rebuild the Frankfurt School, and refused to republish Neumann's Behemoth because it was too Marxist? The Institute was originally financed by a wealthy Dutch rentier, proving that one should never be afraid of reappropriating The Man's capital flow to fight oppression. Realistically, Max Horkheimer was the one making the financial decisions, and I seriously doubt he knew where the money was coming from. Adorno was a totally unpractical person, very spacy, who never did any hands-on organizing (the Institute didn't publish Benjamin's stuff, for example, someone whose sympathies cannot be doubted, more for personal-picayune reasons that ideological differences). This says nothing about the worth of his theories or conceptual innovations, though. Writing off Adorno for working in West Germany would be as false as writing off Brecht because he worked for the Ulbricht regime. -- Dennis
Rock and roll rebels
From Metallica's "...And Justice for All" Halls of Justice Painted Green Money Talking Power Wolves Beset Your Door Hear Them Stalking Soon You'll Please Their Appetite They Devour Hammer of Justice Crushes You Overpower = From an interview with Metallica at slashdot.org: Question: In several articles about your actions against Napster, you were quoted as saying something like (paraphrased): "Napster takes our music and treats it as a commodity, instead of as art." My question is, how is it that trading your music for free over the internet makes it a simple commodity, but selling it for far too much money through record companies and stores makes it somehow "art"? Lars: Yeah. I mean, OK, 1st of all, let's start by making sure that I am not the one who decides that a Metallica CD should sell for 16 dollars. That's a whole other argument, one that at some other time I'd be glad to partake in, OK? I'm a consumer just as much [as anyone else] ... just because somebody feels that that CD is too expensive doesn't give them a right to steal it, in the same way that if I go down to the car dealership and want to buy a new Suburban, and I feel that paying $47,000 for a new Suburban is too expensive, that doesn't give me the right to steal it, right? It's sort of like, you know what, fair enough, I can certainly respect and I would certainly somewhat agree with the fact that paying 16 bucks for a CD is probably, you know, pushing too much. But, it's the marketplace that dictates that, not me. And people who live in the United States live in a Western capitalist society, where most of these things become about marketplace and about fair competitionin the marketplace, and that's what ultimately dictates these prices. That does not solidify that my only other option is to steal is it. My other option is to not buy it. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: Marx's life and theory
Louis Proyect wrote: Whitehead: "Nature is plastic, although to every prevalent state of mind there corresponds iron nature setting its bounds to life. [snip] It is a false dichotomy to think of Nature and Man. Mankind is that factor *in* Nature which exhibits in its most intense form the plasticity of nature. Plasticity is the introduction of novel law. The doctrine of the Uniformity of Nature is to be ranked with the contrasted doctrine of magic and miracle, as an expression of partial truth, unguarded and uncoordinated with the immensities of the Universe." Adventures of Ideas, pp. 73-8 This sounds like Will and Ariel Durant. Uh -- Lou. Ted is a slippier customer than this and you can't debate him with only half your attention. You also should not be using this long passage from Whitehead in snippets. The whole of it as originally quoted by Ted is necessary for response. Iron laws, upper case Nature, "intense form of plasticity" may or may not sound like the Durants, but if it does the appearance is deceiving. For example the sentence, "Mankind is that factor *in* Nature which exhibits in its most intense form the plasticity of nature." I don't really care for Whitehead's way of putting it, but nevertheless it is pretty good Marxism. It says, for example, what Sam was trying to say when he blundered into the silliness of "penetration" needed for human survival. It also says something very like what Charles has been saying in reference to the relationship of the dialectics of nature and historical materialism. It is even a fairly good summary of Sebastiano Timpanaro's defense of the importance to Marxism of the results as well as the method of the physical and biological sciences. I'm convinced that Ted is wrong in some ways -- but he sure as hell is not wrong in ways that can be thrown off this simply. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Frankfurters, fascism and ecology
At 03:15 PM 5/26/00 -0700, you wrote: The Institute was originally financed by a wealthy Dutch rentier, proving that one should never be afraid of reappropriating The Man's capital flow to fight oppression. for better or for worse, almost all leftist organizations have relied on funds from rich "angels." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Frankfurters, fascism and ecology
Dennis R Redmond wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: Dennis, what do you make of the post-WW II Adorno, who took CIA money to rebuild the Frankfurt School, and refused to republish Neumann's Behemoth because it was too Marxist? The Institute was originally financed by a wealthy Dutch rentier, proving that one should never be afraid of reappropriating The Man's capital flow to fight oppression. Realistically, Max Horkheimer was the one making the financial decisions, and I seriously doubt he knew where the money was coming from. Adorno was a totally unpractical person, very spacy, who never did any hands-on organizing (the Institute didn't publish Benjamin's stuff, for example, someone whose sympathies cannot be doubted, more for personal-picayune reasons that ideological differences). This says nothing about the worth of his theories or conceptual innovations, though. Writing off Adorno for working in West Germany would be as false as writing off Brecht because he worked for the Ulbricht regime. Hey, I got this from Joel Kovel, who isn't exactly unsympathetic to Adorno or the Frankfurters. Not republishing Behemoth because it was too Marxist is kind of icky, no? Doug
Re: R Dialectical materialism andecology
Doug Henwood wrote: Jim Devine wrote: but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. Theory + practice = thaxis. No relation to Thurn und Thaxis, or whatever that thing from Pynchon's Lot 49 is. Are you sure -- it has the aroma of coming out of the same bottle as lipoleum and wellingdone. Carrol
Re: Re marxism-thaxis
At 10:46 26/05/00 -0700, you wrote: At 08:05 AM 05/26/2000 +0100, you wrote: At 08:44 25/05/00 -0700, Jim D wrote: I don't want to get into quote-mongering (or to rehearsing old debates from Marxism-thaxis -- BTW, what in 'ell is "thaxis"?) Marxism-thaxis is one of the life forms in virtual marxism-space, which had its own evolutionary history, birth, childhood, adolescence, and maturation. Whether it goes on to be a white dwarf or a red giant is beyond the individual will of any one individual. But I will leave Rob Schaap as one of the co-moderators to give you more personal details. but what is "thaxis"? I know what "praxis" is. theory and praxis. The alternative was to continue to call themselves marxism2. Theory was thought to imply a possible separation from praxis. Chris Burford London
Re: anthropology question
Michael Perelman wrote: I have a question for anyone with a passing knowledge of anthropology. The speaker on our campus made these two statements that some very interesting. Are they true? cuneiform was only used for business transactions 800 years before people realized that it could be used for other purposes. I don't know about the exact number of years, but writing was certainly first used for "commercial" purposes. Linea A and Linear B (the scripts of the Minoan-Mycenean civilization were similarly used. (Some of this I think you can get from Finley's *The Ancient Economy*.) The reason we have those two scripts is interesting. Mycenae was one of a number of ancient economies which are called "Palace Economies." They were operated with an immense bureaucracy. Everything flowed into the palace, where detailed records were kept. Since they were only for ongoing accounting (had local bureaucrat X forwarded the proper amount of tribute in grain for his locale), they needed not be permanent. Hence they were kept on clay tablets *which were not fired* but simply allowed to dry. After a few months they were simply soaked with water and formed into fresh tablets. When that civilization collapsed suddently (around the 11th century if I remember correctly) the collapse was accomanied by immense fires (invaders, earthquake, peasant insurrection -- no one knows). So the tablets then in use got fired and were left for archaeologists to dig up and (finally around 1950) decipher. It was a great disappointment when the knowledge thus unearthed consisted mostly in how many bushels of barley had been receeive from a given locality. May I say in general that Finley's works on ancient Greece are most readable and vastly informative. Carrol
Re: Re: Marx's life and theory
I'm convinced that Ted is wrong in some ways -- but he sure as hell is not wrong in ways that can be thrown off this simply. Carrol The problem with Whitehead (and Leibniz) and Harvey's appropriation of both thinkers is that there is no concept of contradiction, struggle, and--ultimately--revolution. Dialectics in Harvey's view amounts to systems analysis and this is not what Marx was about. In Leibniz there is little doubt about the self-regulating character of his cosmos, which amounts to a clock that the deity created and then walked away from. Whitehead belongs to another tradition, but it still amounts to the same thing. For example, when Whitehead writes, "Nature is always about the perpetual exploration of novelty," you lose the other side of the equation which is about crisis and destruction. History moves forward, but not in the linear fashion envisioned by thinkers such as Leibniz and Whitehead. This kind of dialectics owes more to Hegel than it does to Marx. Marx had to struggle not only with Hegel, but the entire philosophical tradition he is based on. History involves war and class oppression, which can often produce terrible upheavals that can throw mankind backwards, as Marx indicated in the Communist Manifesto. When I wrote my article on Harvey and Leibniz for O'Connor, I was forced to leave out a lot of my material on Whitehead. I don't think its worth discussing at any length but Whitehead is basically a theist. He may not believe that God split the Red Sea, but his attempt to wed science, metaphysics and religion is probably more dangerous when you get down to it. With Whitehead and Bergson, to a lesser extent, you get the last gasp of Western Philosophy trying to develop a metaphysical worldview. To Whitehead's credit, he largely stayed aloof from the great clashes of the 20th century even though logically he would have seemed logically to end up on the opposite side of the barricades from Marxism. From a class standpoint, he belongs to the grand tradition of Victorian progressives who sought a more civilized version of England than the one that existed. It is the world of the Bloomsbury group and Fabian socialism. In any case, if there is any confusion about what Marx stood for and what Whitehead stood for, I urge people to read Whitehead and not rely on dribs and drabs. He is a generally lucid writer and thinker and nowhere near as bad as somebody like Unamuno or other post-Nietzshean reactionaries. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Marx's life and theory
Louis Proyect wrote: For example, when Whitehead writes, "Nature is always about the perpetual exploration of novelty," you lose the other side of the equation which is about crisis and destruction. Agreed -- this fits my memory of Whitehead, whom I haven't read in almost 40 years. History moves forward, but not in the linear fashion envisioned by thinkers such as Leibniz and Whitehead. What you are saying here is that Whitehead believed in Progress -- and that the doctrine of Progress as developed in the 18th/19th centuries is metaphysical. I agree. (Ted might be able to argue against this -- but at least he has to argue and it gets us out of the unfruitful exchange of compliments.) . . . . Whitehead is basically a theist. He may not believe that God split the Red Sea, but his attempt to wed science, metaphysics and religion is probably more dangerous when you get down to it. Possibly -- but this is then a reason either to argue carefully or simply to ignore him. If his position is dangerous, it shouldn't be dismissed flippantly. And it is historically interesting that "the last gasp" (if that is the correct designation) of Western Philosophy should be an attempt to keep a grip on the content the sciences *and* on a sense of change (however unmarxian). With Whitehead and Bergson, to a lesser extent, you get the last gasp of Western Philosophy trying to develop a metaphysical worldview. To Whitehead's credit, he largely stayed aloof from the great clashes of the 20th century even though logically he would have seemed logically to end up on the opposite side of the barricades from Marxism. But as you and I both know (and I suppose Ted agrees) history does not follow propositional logic and all slippery slopes don't slip. Carrol From a class standpoint, he belongs to the grand tradition of Victorian progressives who sought a more civilized version of England than the one that existed. It is the world of the Bloomsbury group and Fabian socialism. In any case, if there is any confusion about what Marx stood for and what Whitehead stood for, I urge people to read Whitehead and not rely on dribs and drabs. He is a generally lucid writer and thinker and nowhere near as bad as somebody like Unamuno or other post-Nietzshean reactionaries. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Henry Wallace
CB: Yes, I often think that the Wallace would have been president without the switch. Was Wallace for real ? A red ? Well, he would have been prez if he'd still been vice-prez when FDR died at beginning of fourth term in 1945... Wallace came from Iowa Republican family, father was agriculture secretary under Harding Coolidge (recall Harding died in '23) from 1921 until his death in 1924. Educated as plant geneticist - he developed first high- yield hybrid corn - HW took over family newspaper after dad died. Running paper with farming focus led Wallace to break with Reps over party's inattention to plight of rural farming families. Wallace used newspaper to promote farm price supports which he proceeded to implement as FDR's first agricultural secretary. In 1950, HW broke with supporters and people he was close to on political left over their refusal to support US in Korean War. He would also become public critic of Soviet Union. He wasn't red... Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DefendingChina'sRighttoSelf-Determination (fwd)
Mine, I do not disagree that the wages suck. But, are they better than what those workers got on the ejidos? The voting-with-the-feet pattern suggests an answer...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frankfurters, fascism andecology
Not republishing Behemoth because it was too Marxist is kind of icky, no? Doug Well, it's also substantially wrong... especially those parts where Neumann says that the Nazis have to keep the Jews around or else the people will turn on the bosses and the rulers... Brad DeLong -- This is the Unix version of the 'I Love You' virus. It works on the honor system. If you receive this mail, please delete a bunch of GIFs, MP3s and binaries from your home directory. Then send a copy of this e-mail to everyone you know...
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya? (fwd)
the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. Louis Proyect Very true. Actually, if one looks at the party politics of the pre-nazi germany, one can easily see that social democrats, the reformist left, were partially responsible for the rise of Hitler. Although social democrats were fully aware of the danger of Nazism, they preferred to go with the wind... Didn't Thaelmann confidently welcome the fall of Weimar and the accession to power of Hitler, saying that in six months the masses will turn to us? Most others see the social democrats as playing a positive role in trying to preserve the constitutional Weimar government against both the Nazis and the Communists, each of which thought that *they* would pick up the pieces when Weimar fell. I didn't know there were any supporters of the policies of the Comintern's "Third Period" still around; I thought they had all been purged during the "Popular Front" period... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DefendingChina'sRighttoSelf-Determination (fwd)
sure, with $1.80 hourly wage, *and* mostly non-unionized, as of 1996 figures! Mine Barkley asked: Mine, I do not disagree that the wages suck. But, are they better than what those workers got on the ejidos? Brad replied: The voting-with-the-feet pattern suggests an answer...
question about academic secrecy
Noam Chomsky has recently written: There was an article in the Wall Street Journal last summer, you may have seen, about MIT, my place. What had happened was that a student in a computer science class had refused to answer a question on an exam. When he was asked why by the professor, he said that he knew the answer but he was under a secrecy condition from a different professor not to answer it, and the reason was that, in the research he was doing for this other professor, they had sort of worked out the answer to this; but they wanted to keep it secret, because they wanted to make money, or something. Well, you know, this is so scandalous that even the Wall Street Journal was scandalized. Unfortunately, he cannot recall the source. Do any of you? I tried searching with MIT, student, but with no success. Any help would be appreciated. I am trying to finish my intellectual property book in the next few weeks and this would be a real gem to put in the ms. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Political Constraints,was:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd)
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: MIne, That old reactionary Churchill once remarked that "democracy is the worst of all political systems except for all the rest," or words to that effect. It seems that my original point got lost in a hassle over the use/legitimacy/etc of elections as a run-of-the-mill phenomena in a bourgeois democratic society. I was not concerned with that. (I have my opinions on elections in both bourgeois democracies and under socialism, but I wasn't talking about *either*.) I am talking about the point of *transition* (corresponding not to "the revolution" as a whole, which is along torturous process, but to an insurrection). There will never be a shift from one social system to another through an election.In fact socialism not only cannot generate majority approval under capitalism, it will not be able to generate majority approval in the first years of a socialist regime. This does not negate the need for socialist democracy. As has been many times pointed out the failure to achieve socialist democracy (whatever that will look like when achieved) in the USSR was a fatal deficiency in that society. But I really don't know what socialist democracy will look like -- and I really don't believe those who claim they do know what they are talking about. I do know that, at the point of the first achievement of socialist power and for perhaps decades afterwards that democracy will have to be democracy among a minority (though a large minority) of the population -- because in terms of gallop polls or pulling the voting level public opinion will still not accept socialism. To insist that socialism must be achieved by democratic means is simply to insist that socialism is an absurdity. I actually agree with most of the rest of your post (with the qualifications that I think elections will always be essentially undemocratic and that other machinery must be invented or forged in the course of struggle). Carrol I grant that much of the time elections are a pathetic waste of time. But, sometimes they actually do lead to changes in what is happening. The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the US is certainly one example. The elections in the Scandinavian countries that brought Social Democrats to power initially are another. Many have argued that one of the reasons why environmental problems were so much worse in the USSR and throughout the old Soviet bloc than in the US was because there were no elections, no democracy of any meaningful sort, period. It was democratic political pressure that brought about the creation of the EPA, passage of environmental legislation, and indeed there are many kinds of pollution that are now much less in the US and Western Europe and Japan. Even though in principle the central planners in the USSR could have accounted for environmental issues, they did not do so because there was no political pressure to do so, and there was no political pressure to do so because there were no elections. I think you are rather too quick to dismiss the importance of elections. At a minimum, I think you should admit that you are not in agreement with Marx, who clearly supported elections for the leaders of the Paris Commune. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:21 AM Subject: [PEN-L:19440] Political Constraints,was Re: :Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd) elections? I am not quite sure about the meaning. Which elections can you show that can really allow me to participate in the selection of people who run the society".I do not elect bankers!.I do not elect corporations!.I do not elect multinationals!.They are there illegitimately (even judged from the standpoint of one sided bourgeois democracy) Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote The election of December saw a victory by the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Lenin had no good excuse on Marxist grounds for denying them power.
Re: voting with the feet
I think it was Barkley who wrote: Mine, I do not disagree that the wages suck. But, are they better than what those workers got on the ejidos? now Brad writes: The voting-with-the-feet pattern suggests an answer... As Michael suggests, we should look for push factors rather than blithely assuming that only the "pull" factors of the maquilas and the urban blight. When I was in Mexico a few years ago (about 3 years ago), people were talking about the PRI agriculture minister's plan to liquidate the ejido sector, because of its alleged inefficiency (from the point of view of the PRI elite, I would guess), which would have encouraged a massive move of population to the cites and to the maquilas. I haven't kept track, but I would guess that a more moderate version of this plan was implemented. Does anyone know what's happening with respect to that idea? In any event, as I understand it, the ejidos were not extremely successful, because the Mexican government (unlike, say, the Taiwanese government after WW2) because they didn't provide agricultural credit and the like. Though the ejidos allowed Mexican peasants to survive with a certain amount of self-sufficiency, they were pockets of poverty. I would like to be corrected if my impression is wrong on this issue. Like Michael, I wish David Barkin were on the list. Of course, he dropped out because there were many too many missives on pen-l (and as he said last time I saw him, a big chunk of the blame is mine to bear, though I got the impression he liked the content of my overproduction). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: voting with the feet
I think it was Barkley who wrote: Mine, I do not disagree that the wages suck. But, are they better than what those workers got on the ejidos? now Brad writes: The voting-with-the-feet pattern suggests an answer... As Michael suggests, we should look for push factors rather than blithely assuming that only the "pull" factors of the maquilas and the urban blight. When I was in Mexico a few years ago (about 3 years ago), people were talking about the PRI agriculture minister's plan to liquidate the ejido sector, because of its alleged inefficiency (from the point of view of the PRI elite, I would guess), which would have encouraged a massive move of population to the cites and to the maquilas. I haven't kept track, but I would guess that a more moderate version of this plan was implemented. Does anyone know what's happening with respect to that idea? In any event, as I understand it, the ejidos were not extremely successful, because the Mexican government (unlike, say, the Taiwanese government after WW2) because they didn't provide agricultural credit and the like. Though the ejidos allowed Mexican peasants to survive with a certain amount of self-sufficiency, they were pockets of poverty. I would like to be corrected if my impression is wrong on this issue. Like Michael, I wish David Barkin were on the list. Of course, he dropped out because there were many too many missives on pen-l (and as he said last time I saw him, a big chunk of the blame is mine to bear, though I got the impression he liked the content of my overproduction). Jim Devine I don't see the distinction between being pushed out of ejidos by poverty and being pulled into maquiladoras by higher wages. It's never push *or* pull, it's always both...
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya? (fwd)
My reading of Neumann is that both Thaelmann and Hilferding refused to go to a coalition. It was a strategic mistake on both parts, especially when Hitler lost some seats in *second* Reichtag elections, and was in a relatively weaker position to be ousted by a united majority. it did not happen that way due to domestic and international circumstanes (Neumann lists them one by one). From my own perspective, it seems that if Hilferding was not so concerned with proctecting the Weimar constitution and accepted a coalition with communists, the course of the events might have been different. Counterfactually speaking, if coalition had happened, Germany could have entered a socialist phase rather than retrogressing into fascism. So you have to choose between either sacrifiying the weimar const or accepting fascism. From a democratic point of view, I would have chosen the first rather than allowing the fascists to make use of the Weimar Constitution, as Hilferding did. In the mean time, of course, communists should have not simply expected the "masses" to turn to them, or seen fascism as the highest stage of capitalism--something to be mechanistically superseded. Brilliant Gramsci reminds this mistake to us when he says that socialism was passified in Italy due to idealistic beleif in the unilinear conception of history. Mine the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. Louis Proyect Very true. Actually, if one looks at the party politics of the pre-nazi germany, one can easily see that social democrats, the reformist left, were partially responsible for the rise of Hitler. Although social democrats were fully aware of the danger of Nazism, they preferred to go with the wind... Didn't Thaelmann confidently welcome the fall of Weimar and the accession to power of Hitler, saying that in six months the masses will turn to us? Most others see the social democrats as playing a positive role in trying to preserve the constitutional Weimar government against both the Nazis and the Communists, each of which thought that *they* would pick up the pieces when Weimar fell. I didn't know there were any supporters of the policies of the Comintern's "Third Period" still around; I thought they had all been purged during the "Popular Front" period... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Dialectical materialism andecology
all of this is getting nowhere. Did someone simply make the word up? Yep. I think it was Lisa Rogers, a shining character who found absolutely everything interesting and was instrumental back in '94 and '95 in trying to restructure Marxism space (back at Virginia U's Spoons list server) to cater for different interests and personalities. Lots of people here remember Lisa better than I do. The poor women died, only in her thirties, before I got to know her. Anyway, I think 'Thaxis' is her coinage, and was meant in those days to appeal to people more inclined to abstract theoretical discussions. It's long since lost that focus, however, as the whole Marxism-space thing fractured (as things Marxist will, it seems) and now it boasts about 120 subscribers from all persuasions and over a dozen countries, some of whom just hadn't got on well with the moderators of the lefty lists that proliferated after the flame-out. It's a much less American list than most, and perhaps because its subscribers do not share issues, interests and experience as intensely as do people who share a nationality (not a Marxist analysis, I know), it's rather quieter - usually serving as a forum where assorted Trots meet assorted left socdems on rather better terms than they do elsewhere. I'd like it to be rather more than that, but it has its moments. It's a cozy place to try out one's more daring speculations re current global trends and, as here, getting a handle on what is and is not Marx's 'materialist conception', anyway. Cheers, Rob.
RE: question about academic secrecy
Michael, There was an article in the July 20, 1999 WSJ about Vanu Bose [the loudspeaker designer]and a patent dispute that involved him and his son. The article does not mention the test, but there were several articles over the summer investigating the Technology Licensing Office at MIT by the WSJ [I'll try to find the others, the above was handy]. The reporters name is Amy Dockser Marcus. Someone else on the list may know the WSJ email address protocol to contact her. Ian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19662] question about academic secrecy Noam Chomsky has recently written: There was an article in the Wall Street Journal last summer, you may have seen, about MIT, my place. What had happened was that a student in a computer science class had refused to answer a question on an exam. When he was asked why by the professor, he said that he knew the answer but he was under a secrecy condition from a different professor not to answer it, and the reason was that, in the research he was doing for this other professor, they had sort of worked out the answer to this; but they wanted to keep it secret, because they wanted to make money, or something. Well, you know, this is so scandalous that even the Wall Street Journal was scandalized. Unfortunately, he cannot recall the source. Do any of you? I tried searching with MIT, student, but with no success. Any help would be appreciated. I am trying to finish my intellectual property book in the next few weeks and this would be a real gem to put in the ms. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
