Re: Re: Brad De Long on New Keynesian Theory
I'm pretty sure I posted a message on pen-l about Brad's excellent article awhile back. It's excellent because it fits well with what I've been saying for quite awhile (natch), i.e., that "new Keynesianism" is pretty much the same thing as monetarism without a stable velocity of money. (It also clarifies some history that I was fuzzy on, while I think the concept of "political monetarism" fits Friedman -- and the IMF -- to a tee.) I wish that Brad had talked about critiques of monetarism, e.g., Tobin, the post-Keynesians, and Kaldor. At 09:56 PM 06/19/2000 -0700, you wrote: >>Brad De Long made an interesting point about new Keynesian theory in the >>winter issue of The Journal of Economic Perspectives -- showing the >>similarities between Milton Friedman's ideas and their own. Does >>anyone, including Brad, have any comments on his idea? >> >>-- >>Michael Perelman > >Well, I'm happy that I've *finally* figured out how to >get things I write in the history-of-economic-thought actually published: >place them in non-refereed journals that I edit. > >But maybe I should provide an explicit target for people to shoot at, from >http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Econ_Articles/monetarism.html: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
x
system pen-l perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] #subscribe pen-l Boris Kagarlitsky -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
More Intellectual Property Madness
Here is a story from the Financial Times. Notice that BT did not even know that it held the patent, now it wants to collect hundreds of millions of dollars. British Telecommunications has for 14 years owned a US patent to one of the key building blocks of the world wide web, it emerged on Monday. BT is understood to own a US patent covering "hyperlinks", which allow users of the web to move between pages by clicking on pictures or text. But BT, which has frequently been criticised for responding slowly to internet opportunities, has until recently made no attempt to exploit the patent commercially. The patent, which expires in 2006, remained buried among 15,000 other global patents owned by BT until a "few years ago", when it was rediscovered in a routine trawl of the company's intellectual property. The company has now decided to attempt to commercialise the invention, which analysts believe could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. BT has yet to prove that it can defend the patents in court. http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT35U2BHO9C&live=true&tagid=ZZZPCGI2B0C&subheading=telecommunications -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Boris Kagarlitsky
I just screwed up and sent the message subbing Boris Kagarlitsky to the list. I was hoping that we could get some intelligent discussion going concerning what is happening in Russia. Maybe one of you would like to take the opportunity to start the ball rolling. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Boris Kagarlitsky
Michael wrote: >I just screwed up and sent the message subbing Boris Kagarlitsky to the >list. I was hoping that we could get some intelligent discussion going >concerning what is happening in Russia. Maybe one of you would like to >take the opportunity to start the ball rolling. Okay, the big question that has been raging on and off on the Marxism list is whether Putin represents some kind of nationalist opposition to imperialist plunder of Russia. The comrades who argue this position tended to identify strongly with the outlook of people like Michel Chussodovsky and Diana Johnstone on the war in Kosovo. Milosevic, willy-nilly, was seen as defending Titoist type social institutions. So when Yeltsin gave verbal support to the Serbs as fellow Slavs, there was a tendency to see a new anti-imperialist alignment. The shadowy think-tank Stratfor also made this analysis and threw China into the mix. Some of this seems plausible in light of the Nato bombing of the Chinese embassy. However, I believe that Putin is not an anti-imperialist by any stretch of the imagination. Alex Cockburn alluded to some agreement made between the US and Yeltsin that in exchange for easing up on opposition to Nato bombing, the west would allow the Russians to go in and give the same kind of medicine to the Chechens. I asked Jeff St. Clair, Cockburn's partner, if he could furnish some kind of documentation on this, but he couldn't. At any rate, I found your analysis of the Chechen war most useful and look forward to your participation on PEN-L. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Matt Rabin
Hi Doug, I bought a copy of your book on Wall Street in a Dublin book shop some weeks ago. I must say, although it is priced cheaply, the book has good attractive cover and good quality paper. I have not started to read it ye. George - Original Message - From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 7:48 PM Subject: [PEN-L:20400] Re: Re: Matt Rabin Timework Web wrote: >The demotic prose in question is in chapter one of every introductory >probability and statistics text ever written. It's the prediction of the >model that astounds me -- "that people may pay for financial advice from >'experts' whose expertise is entirely illusory." I'm getting right to work >on a model to predict the religion of the pope and the whereabouts of the >bears' bowel movements. Just make sure they're scientific, well-outfitted with Greek letters and subscripts. Lots of people knew that financial advisors are less reliable than monkeys throwing darts, but you needed a model to prove it. Doug
Re: Boris Kagarlitsky
At 10:36 AM 6/20/00 -0700, you wrote: >I just screwed up and sent the message subbing Boris Kagarlitsky to the >list. I was hoping that we could get some intelligent discussion going >concerning what is happening in Russia. Maybe one of you would like to >take the opportunity to start the ball rolling. In addition to the foreign policy dimension, I think that domestic issues in Russia seem crucial. There seems to be a tension between two roles for Putin, which I think of in terms of Hobbes vs. Locke. The Hobbesian Putin comes in and imposes order, peace, and law on Russia in the most dictatorial way, as befits a KGB type, which in theory allows future prosperity to arise. (This would also involve subordinating the various provinces to Moscow.) In the Hobbesian scenario, Putin would be totally willing to stomp on the oligarchs if they get out of line, going against Putin's efforts to create order. On the other hand, the Lockean Putin is subject to corruption (as with Locke's critique of the Hobbesian Leviathan) since he's "only a man." He would be totally corrupted by the oligarchs, which may conflict with the efforts to impose order, law, and peace. The continuing power of the oligarchs threatens to further undermine the legitimacy of the Russian state, so that popular unrest would grow. I guess that the opinion leaders in the "West" hope that Putin could impose order while establishing a capitalism with more moderate social gaps between classes. This is more of the Hobbesian model. I don't think that there's a Marxian Putin, who would try to mobilize the working class against the oligarchs and other capitalists in a democratic way, to establish socialism from below. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Boris Kagarlitsky
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: > However, I believe that Putin is not an anti-imperialist by any stretch of > the imagination. >From what I can tell, Putin is passing reactionary legislation that is draconian in its reach. Under his leadership, the Duma abolished the progressive income tax in Russia in favor of a flat tax. This move may be justified as just addressing the reality of tax evasion but it is hardly a challenge to capitalist authority of any kind. MOre importantly, in May my Russian roommate (who is fan of Boris's although is less favorable to the Chechens) translated for me some of the provisions of the proposed new labor code. From what I can tell, it would essentially abolish every legal right workers have and severely disable labor union rights. I'd be curious if Boris had any comments on the proposed labor code. -- Nathan Newman
Global warming
>From http://www.columbia.edu Future Regional Climate Impacts Could Be Catastrophic, Regional Task Force Needed to Confront Problem By Kurt Sternlof In the worst-case scenario, a major hurricane will track across New York City at full force about 80 years from today, much like the one that wreaked havoc here back in 1938. But this time, with the storm surge riding atop on ocean already three feet higher even on a calm day, much of the region's ocean front property will end up as ocean bottom - power out, all transportation shut down, precious real estate destroyed and, paradoxically, water everywhere but nary a drop to drink. Damage from one such storm could reach $250 billion or more, as much as a quarter of the area's total annual economy. And that doesn't begin to account for the toll on human lives. "Manhattan could literally be cut into two separate islands," said Klaus Jacob, an earth scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. "On one island would be the mayor and what's left of Wall Street, on the other island would be the rest of us." What makes such a storm scenario possible? The combination of human-induced global warming, which is causing sea levels to rise worldwide, along with our love affair with the risky development of low-lying coastal areas. This is the issue being addressed at a special conference of scientific experts at Columbia University - What does the future of climate change hold in store for what can and should we do about it? "We already are experiencing the effects of a changing climate; we just have to recognize them for what they are," said Cynthia Rosenzweig, research scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research, and a leader of the conference. "Then, and this is really the part, we have to decide what to do about it." The conference is timed with the release for public comment of a federally d study, Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan Coast Region, (MEC) which was prepared over the last two years by Rosenzweig, her co-leader William Solecki of Montclair State University, and a ciplinary team of contributing scientists such as Jacob. Rather than simply lamenting the climate disasters to come and how we only have ourselves to blame though, the MEC conference and report have focused in on we can do to prepare for a future of climate uncertainty with intelligent planning. "The fact is, most of the significant impacts won't begin to show for another 50 which gives us time to prepare," Rosenzweig said. "In many ways then, what announcing at this conference is a golden opportunity to act now in order to create better future for our great grandchildren." In providing her overview of the report conclusions to begin the conference, Rosenzweig called for the creation of a "Regional Climate Awareness Interagency Task Force" charged with identifying all the potential hazards of climate change, risks involved and the mitigating steps that could and should be taken. Much of the problem in dealing with climate-change issues lies in the uncertainty climate projections and the fact that impacts are not uniform. For example, while experts agree that average temperatures across the region will rise as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, predicting what will happen to remains virtually impossible. And those climate effects that already strike the such as heat waves and storm flooding, tend to impact coastal communities and poor and elderly in particular. Still, all the MEC participants stressed the importance of beginning to deal with challenges posed by climate change today as a community, rather than tomorrow disparate special-interest groups reacting blindly to separate weather disasters. Jacob likened the effort to a foot race against time up a hill that will only get the longer we pretend that it isn't there. "To win this race will require a fundamental shift in the culture of our regional planning that must outpace the rate of climate change," he said. "This race will not be easy, we must face it, finance it and win it. The bottom line is, the sooner we begin to with this the less it will cost in terms of money, environmental degradation and suffering. Ultimately, scientific uncertainty is a lousy excuse for inaction." The MEC conference and report focus on seven crucial areas of climate impact: 1) Coasts, 2) Wetlands, 3) Infrastructure, 4) Water Supply, 5) Public Health, 6) Energy, and 7) Institutional Decision-making. The MEC report, including an executive summary highlighting the key results and conclusions, can be obtained as a PDF download at http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu. There will also be an electronic comment form available on the web site for the 30-day public comment period begins today. The MEC project is one of 19 contributing regional studies to the U.S. national climate asses
BLS Daily Report
> BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2000: > > About 101,400 lost their jobs because of mass layoffs in April, the lowest > number for that month since 1996, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics. > Such layoffs involve 50 or more workers (The Wall Street Journal "Work > Life" feature, page 1). > > "Did the Labor Department get the May employment report wrong?" asks USA > Today (page B1). The surprising uptick in unemployment -- to 4.1 percent > from 3.9 percent a month earlier -- was initially embraced by economists > and investors as a sign that the Federal Reserve's six short-term interest > rate increases over the past year had finally put the brakes on the > economy. Now they aren't sure about the report. From the outset, the > unemployment numbers seemed too good to be true. The May report showed > that private industry cut 116,000 jobs, the biggest drop in 9 years. Yet > the economy itself seemed to be humming nicely. The unemployment numbers > flew in the face of other evidence, too. A Manpower survey showed > companies eager to hire workers. Manufacturers indicated brisk > production. The unemployment figures are computed with two surveys: a > payroll report, in which employers report the number of workers they pay, > and a door-to-door survey in which residents are asked their employment > status. While those figures never match exactly, in May the household > survey found a decline of 1 million workers, while payrolls increased > 231,000. The discrepancy gave economists pause, says the chief U.S. > economist at Lehman Bros. Many had expected the unemployment rate to be > virtually unchanged from April's 3.9 percent. Here's what might have gone > wrong: > 1. Usually the employment survey is taken on the week (Sunday to > Saturday) that includes the 12th of the month. In May, the 12th fell on a > Friday, so the survey period was very short. > 2. May is a big month for hiring, as students fan out for summer jobs, > and the survey may have missed that. > 3. The Census Bureau, which collects the raw employment data for the > Bureau of Labor Statistics, was doing Census counting at the same time it > was doing the separate household employment survey. The workload could > have caused mistakes. > "It is hard to ignore the possibility that the venerable employment report > -- supposedly the best monthly indicator -- laid an egg in May, writes > Joseph Abate in Lehman Bros.' weekly economic monitor. > > The U.S. chapter of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers > says many of its members can't find work. that's led the group to join > the Immigration Reform Coalition, a group hoping to restrict the number of > temporary skilled-worker visas issued each year. The current visa system > "isn't good for the profession, and it isn't good for the U.S.," says a > former IEEE-USA president. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the > unemployment rate last year for experienced electrical engineers was just > 1.4 percent, and colleges say they cannot churn out enough. But the > former IEEE-USA president says many of those without jobs are older > engineers who were let go after the Cold War and now hold lower-paying > jobs in other fields. The vice president of the National Society of > Professional Engineers says she sympathizes with the older engineers (The > Wall Street Journal "Work Life" feature, page 1). > > Lifeguard jobs go begging, says The New York Times ( June 18, page 1). > Ocean City, New Jersey, for example, has dipped deep into its personnel > files and asked old-timers who were lifeguards in the past to come back > and fill empty stations. Moonlighting stock brokers, lawyers, doctors, > engineers and casino floorwalkers are working as lifeguards on the > weekends. As go the beaches of the New Jersey shore, so go the workplaces > of the nation. For the last 10 years, fewer teenagers and young adults > have been venturing into the summer workforce. Last year, even with > desperate managers dangling finder's fees, tuition plans and other lures, > just 62 percent of America's 16 million people between 16 and 19 years old > were in the labor force, compared with a high of 718 percent in 1978, and > the lowest percentage since July 1965. The trend is most pronounced among > young men, whose summer employment rate of 65 percent is down from 73.5 > percent in 1989 and the lowest since the Bureau of Labor Statistics > started keeping track in 1948. The lengthy economic expansion has given > growing numbers of families the means to support their children as they > learn new languages, travel and undertake other adventures, and many > parents are proud to be able to offer their offspring opportunities they > never had. But the shift away from summer jobs also suggests that tens of > thousands of teenagers are missing out on what some consider a hallowed > American coming-of-age experience and, arguably, a social leveler that > gives the college-bound a fl
f capital: Information requested: US finance capital?which fraction of the bourgeoisie (fwd)
Bill, thanks very much for the citations, particularly Brewer's book (I was almost ignoring his work). >> >>List(s), >> >>I am thinking at the moment about the possible ways of operationalizing >>"finance capitalism". > >I have similar questions about finance capital, as they relate to whether >Canada is dominated by Canadian finance capital, i.e. is an imperialist >country. The usual argument is that the Canadian bourgeoisie is divided >between financial and industrial fractions and overall dominated by US >capital; thus Canada is somewhere in between colony and imperialist. > >But it is a little confusing to try to apply the "classic" definitions. You are right. I don't specifically know about the situation in Canada, but as far as the classical definition is concerned,I think that the distinction between "finance" and "industrial" capital is significanly blurred nowadays. This is primarily because many non-financial firms such as Microsoft, General Motors, General Electric, etc.. have a large share of capital circulating in the financial markets. Futhermore, bank capital has been historically known as facilitating the organization of corporations, through lending and barrowing, and contributing to the accumulation of real-industrial capital, as described by Marx's M-C-P-M'-C' formula. As one may suggest, however, the distinction between "finance" and "industrial" capital is still analytically useful if we need to distinguish unique forms of capital with discrete functions and class interests. While I may tend to agree with this approach, it is still necessary to see the relationship in dialectical terms. I would not suggest to say, for example, finance capial is unproductive because it does not directly enter into production process. Both forms of capital represent appropriation of surplus value, and direclty or indirectly involve in the process of production and distribution of goods.. We should not reify the opposition between two forms of capital (finance versus industrial). so you are right in principle. Regarding the classical definition, Hilferding's definition of finance capital can be misleading. From an historical point of view, it makes sense for understanding the historical development of banking industry in Germany (merging of finance and industrial capital, with banks maintaining their relative autonomy from small firms, as a financial oligarchy). The problem with Hilferding's analysis was that although he was right to point out this merging as a unique phase of capitalist development, he still thought that finance capital was an unproductive capital (maintaining the vulgar orthodoxy). Seeing the banks as the enemy, he offered a social democratic nationalization of credit via state regulation of banking industry.Social democratic state, he thought, could transform unproductive "finance capital" into productive "industrial capital". His resolutions were bourgeois reformist in the final analysis. >From what you say below, it seems to me that Canada may share the same historical experience of bank-state regulation of finance. > >One of my arguments is that the 'bank control of industry' formula (e.g. >through ownership ties) misses what is a key pattern in Canada, namely a >broader form of 'merging' of financial and industrial capital through >their common ownership by holding companies, with the banks remaining >relatively separate. > >I am trying to show there is a relatively independent Canadian imperialist >class (that Canada is not dependent), so I tend to lead away from the >grand schemes of an 'Atlantic' or other super-international imperialism. >My thought is that these tend towards the old 'ultraimperialist' fantasy >that national bourgeoisies are not longer primarily based on a particular >state. I definetly agree. Mind you that Pijl's use of the term "transatlantic bourgeoisie" is not necessarily meant to imply "super-international imperialism" It does not disregard the role of national bourgeoisies (of course, there are anti-free trade capitalist factions of the bourgeoisie in every country). Pijl does not use the term liberalism in the American sense of the term (opposite of nationalism or protectionism) For example, the US steel industry also wants to compete internationally, but the way it defines the rules of "fair competition" may be seen as protectionist by free traders. It all depends on which class interest we are talking about. Accordingly, Pijl historicizes how the _factions_ within the transatlantic bourgeoisie defines their own interests during the formation of the US global hegemony launched by Woodrow Wilson. His methodology is Gramscian and pays a lot of attention to inner politics of transnational elites.. As you see at the of the book, he anticipates the breakdown of the internationalist capitalist order, predicting _fragmentation_ within the capitalist class in the 70s. > >You are probably familiar with M. Fennema, International Network
Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
>Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel are very progressive, I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. I read a speech by him called "Economic Costs" of something presented in a rountable discussion. Dorman was suggesting alternative ways of increasing efficiency, participation and rationality in the work place. His solution seemed to me a humanist version of Fordism. Dorman was *not* attacking capitalism, relations of production, or power hierarchy in the work place. He was not attacking capitalism as a *system*. There was even no mentioning of exploitaiton in some identifiable sense, so i did not find Dorman's work particulary useful for Marxist politics. Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, but not Marxist per se. Mine http://www.parecon.org/media.htm The Political Economy of Participatory Economics by Albert and Hahnel (Princeton University Press, 1991) With the near bankruptcy of centrally planned economies now apparent and with capitalism seemingly incapable of generating egalitarian outcomes in the first world and economic development in the third world, alternative approaches to managing economic affairs are an urgent necessity. Until now, however, descriptions of alternatives have been unconvincing. Here Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel support the libertarian socialist tradition by presenting a rigorous, well-defined model of how producers and consumers could democratically plan their interconnected activities. After explaining why hierarchical production, inegalitarian consumption, central planning, and market allocations are incompatible with "classlessness," the authors present an alternative model of democratic workers' and consumers' councils operating in a decentralized, social planning procedure. They show how egalitarian consumption and job complexes in which all engage in conceptual as well as executionary labor can be efficient. They demonstrate the ability of their planning procedure to yield equitable and efficient outcomes even in the context of externalities and public goods and its power to stimulate rather than subvert participatory impulses. Also included is a discussion of information management and how simulation experiments can substantiate the feasibility of their model. Available through Amazon.Com. >But if Capitalism is Here for at Least Another Fifty Years... by Rabin Hahnel >http://www.parecon.org/writings/hahnelumasstalk.htm >Moreover, fewer can find solace in old left doctrines of inevitable capitalist collapse. Many twentieth century progressives sustained themselves emotionally and psychologically with false beliefs that capitalism's dynamism and technological creativity would prove to be its weakness as well as its strength. Grandiose Marxist crisis theories -- a tendency for the rate of profit to fall as machinery was substituted for exploitable living labor, or insufficient demand to keep the capitalist bubble afloat as productive potential outstripped the buying power of wages used to buoy the hopes of the faithful in face of crushing political defeats. And less ideological reformers were still affected by the myth that capitalism organized its own replacement. Unfortunately, none of this was ever true. >Planks in a Progressive Reform Program > Marx's prophesy of economic emiseration did not prove true for the first world. But capitalism has never delivered sustained growth, much less economic development in the periphery, and the prospects for third world economies are more bleak than ever. Junior status in the global capitalist system is hardly an attractive prospect as we enter the twenty-first century. >But it does mean that governments of third world countries must not enter into international economic relations that undermine programs that reorient their economies toward basic need provision. If this means trade, investment, and credit relations must be limited largely to the Scandinavian economies and other third world economies dedicated to basic need provision as well, so be it. Referring to AFL-CIO (:Mine) >Union leadership is less hostile to political activity outside the Democratic Party, more critical of centrist Democratic Party politicians, and more aggressive at punishing Democrats who fail to vote pro-labor than at any t
RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
>Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel are very progressive, " . . . I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. . . . " You gotta watch out for these guys. Dorman, if that's his real name, is heavily invested in the potentially "benign" reforms of the Capitalist State. He advocates a free market in body parts. Hahnel looks like he hasn't shaved since the 80's. Teaches at American U. in Washington, D.C., a school whose extensions in the Middle East are well-known incubators for U.S. intelligence agents. Hahnel has these loopy schemes for democratic planning, an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. a word to the wise. mbs
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
>Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is >not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of >participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words >socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to >describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, >but not Marxist per se. > > >Mine Robin Hahnel and his partner Michael Albert are basically modern versions of utopian socialism, a political current that combines: 1) Ahistoricism: The utopian socialists did not see the class struggle as the locomotive of history. While they saw socialism as being preferable to capitalism, they neither understood the historical contradictions that would undermine it in the long run, nor the historical agency that was capable of resolving these contradictions: the working-class. 2) Moralism: What counts for the utopian socialists is the moral example of their program. If there is no historical agency such as the working-class to fulfill the role of abolishing class society, then it is up to the moral power of the utopian scheme to persuade humanity for the need for change. 3) Rationalism: The utopian scheme must not only be morally uplifting, it must also make sense. The best utopian socialist projects would be those that stood up to relentless logical analysis. If you look at their "Looking Forward", you are presented with a vision of social transformation virtually identical to that of the 19th century utopians. In a reply to somebody's question about social change and human nature on the Z Magazine bulletin board, Albert states: "I look at history and see even one admirable person--someone's aunt, Che Guevara, doesn't matter--and say that is the hard thing to explain. That is: that person's social attitudes and behavior runs contrary to the pressures of society's dominant institutions. If it is part of human nature to be a thug, and on top of that all the institutions are structured to promote and reward thuggishness, then any non-thuggishness becomes a kind of miracle. Hard to explain. Where did it come from, like a plant growing out of the middle of a cement floor. Yet we see it all around. To me it means that social traits are what is wired in, in fact, though these are subject to violation under pressure." Such obsessive moralizing was characteristic of the New Left of the 1960s. Who can forget the memorable slogan "if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." With such a moralistic approach, the hope for socialism is grounded not in the class struggle, but on the utopian prospects of good people stepping forward. Guevara is seen as moral agent rather than as an individual connected with powerful class forces in motion such as the Cuban rural proletariat backed by the Soviet socialist state. Albert's and Hahnel's enthusiasm for the saintly Che Guevara is in direct contrast to his judgement on the demon Leon Trotsky, who becomes responsible along with Lenin for all of the evil that befell Russia after 1917. Why? It is because Trotsky advocated "one-man management". Lenin was also guilty because he argued that "all authority in the factories be concentrated in the hands of management." To explain Stalinist dictatorship, they look not to historical factors such as economic isolation and military pressure, but the top-down management policies of Lenin and Trotsky. To set things straight, Albert and Hahnel provide a detailed description of counter-institutions that avoid these nasty hierarchies. This forms the whole basis of their particular schema called "participatory planning" described in "Looking Forward": "Participatory planning in the new economy is a means by which worker and consumer councils negotiate and revise their proposals for what they will produce and consume. All parties relay their proposals to one another via 'facilitation boards'. In light of each round's new information, workers and consumers revise their proposals in a way that finally yields a workable match between consumption requests and production proposals." Their idea of a feasible socialism is beyond reproach, just as any idealized schema will be. The problem is that it is doomed to meet the same fate as ancestral schemas of the 19th century. It will be besides the point. Socialism comes about through revolutionary upheavals, not as the result of action inspired by flawless plans. There will also be a large element of the irrational in any revolution. The very real possibility of a reign of terror or even the fear of one is largely absent in the rationalist scenarios of the new utopians. Nothing can do more harm to a new socialist economy than the flight of skilled technicians and professionals. For example, there was very little that one can have done to prevent such flight in Nicaragua, no matter the willingness of a Tomas Borge to forgive Somocista torturers. This had more of
question re "Weltgeld"
My thanks to several of you who sent interesting material and answers regarding the concept of "political economy" in response to my question little while ago. Here is another question-- re global money. There are sections in Das Kapital which deal with "Weltgeld" (world money, global money) and gold as global money. It seems that Marx treats the gold standard as a fact. He develops arguments in that context, but does not criticize the gold standard. Is that a correct reading? Thanks, Gert Kohler Oakville, Canada
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Max Sawicky *confided*: > You gotta watch out for these guys. Dorman, if > that's his real name, is heavily invested And I wonder if there's any significance to the unmistakable coincidence that his name, without the 'm', is an anagram for NORAD. One can't be too careful when dowsing for political purity. Tom Walker
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Lou, you have hit the heart of the matter once again! Unfortunately, the equation of game theory+utopian socialism produces such results... Mine >>Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is >>not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of >>participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words >>socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to >describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, >but not Marxist per se. > > >Mine Lou wrote: >Robin Hahnel and his partner Michael Albert are basically modern versions of utopian socialism, a political current that combines: >1) Ahistoricism: The utopian socialists did not see the class struggle as the locomotive of history. While they saw socialism as being preferable to capitalism, they neither understood the historical contradictions that would undermine it in the long run, nor the historical agency that was capable of resolving these contradictions: the working-class. >2) Moralism: What counts for the utopian socialists is the moral example of their program. If there is no historical agency such as the working-class to fulfill the role of abolishing class society, then it is up to the moral power of the utopian scheme to persuade humanity for the need for change. >3) Rationalism: The utopian scheme must not only be morally uplifting, it must also make sense. The best utopian socialist projects would be those that stood up to relentless logical analysis. If you look at their "Looking Forward", you are presented with a vision of social transformation virtually identical to that of the 19th century utopians. In a reply to somebody's question about social change and human nature on the Z Magazine bulletin board, Albert states: >"I look at history and see even one admirable person--someone's aunt, Che Guevara, doesn't matter--and say that is the hard thing to explain. That is: that person's social attitudes and behavior runs contrary to the pressures of society's dominant institutions. If it is part of human nature to be a thug, and on top of that all the institutions are structured to promote and reward thuggishness, then any non-thuggishness becomes a kind of miracle. Hard to explain. Where did it come from, like a plant growing out of the middle of a cement floor. Yet we see it all around. To me it means that social traits are what is wired in, in fact, though these are subject to violation under pressure." >Such obsessive moralizing was characteristic of the New Left of the 1960s. Who can forget the memorable slogan "if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." With such a moralistic approach, the hope for socialism is grounded not in the class struggle, but on the utopian prospects of good people stepping forward. Guevara is seen as moral agent rather than as an individual connected with powerful class forces in motion such as the Cuban rural proletariat backed by the Soviet socialist state. >Albert's and Hahnel's enthusiasm for the saintly Che Guevara is in direct contrast to his judgement on the demon Leon Trotsky, who becomes responsible along with Lenin for all of the evil that befell Russia after 1917. Why? It is because Trotsky advocated "one-man management". Lenin was also guilty because he argued that "all authority in the factories be concentrated in the hands of management." >To explain Stalinist dictatorship, they look not to historical factors such as economic isolation and military pressure, but the top-down management policies of Lenin and Trotsky. To set things straight, Albert and Hahnel provide a detailed description of counter-institutions that avoid these nasty hierarchies. This forms the whole basis of their particular schema called "participatory planning" described in "Looking Forward": "Participatory planning in the new economy is a means by which worker and consumer councils negotiate and revise their proposals for what they will produce and consume. All parties relay their proposals to one another via 'facilitation boards'. In light of each round's new information, workers and consumers revise their proposals in a way that finally yields a workable match between consumption requests and production proposals." >Their idea of a feasible socialism is beyond reproach, just as any idealized schema will be. The problem is that it is doomed to meet the same fate as ancestral schemas of the 19th century. It will be besides the point. Socialism comes about through revolutionary upheavals, not as the result of action inspired by flawless plans. >There will also be a large element of the irrational in any revolution. The very real possibility of a reign of terror or even the fear of one is largely absent in the rationalist scenarios of the new utopians. Nothing can do more harm to a new socialist economy than the flight of skilled technicians and professionals. For exampl
RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Just to open a small parenthesis here. I was in fact criticizing Dorman and Hahnel againist the claim that they were progressive. I don't wanna be associated with the folks, or the imperialist agency of American orientalism--American University--Hahnel is a part of. The first sentence does not belong to me. Mine JD wrote: >>Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel are very progressive, I wrote: >" . . . I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. . . . " You gotta watch out for these guys. Dorman, if that's his real name, is heavily invested in the potentially "benign" reforms of the Capitalist State. He advocates a free market in body parts. Hahnel looks like he hasn't shaved since the 80's. Teaches at American U. in Washington, D.C., a school whose extensions in the Middle East are well-known incubators for U.S. intelligence agents. Hahnel has these loopy schemes for democratic planning, an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. a word to the wise. mbs
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Peter Dorman is a progressive. He is not a Marxist. At least, I recall him saying on pen-l that he was no longer a strict aherent to marxism. He has done excellent work regarding worker's rights. I am not sure whether Robin Hahnel is or is not a Marxist. I am not sure whether he is still on the list. Louis does not like the theories of Albert and Hahnel. I have my doubts as well, but he is certainly a progressive. I don't see how we can gain much through such taxonomy. All this started because Jim Devine siad they they used game theory in the interest of progressive change. Rather than attacking each other, we would do better trying to understand what is actually happening in the world around us. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just to open a small parenthesis here. I was in fact criticizing Dorman > > >" . . . I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an > ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. . . . " -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 19 May 2000 -- 4:42 (#423)
--- Sponsor's Message -- What kind of shoes do you want? At Zappos.com, the Web's Most Popular Shoe Store, you can choose from the best selection of name brand shoes anywhere. FREE shipping and no sales tax on most orders! http://click.topica.com/nRbz8SnrbAjwjxa/ZapposShoeSpecial __ The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 19 May 2000 Vol. 4, Number 42 (#423) __ The Notion of "Traditional Values" Philip Pullella (Reuters), "Pope John Paul Urges Return to Traditional Values," 13 May 00 Deborah Mokma, "Dear Dr. Laura ... I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7." More on Dr. Laura and Hate Speech Colin Nickerson (Boston Globe), "Canada silences Dr. Laura on gays: Panel rebukes host for her 'abusive' bias," 12 May 00 Seattle Times, "Dr. Laura's tempest comes to town," 15 May 00 -- THE NOTION OF "TRADITIONAL VALUES" Pope John Paul Urges Return to Traditional Values Philip Pullella (Reuters) 13 May 00 FATIMA, Portugal -- Pope John Paul, beatifying two shepherd children who had visions of the Madonna in 1917, said Saturday that modern society had to return to traditional values if it wanted to avoid self-destruction. In his sermon at a beatification mass attended by hundreds of thousands of people, the Pope did not disclose the so-called "Secret of Fatima," said to have been told by the Virgin Mary to three child visionaries in 1917 in this central Portuguese town. It was not clear if the Pope would refer to the secret, which some fear may be a prediction of an apocalyptic event, later in the day before returning to Rome. While the first two parts of the Madonna's message are well known, the third has never been revealed to anyone but Popes and a few top Vatican officials, sparking speculation the Pontiff could divulge it in Fatima. The beatification ceremony, in which Francisco and Jacinta Marto were declared "blesseds" of the Church, was attended by Sister Lucia dos Santos, a frail, 93-year-old nun who is the only survivor of the three visionaries. At the shrine built around the spot of the 1917 events, cheers and tears greeted the Pope's proclamation of beatification, the penultimate step before sainthood, which can only be bestowed upon the dead. Pope Refers To Madonna's Message While the Pope did not disclose the Secret of Fatima in his homily, he did refer generally to what the Church says was the Madonna's concern that sins against God were putting the world on a destructive path. "The message of Fatima is a call to conversion, appealing to humanity to that it does not fall into the (devil's) trap," the Pope said, adding that a struggle between good and evil was still in progress today. The horrors of the past century, including wars, concentration camps, gulags, ethnic cleansing, persecutions, terrorism, kidnappings, drugs and abortion had produced many victims of evil, he said. "Man, by putting God to the side, cannot reach happiness. He will only end up destroying himself," the Pope, who wore resplendent gold and white vestments and appeared to be in good form, told the crowd. Speaking on the 19th anniversary of the 1981 assassination attempt that nearly killed him, the Pope also renewed his thanks to God for having been "saved from death." That shooting also took place on May 13 and the Pontiff, who turns 80 Thursday, is convinced that the Madonna of Fatima diverted bullets fired by a professional killer so that they would not hit vital organs. "One hand fired the gun and another guided the bullet," the Pope once said. When he arrived Friday night, the Pope prayed before a statue of the Madonna of Fatima, whose crown contains the bullet fired by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca. Secret Subject Of Hundreds Of Books The Secret of Fatima has been the subject of hundreds of books, fills thousands of web sites and even inspired a 1981 plane hijacking by a man who wanted the Vatican to reveal it. Doom and gloom predictions have percolated and been doused time and again since Sister Lucia began writing down her recollections of the apparitions. The first part of the Madonna's message was a vision of hell shown to the children. In the second part, Mary predicted the outbreak of World War Two some 22 years before it started, asked for devotion to her Immaculate Heart and asked that Russia, which was about to undergo the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, be consecrated to her. Otherwise, the Madonna is said to have told the children, to whom she appeared each month from May to October, 1917, that Russia, about to become the Soviet Union, would "spread her errors" in the wor
CNN on Graham
Michael, I just went to the CNN cite and I didn't see anything that mentioned his bragging about the murder. In fact the article was pretty sympathetic with the argument that had this guy had an even half way alive lawyer he would have been acquitted, forget a good lawyer. What website were you referring to, sure it was CNN? Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
In a message dated 6/20/00 7:13:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << The biggest problem, of course, is the socialist project itself. What sense does it make to think in terms of scientific socialism when the working-class as we know it is not the same class that created the Paris Commune. If we had something like the Paris Commune in the last 50 years or so in one of the advanced capitalist countries, left economists would be thinking about ways that such an experience could be replicated. Since we lack such an example, we console ourselves with fantasies of a good society instead. >> Of course some people might think that one lesson to be drawn from the failure of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries to live up to the expectations of traditional revolutionary Marxists, a failure that is pretty consistent for 150 years, arguably, and 70 years or so for sure, is that there is something wrong with the theoretical apparatus of traditional revolutionary Marxism. It is possible to explain away the failure of reality live up to your theory by reference to disturbing factors, historical conjunctures, etc.--flat-earthers and creationists do it too--although this is pretty odd for a theory that claims to be superior to other because ot tracks the "real movement" of history. However, the price of orthodoxy is political irrelevance, and having the people you purport to support regard you, if they think of you at all, as deluded fanatics. But pay no mind to me. Louis will tell you that I am a right wing social democrat (isn't that it, Louis?) and a class enemy. --jks
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
In a message dated 6/20/00 6:21:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, but not Marxist per se. >> RH is an anti-Marxist, and quite clear about this. Why one has to be a Marxist to challenge capitalism I do not understand. RH has the most credible planning alternative to capitalsim around, not that I think that is worth much. What your string of useless adjectives, "institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian," might maen excrept that RHis not really "one of us" and not to be quite trusted, I don't know. Of course I am a pretty poor excuse for a Marxist myself, being a pro-market liberal democrat. --jks
Altruism
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > Isn't altruism a dialectical twin of individualism? The concept of > "altruism" emerged in the English language in the mid-19th century, > according to the OED. The word is used in attempts to explain why an > individual cares (or should care) about anyone besides himself at > all. Altruism appears to be an individualistic term because meth. individualists use it, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Altruism is a technical term in biology, psychology and philosophy and is used diffently in these areas, making it a thorny subject. In evolutionary biology, an individual is altruisic if it increases the fitness of others at the expense of its own. In psychology it usually has to do with the motives for acting with the goal (as an end in itself) of improving others' welfare. The two uses are seperate and not necessarily congruent. For example, someone in a group who helps everyone else but only because it makes him feel good is an evolutioanry altruist but also a psychological egoist. An interesting book is *Unto Others.The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior* by Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson. The authors, I think, are kinds of Marxists but the book is written for a general audience. They argue that altruism requires group selection to evolve because altruists have a low fitness within groups (they sire less offspring) but increase the fitness of their group as a whole. So altruism can only thrive amongst a group of altruists who ,as a group, will thrive compared to other groups because altruists will tend to gravitate towards each other. There are a lot of interesting thigns in the book, including solid refutation of selfish gene theory and discussion of methodological issues. These guys cover a lot of ground. Altruism can be, and presumably is, used in rat choice theory because you just have to enter "concern for others" into a utility function. It would seem hard to build a comprehensive economic model with altruism though. I guess you could argue that altruism is a preference, a preferred outcome that would influence someone's choice. Jim Devine wrote: > > What the "worst outcome" is depends on your perspective. The "I cooperate, > you defect" outcome is the worst only from an individual's (my) > perspective, whereas the "you cooperate, I defect" would be the worst from > the other individual's (your) perspective. From the _social_ perspective, > the worst would be "both defect." The point is amplified in discussion of altruism since altruism decreases individual fitness within groups but increases the fitness of the group as a whole. Groups of altruists do better than groups of exploiters (defectors). Sam Pawlett
GT
Jim Devine wrote: > > > The first part makes sense to me. I think that the concept of altruism > (usually meaning self-sacrifice to help others) is impoverished. You are > accurate to reject the individualism/altruism duality. People have what > Elster calls "mixed motives," though his vision seems limited, too. FWIW, Elster has moved away from rat choice and is now focused on social norms and his latest book is on emotions. He now thinks that RT is limited in what it can explain both on the macro and micro social level. All psychological theory, I think, should be of the mixed motives variety since several motives and desires together may cause a person to act or think in a certain way. One of the problems of trying to bring aspects of rat choice theory into Marxism is that the meth individualism and the more wholistic approach of most Marxists cannot both be true simultaneosly. For example, in MI social outcomes are explained as the effects of by-products of individual action but social wholes are not ontologically real. If social wholes exist then meth individualism is false. Elster used the PD in an interesting way in a Marxian theory of the state arguing, that the goal of the state is to get the capitalist class to co-operate but the working class to defect (as a whole). Sam Pawlett
Re: question re "Weltgeld"
Gert Kohler asks: >Here is another question-- re global money. There are sections in Das >Kapital which deal with "Weltgeld" (world money, global money) and gold as >global money. It seems that Marx treats the gold standard as a fact. He >develops arguments in that context, but does not criticize the gold >standard. Is that a correct reading? My impression is that he simply assumes that money is golden in the world economy (and does not criticize it). However, it makes sense to do so during his time period. He refers to the way the state (via its central bank) can force the circulation of paper money within a country (even non-convertible money), despite the international gold standard. I think this is smart: the fact that paper money can circulate is reliant on its scarcity value, which in turn is dependent on the power of the state (the power of which stands behind the central bank's power). (The state can even get a scarcity-rent, also called "seignorage" or the inflation tax.) When the state falls apart -- as it did in the early 1920s in Germany and in other times in many other places where civil wars or intense class wars were raging -- paper money loses its scarcity value and we see hyperinflation (in terms of prices stated in the paper money). (The problem is that the social situation is such that taxes can't be collected, government expenditure can't be cut, so that a severe budget deficit prevails -- but no-one will lend the government money, so that money is printed.) In order to have world paper money, there has to be a world state -- or at least an agreement between the major powers. The US hegemony is the basis of the current dollar standard, in which the dollar is "as good as gold" (so far). Perhaps the large US current account deficit will undermine that hegemonic status, so that either another currency will take over or (less likely) we'll see a reversion to gold as the world currency. I think the latter would require either a new world war among the main capitalist powers (which seems unlikely to me) or a serious civil war or class war within the major powers. (I dunno -- maybe the right-wingers will bring back the gold standard as an instrument of class war. But why do so when you've got the IMF?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
