Re: Entertaining Dogma (was Re: Peter Dorman andRobin Hahnel)

[Doyle Saylor]

Title: Re: [PEN-L:20535] Entertaining Dogma (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel)



Greetings Economists,
    An interesting reply from Yoshie.  First I want to somehow convey how much I appreciate your thoughts Yoshie on so many subjects.  Especially what you wrote not to me but to jks,

Yoshie,
Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I 
couldn't have been called "Orthodox" even a decade ago.  If I have 
really become "Orthodox," perhaps the Marxist tradition has made more 
progress on what used to be quaintly called the "Woman Question" than 
I have been aware.

Doyle
But I want to reply to this quotation,

Yoshie,
Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that 
there are people who are not sceptics.  If they all were, they would 
be wrong.
    Pascal, _Pensees_

Doyle
My brain is fried.  But I can appreciate the truth in those words.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor 

 

Re: Stratfor (was: Boris Kagarlitsky)

[Chris Burford]

At 08:59 21/06/00 +, you wrote:
>  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.
>
>
>Amusing to here you call Stratfor a shadowy think-tank as it really is
>neither. Essentially Stratfor.com (as opposed to its mother company
>Stratfor/Infraworks, a security software and "private intelligence"
>consulting firm) was part typical "new economy" dot com, part secondary
>source commercial news agency. It is definitely not a think-tank, all of
>the writers are mid to late 20s grad school dropouts (like myself) basing
>probably 80% of their news analysis on articles culled second hand from the
>internet. The company was run from a cramped cubicle space in an office in
>downtown Austin--no great mysteries there.


How rapidly information leaks out. Very valuable comments here. Ideology 
Statfor always seemed to me to be able to give a novel, sometimes a left 
face to reporting but essentially aimed to serve rational finance capitalism.

It is appropriate that the youthful enthusiasm of the contributors has now 
been bought up entirely by capital. That is the overwhelming logic of this 
type of internet activity. Good that Chris is contributing to the 
collaborative and cooperative wing of the internet now.

Chris Burford

London.

Gusinsky

[Chris Burford]

Good that people like Boris Kagarlitsky is checking in with PEN-L but only 
if the rest of us have an interest in the detail of developments in Russia 
will this be helpful.

The dramatic news this week of Gusinky's arrest is important. I see from 
the International Herald Tribune that he has used the modern method of a 
talk show on his tv network to counter attack by suggesting, no doubt 
correcyly, that Putin must have been in the know. He also tried to make a 
split by suggesting that the head of the Kremlin chief of staff did not. 
This is a very modern way of a media baron fighting back.

Are there any signs of Berezhovsky, formerly a major backer of Putin, 
expressing concern, or is he enjoying the perils of his rival?

The other issues to watch in Russia seem to me whether there is effective 
resistance to Putin's plan to bring the federation under strict central 
control by weakening the power of the governors. Also he appears to have 
made no speedy gesture after his imperial corononation as president, 
towards peace talks over Chechnya. Rather he has backed its total 
incorporation in Russia.

The subtext to all this is how the Communist party is skirmishing for 
position within the de facto alliance Putin has offered it, and how much of 
the burden of Russia's new found nationalism, falls on the working people.

The west meanwhile appears to have been charmed by Putin pushing through 
armaments agreements.



Chris Burford

London

Re: Re: name calling (fwd)

[Joanna Sheldon]

...and the jabs keep coming.  I wish more folks would take time out to
realise that the personal insult is more damaging to communication than it
is corrective of behaviour.  A little self- (read ego-) sacrificial, I mean
modest, questioning -- even if it only poses as modest -- would be far more
useful, wouldn't it?

Speaking of instrumental altruism.

cheers,
Joanna




>And if you object to labeling the actions of Rwandan politicians and 
>soldiers in the 1990s as "barbaric," there's something badly wrong 
>with you...
>
>
>Brad DeLong
> 


www.overlookhouse.com

Re: Re: Dying for Growth

[Jim Devine]

At 08:33 PM 06/21/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > If growth is democratically planned, then it's hard to imagine that
> > growth of "output" would be the only criterion. There would be much more
> > attention to issues of quality -- and issues such as the definition of
> > what in heck is meant by "output."
>
>Economic _growth_ is, by definition growth of economic output and is
>distinct from economic _development_, which may well take into
>consideration qualitative criteria.

Okay, if one makes this definitional distinction between "development" and 
"growth" (which many people do not make), then I'm all in favor of 
democratically-planned _development_ rather than growth and we have no 
disagreements.

(Instead of not participating in pen-l today, I've decided to restrict 
myself to two-line answers.)

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Brad De Long]

>Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
>simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
>himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
>history.
>
>Rod
>

_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative 
Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a 
sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.

And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny 
von Westphalen...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)

[Jim Devine]

At 08:20 PM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
>>simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
>>himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
>>history.
>>
>>Rod
>
>_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ 
>still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive 
>critique of utilitarianism.
>
>And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von 
>Westphalen...

and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of Women_ 
but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name.

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

Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Rob Schaap]

>_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative 
>Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a 
>sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.

I have to agree, Brad.  And all gorgeously written, too.  

>And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von
Westphalen...

No use pretending Marx was as sensitive a feminist as Mill (although the
former was well ahead of the pack in this regard), but there's no evidence
Jenny's terrible privations and bereavements shook her devotion to her
hubby, whose character was, I submit, very much in evidence from the outset.
 Marx was not one to misrepresent himself, even to the girls.  And, I
submit, Jenny never stopped liking that look.  And, but for those moments
when he was installed in the help (almost obligatory, really - as KM
actually noted in the Manifesto)), Karl apparently reciprocated with an
enduring passion.  Call me an old romantic (I can add that to 'menshevik
reformist running dog') but many a woman outside the class into which Jenny
was born - indeed not a few of that class - would have had a far emptier,
colder, and less rewarding time of it than the indefatigable Jenny.

And, having said all that, it was a lot easier being a JSM than a KM, too. 
Ya gotta watch the implicit individualism your education has been stuffing
into you all these years, mate - these blokes lived in very different
contexts.

Cheers,
Rob.

Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)

[Michael Perelman]

Steuart published his book in 1767, although much of it was written decades
before -- possibly lifted from Cantillon.  The term, political economy, was first
used by Montechretian in the 17th C.  The idea was that term economy, concerned
the management of an estate.  Political economy meant that the terrain would
shift to the whole country.

Michael Hoover wrote:

>
> ah yes, political economy, the 'science' of acquisition...
>
> I had grad school prof who thought it'd be really good idea for me to
> read, in addition to Smith, some other 18th century Scottish political
> economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart.  If memory serves,
> Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_ appeared
> decade or so before Smith's _Inquiry into Wealth of Nations_ (JS may
> have been first to use term as such but some listers no doubt know more
> about that stuff than me).  Marx. who *critiqued* political economy,
> refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and
> understanding of historically different modes of production (contrasting
> him to those positing/holding bourgeois individual to be natural).
>
> Early 19th century saw number of books with political economy in title:
> Say, Ricardo, Malthus, among better known...  Michael Hoover

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

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

Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

> >_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
> >Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
> >sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
>
>I have to agree, Brad.  And all gorgeously written, too.

 From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_:

*   Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North 
American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and 
civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for 
more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate 
actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression 
of evil-doers.  A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal 
than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves 
to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or 
expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against 
him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at 
an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be 
armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since 
the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing 
else to rest on.   *

Yoshie

Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Rod Hay]

Not my assessment, but Marx's. And he was referring to the Principles of
Political Economy, not to the works you list. I happen to like J.S. Mill although
I have an aversion to his father.

Rod

Brad De Long wrote:

> >Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
> >simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
> >himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
> >history.
> >
> >Rod
> >
>
> _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
> Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
> sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
>
> And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny
> von Westphalen...
>
> Brad DeLong

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Michael Perelman]

She spent her weekends with her husband and JSM.  I recall that she often could
not walk, except when it was time for their vacation in France -- but I could be
mistaken on that.

Brad De Long wrote:

> >Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
> >simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
> >himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
> >history.
> >
> >Rod
> >
>
> _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
> Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
> sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
>
> And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny
> von Westphalen...
>
> Brad DeLong

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

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

Forwarded from Tom Lehman

[Michael Perelman]

Subject:
   The American Labor Movement
   Date:
   Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:36:38 -0400
  From:
   Tom Lehman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Organization:
   USWA
To:
   "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



I have been asked by our United Steelworkers of America international
president's office to compile a list of  labor union oriented educators
who would be interested in presenting to, and participating in seminars
at various locations around the country dealing with the background of,
the importance of and the challenges to the American labor movement and
the Steelworkers in particular.

We are looking for credentialed, down-to-earth people, who can relate
with and express themselves in plain language to Steelworkers.

Naturally these lectures would include an honoraria and expenses.
Seminar sites include Alabama.

If interested, please contact me.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Tom Lehman
United Steelworkers of America
Lynn R. Williams Learning Center
3315 W. 21st Street
Lorain, Ohio 44053
440-282-6015 phone
440-282-3704 fax


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

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

Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Rob Schaap]

C'mon Yoshie,

You wouldn't have to bust a gut to find a bit of (almost unavoidable, in the
1850s) eurocentrism in Marx's writings.  Some of that Asiatic Mode of
Production stuff, is a little simplistic, no?  And then there's his 'The
Future Results of British Rule in India' - stuff like :  'Indian society has
no history at all ... passive ... unresisting and unchanging society ... The
British were the first conquerers superior ... to Hindu civilisation'.  The
Muslems are, incidentally, brushed aside in a word in this piece.  And that
word is 'barbaric'.

Love the barbarism of the Taj Mahal, don't you?

I think the article is an absolute beaut, mind (love the ringing conclusion,
f'rinstance), but ya gotta admit Marx sports a couple of blemishes (by the
standards of our day), too.  Doncha?

So what?

Cheers,
Rob.

--
> From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Subject: [PEN-L:20550] Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:23:36 -0400 
> 
>> >_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
>> >Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
>> >sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
>>
>>I have to agree, Brad.  And all gorgeously written, too.
>
> From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_:
>
>*   Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North 
>American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and 
>civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for 
>more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate 
>actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression 
>of evil-doers.  A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal 
>than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves 
>to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or 
>expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against 
>him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at 
>an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be 
>armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since 
>the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing 
>else to rest on.   *
>
>Yoshie
>
>

Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Brad De Long]

>
>And, having said all that, it was a lot easier being a JSM than a KM, too.
>Ya gotta watch the implicit individualism your education has been stuffing
>into you all these years, mate - these blokes lived in very different
>contexts.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.

Very true...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)

[Brad De Long]

>At 08:20 PM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>>Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
>>>simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
>>>himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
>>>history.
>>>
>>>Rod
>>
>>_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative 
>>Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a 
>>sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
>>
>>And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than 
>>Jenny von Westphalen...
>
>and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of 
>Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend 
the morning re-reading it...

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: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Hi Rob:

Forget "Eurocentrism" of Mill & Marx for a moment -- my intention was 
to _confirm_ Brad's claim: Mill's writings "still stand up pretty 
well."  _Considerations of Representative Government_, read (against 
the grain) as description of liberal democracy and not as an apologia 
of it, beautifully summarizes what it is.  A "people who are revolted 
by an execution, but not shocked at an assassination" (be they Euro 
or non-Euro) _is_ a problem that requires "that the public 
authorities should be armed with much sterner powers of repression 
than elsewhere."  This piece of wisdom is a foundation of liberal 
democracy.

Yoshie

>C'mon Yoshie,
>
>You wouldn't have to bust a gut to find a bit of (almost unavoidable, in the
>1850s) eurocentrism in Marx's writings.  Some of that Asiatic Mode of
>Production stuff, is a little simplistic, no?  And then there's his 'The
>Future Results of British Rule in India' - stuff like :  'Indian society has
>no history at all ... passive ... unresisting and unchanging society ... The
>British were the first conquerers superior ... to Hindu civilisation'.  The
>Muslems are, incidentally, brushed aside in a word in this piece.  And that
>word is 'barbaric'.
>
>Love the barbarism of the Taj Mahal, don't you?
>
>I think the article is an absolute beaut, mind (love the ringing conclusion,
>f'rinstance), but ya gotta admit Marx sports a couple of blemishes (by the
>standards of our day), too.  Doncha?
>
>So what?
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
>
>--
> > From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [PEN-L:20550] Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
> > Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:23:36 -0400
> >
> >> >_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
> >> >Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
> >> >sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
> >>
> >>I have to agree, Brad.  And all gorgeously written, too.
> >
> > From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_:
> >
> >*   Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North
> >American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and
> >civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for
> >more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate
> >actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression
> >of evil-doers.  A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal
> >than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves
> >to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or
> >expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against
> >him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at
> >an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be
> >armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since
> >the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing
> >else to rest on.   *
> >
> >Yoshie
> >
> >

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)

[Jim Devine]

I wrote:
>>and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of 
>>Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name.

Brad queries:
>I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the 
>morning re-reading it...

unfortunately, this is something I picked up in a philosophy class taken 
many years ago, while the prof. didn't mention the source.

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition ofPolitical Economy (fwd)

[Rod Hay]

In one of his prefaces J.S. Mill thanks Harriet Taylor profusely and says
that because he discussed the material with her so thoroughly, she should be
considered a co-author. This has been taken by some and transferred into
statements similar to those that Jim repeated.

Rod

Jim Devine wrote:

> I wrote:
> >>and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of
> >>Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name.
>
> Brad queries:
> >I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the
> >morning re-reading it...
>
> unfortunately, this is something I picked up in a philosophy class taken
> many years ago, while the prof. didn't mention the source.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

Re: Functional Explanation

[JKSCHW]

Don't confuse functionalISM, the doctrine maintained by the likes of Talcott Parsons, 
which says that all im,portant features of society are "functional," with functional 
EXPLANATION, a pattern of explanation used in biology and the social sciences, and 
applicable to some phenomena but biy necessary all. FunctionalISM holds, in effect, 
that everything in society has a functional explanation and only that. it corresponds 
to the error in biology of "Panglossian" adaptationsim,a ccording whoch all features 
of an organizm are optimianlly adaptive. Functional EXPLANATION involves no such 
commitments. It's just a tool. See my paper, 60 Phil Science 278 (1993) for details. 
The paper is short. --jks



In a message dated Wed, 21 Jun 2000  8:17:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Joel Blau 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

<< The other problem with functionalism is the implicit tendency to homeostasis.
Whatever happens  serves the function of maintaining the whole. Functionalist
conceptions of welfare in capitalist society focus solely on its
system-maintaining characteristics, when actually between the partial
decommodification and independence from the marketplace, the reality is much more
ambiguous.

Joel Blau

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think Cohen was right that
> historical materialism is basically functional explanation,a nd I approve of
> historical materialism. You mistake functional explanation for teleology if
> you think it involves reference to the "purpose" of events in a "grander
> scheme of things." Rather it explains events in terms of their usefulness for
> phenomena that support them. Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare
> is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in damping
> social unrest, stabilizing the capitalist state that is itself functional for
> capitalist reproduction. There is no suprahuman teleogy here; the only
> uintentions are of actual political actors, class, state, and individual
> operating within constraints. But read the paper, it's really quite useful. I
> will send you a copy if you like. --jks
>
> In a message dated 6/21/00 11:18:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Justin wrote:
>  >Functional explanation is legitimate, but Cohen's account of it in terms
>  >of "consequence laws" is wrong; you need a mechanical account of
>  >explanation, i.e., one that regards explanation as exposing the causal
>  >mechanisms
>
>  functional explanation isn't the same as seeing the feed-back from the
>  whole to the parts. I don't think functional explanation is reasonable in
>  most cases, at least in social science. We can't explain societal events or
>  institutions in terms of their purpose in some grander scheme of things.
>  They are instead the result of individuals "creating history" within the
>  pre-existing society, based on the ideology that's encouraged and rewarded
>  within that society.
>   >>


 >>

Re: "Orthodox Marxism"

[JKSCHW]

I said:

The style of orthodox Marxism is of course a  guarantee that no one will
talk to you who is not already a true believer.

Doyle
That turn of phrase I recall from the old days of the sixties from the
philosopher, Eric Hoffer.  Where Hoffer theorized the Marxist left as being
"true believers".  Of course snippets of phrases hardly amount to some sort
of theory of anything.  

* * * 

I was not consciously invoking Eric Hoffer, whose "The True Believer," a tract 
attacking, actually, working class radicalism in Hoffer's West Coast Longshoreman's 
Union, although the phrase may have echoed since I read it 30 years ago. But I did 
mean to attack dogmatic Marxists, who of course will deny thatthey are being dogmatic, 
but who respond to any criticism of Marx, engels, Lenin, and sometimes Trotsky with a 
porcupine response, and who think, moreover, that nothing that has happened since 1917 
or pick your date, has raised any important questions about the validity of 
traditional orthodox (what a phrase!) Marxism, or a style of rhetoric deriving mainly 
from early 20th century Russia as refracted through a century of American sectarianism.

 Louis Proyect is a proud defender of this pattern of behavior; he also regards me as 
beneath contempt, a filthy right wing renegade, a nasty social democratic turncoat, a 
class traitor and enemy of the people, who ought to crawl back to the Heritage 
Foundation and stop exposing innocent young minds on the left to evil influences like 
Hayek and G.A. Cohen. Isn't that right Louis?
  
  

Re: Re: "Orthodox Marxism"

[Louis Proyect]

Justin:
> Louis Proyect is a proud defender of this pattern of behavior; he also
regards me as beneath contempt, a filthy right wing renegade, a nasty
social democratic turncoat, a class traitor and enemy of the people, who
ought to crawl back to the Heritage Foundation and stop exposing innocent
young minds on the left to evil influences like Hayek and G.A. Cohen. Isn't
that right Louis?

I don't recall you defending Hayek.

Louis Proyect

The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org

Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind--Learning from Eric Foner--Did YouMention Placement Help?

[Brad De Long]

>
>
>You too can be a much-reviled pundit.
>
>On June 8 the House repealed the Federal
>Estate and Gift Tax, our most progressive
>tax.  Repeal is now up for consideration in
>the Senate.  Everything you need to know
>aobut it is in the links included herein.
>
>Any questions, feel free to drop me a
>line.  If you do a draft, I will be happy
>to provide comments.
>
>mbs
>

OK...

How's this...



Inequality of Opportunity

J. Bradford DeLong
U.C. Berkeley/NBER/Journal of Economic Perspectives

June 2000

691 words

copyright 2000 J. Bradford DeLong


On June 9 the Republican-led House of Representatives voted to repeal 
the estate tax. Estate-tax repeal will surely be vetoed by the 
president this year, but perhaps it will not be vetoed next year. 
When George W. Bush, campaigning in Iowa, declared that he 
"support[ed] getting rid of the death penalty," he was not saying 
that Texas should stop executing people because it was not clear that 
all those on death row were guilty of first-degree murder. He was 
saying that it was unfair that in the next decade those who leave 
estates of more than $1,000,000 would have to pay two-fifths of the 
excess to the federal government in estate taxes. It would be fairer 
to have no estate tax at all--and thus, relative to our current 
system, give an average present of $3.5 million each to the heirs of 
the 2,400 people who die each year leaving estates of more than $5 
million.

So why is it a high priority of both the Republican Congressional 
leadership and the Republican Presidential candidate to repeal the 
estate tax. Why is it a high priority to give another tax break to 
the rich. Why is it a high priority to remove an obstacle that keeps 
the rich and powerful of one generation from ensuring that their 
grandchildren have--unearned--relative riches and power as well?

Earlier generations of Republicans would be astonished. It was 
Abraham Lincoln who said that the great thing about new America as 
opposed to old Europe was that in America wealth, power, and 
influence were not inherited: by and large Americans did not work for 
landlords or bosses but worked for themselves, and "the man who 
labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next 
year will hire others to labor for them." Andrew Carnegie, a 
principal funder of the 1900-era Republican Party, put it more 
bluntly: "he who dies rich dies in disgrace." Accumulated 
entrepreneurial wealth was a public trust to be used for public 
betterment--hence the Carnegie libraries, endowments, buildings, and 
universities scattered over America. Accumulated entrepreneurial 
wealth was not--or so Carnegie thought--something that could be 
morally used to give your descendants a cushy life.

But all this was in centuries past. Back then America was a place--in 
theory at least--where people made themselves. Who you were depended 
on what you had done, did, and were going to do. It was--in theory at 
least--different from Europe, a place where who you were depended on 
who your daddy was. The foundation on which America was--in 
theory--to be built was the principle of "equality of opportunity." 
And back then solid obstacles to the intergenerational transfer of 
wealth and power made sense: if there is to be an upper class let it 
be made up of those who have been skillful and lucky in their deeds, 
not of those who just happened to be born in the right household.

But now it is a new century and a new millennium. Now it is a 
legislative priority of the Republican Party to eliminate the estate 
tax. Now the Republican Party has a standard bearer who thinks that 
it of all the forms of unfairness in American life one of the most 
unfair is to keep someone from squeezing every single ounce of 
advantage out of one's daddy's position and accomplishments. 
"Fairness" no longer means "equality of opportunity."

If this Republican tide does sweep over the country, and if 
"fairness" does come to mean that it is fair for the children of the 
rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful, I for one will be sad. 
It was never the case that opportunity in America was as equal as our 
civic religion proclaimed. But it was always the case that America 
was a special place because of universal agreement that inequality of 
opportunity was unfair.

If this Republican tide does sweep over the land, there will still be 
a country called "America." But that country will lack much of what 
made America special, and lovely.






-- 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Now 'in the long run' this [way of summarizing the quantity theory 
of money] is probably true But this long run is a misleading 
guide to current affairs. **In the long run** we are all dead. 
Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in 
tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long 
past the ocean is flat again."
 
--J.M. Keynes
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political

[Michael Hoover]

> and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of Women_ 
> but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name.
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

I think there is more to above.  Harriet Taylor wrote essay entitled 
*The Emancipation of Women* that was published under JSM's name.
Mill's autobiography indicates that HT was his collaborator on most
everything he wrote from 1840s until her death in late 1850s.  He
points out that she was going to be credited for parts of _Principles
of Political Economy_ but her first husband (John Taylor) objected
and her name was removed.  As I recall, Harriet Taylor and Mill met
in early 1830s during time when she was separated from John Taylor.
And while she and Taylor remained married until his death in late
1840s, she and Mill maintained close friendship.

Re. _The Subjection of Women_, HT and JSM worked on it for about
five years in 1850s until her death (the two of them both had
tuberculosis).  Book would have apparently been largely hers because 
he writes that her name should maybe appear alone as author.  Thereafter,
he worked on book with one of Harriet Taylor's daughters, Helen, from
her first marriage, until its publication in 1869. (Helen Taylor also
edited JSM's autobiography).  Mill writes that his role in the
published work was of lesser importance than either of the Taylors. 

fwiw: Gertrude Himmelfarb (Irving Kristol's wife) claims that
HT's intellectual/political influence on Mill was minimal.
Interestingly, however, GH asserts that his defense of expansive
free speech and his sometime socialist political economy tendencies,
both of which Himmelfarb is critical of, were HT's doing, even
suggesting that Mill 'gave in' on such matters because of love.  Ah, 
the omniscience of a neo-conservative... Michael Hoover   

Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Doug Henwood]

Brad De Long wrote:

>If this Republican tide does sweep over the land, there will still 
>be a country called "America." But that country will lack much of 
>what made America special, and lovely.

Just when was it that the U.S. was not a place where inherited wealth 
mattered a lot? I thought U.S. income/wealth distribution started 
getting more unequal in the 1820s, and by the Civil War had 
approached European levels.

Doug

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)

[JKSCHW]

> I don't view Marxian dialectical method as a neutral "toolkit," nor did I 
say I did.

Who said anything about "neutral"? Not moi. I assume that if you ask questions about 
class and exploitation, you do so because you have answered the question in your mind, 
which side am I on? But my point was just that the toolkit view is not the same as the 
package of substantive commitments in orthodox Marxism. Hell, my own ransacking of the 
toolkit doesn't find much place for notions like "dialectical" and "methodology." Of 
course I am a poor excuse for a Marxist. but I do know which side I am on.

> The method of looking at the totality (including the totality 
of the historical process) encourages the asking of all sorts of questions 
that encourage skepticism about any existing system of power.

I dunno. Hegel didn't think so.

> The substantive commitment is to supporting the oppressed against the 
oppressors. That's an ethical thing, but hard to separate from a vision 
that sees the capitalist system as exploitative (in the sense that some get 
rewarded because they have power over others, not because they contribute 
to human welfare) and as made by human beings in a historical process 
rather than being a "gift" of nature.

But this is violently opposed to orthodox marxism, on which morality is ideology. 
Communsim is after all rthe real movement, not an ideal to which we hold reality up in 
comparison, as Marx and Engels said in the German Ideology. I don't asy _they_ were 
orthodox Marxists; they were much too smart for that. But the orthodox view rejects 
ethical analysis, and it also requires a particular conception of the nature of 
exploitation, one based on the labor theory of value. So far as the view you state 
goes, for eaxmple, Emma Goldman was a Marxist, and I ams ure she would have demurred.

> If I had an inspiring message I'd tell you. No-one has inspiring messages 
these days except people like Fukayama and the IMF types with their 
Glorious Capitalist Revolution from Above. And those messages only _sound_ 
inspiring.

OK, so you are sane. but the point is that orthodox Marxism, and indeed even Marx's 
Marxism, draws a  lot of its power from the promise of tying together a vision of a 
better future with real social agency that is observably operating to change it. Take 
away that connection, you are just an analytical Marxist, in your case, one with a 
commitment to dialectical method. That is, you are someone who its commited to use a 
certain set of concepts in your work in the hope that it may somehow indirectly 
marginally advance the likelihood that someday there will be a social agency that will 
really change things for the better.

>I doubt that  substantce and method can be prised apart in the way you 
>suggest.

> It's true: Neoclassical and methodological individualist "tools" almost 
always are linked to right-wing politics, etc. It's hard to separate method 
from political commitment. (I'm no positivist.)

I don't agree with your examples generally, although the point may hold may be true in 
economics.

I sais: Lukacs
>would have been horrified by my own substantive views, for example.

>I don't know if that's good or bad, since I don't know what "substantive 
views" you have. 

Sure you do. You know, or would know if you thought about it, that I am a liberal 
democratic defender of a market socialist economy. Also a pragmatic empiricist in 
philosophy. Lukacs would think that was a really bad set of ideas.

By the way, do you want that article on functional explanation? E-mail me your snail 
mail address. --jks

Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[Michael Perelman]

This essay had little to do with India.  Marx wrote it to undermine the
influence of Henry Carey, who was sabotaging Marx's relationship at the Tribune
and gaining a great deal of influence with the workers movement in Germany by
way of the Duehring.  I had a chapter telling this story in my Marx book.

Rob Schaap wrote:

> C'mon Yoshie,
>
> You wouldn't have to bust a gut to find a bit of (almost unavoidable, in the
> 1850s) eurocentrism in Marx's writings.  Some of that Asiatic Mode of
> Production stuff, is a little simplistic, no?  And then there's his 'The
> Future Results of British Rule in India' - stuff like :  'Indian society has
> no history at all ... passive ... unresisting and unchanging society ... The
> British were the first conquerers superior ... to Hindu civilisation'.  The
> Muslems are, incidentally, brushed aside in a word in this piece.  And that
> word is 'barbaric'.
>
> Love the barbarism of the Taj Mahal, don't you?
>
> I think the article is an absolute beaut, mind (love the ringing conclusion,
> f'rinstance), but ya gotta admit Marx sports a couple of blemishes (by the
> standards of our day), too.  Doncha?
>
> So what?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
> --
> > From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [PEN-L:20550] Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
> > Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:23:36 -0400
> >
> >> >_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
> >> >Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
> >> >sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
> >>
> >>I have to agree, Brad.  And all gorgeously written, too.
> >
> > From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_:
> >
> >*   Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North
> >American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and
> >civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for
> >more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate
> >actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression
> >of evil-doers.  A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal
> >than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves
> >to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or
> >expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against
> >him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at
> >an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be
> >armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since
> >the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing
> >else to rest on.   *
> >
> >Yoshie
> >
> >

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

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

Harriet Taylor (was Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd))

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>In one of his prefaces J.S. Mill thanks Harriet Taylor profusely and says
>that because he discussed the material with her so thoroughly, she should be
>considered a co-author. This has been taken by some and transferred into
>statements similar to those that Jim repeated.
>
>Rod

Rod means the preface to "On Liberty":

"To the beloved and deplored memory of her [Harriet Taylor] who was 
the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my 
writings -- the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and 
right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief 
reward -- I dedicate this volume.  Like all that I have written for 
many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it 
stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable 
advantage of her revision; some of the most important portions having 
been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now 
never destined to receive.  Were I but capable of interpreting to the 
world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried 
in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than 
is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted 
and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom."  Also, in his 
autobiography published in 1873, Mill gave credit to both Harriet and 
Helen Taylor (Harriet's daughter): "Whoever, either now or hereafter, 
may think of me and my work I have done, must never forget that it is 
the product not of one intellect and conscience but of three, the 
least considerable of whom, and above all the least original, is the 
one whose name is attached to it."

But evidence is not limited to the above.  J.S. Mill wrote in a 
letter to Harriet Taylor (on 20 March 1854):

"I am but fit to be one wheel in an engine not to be the self moving 
engine itself -- a real majestic intellect, not to say moral nature, 
like yours, I can only look up and admire.  I shall never be 
satisfied unless you allow our best book the book which is to come, 
to have our two names on the title page.  It ought to be so with 
everything I publish, for the better half of it all is yours, but the 
book which will contain our best thoughts [The Subjection of Women], 
if it has only one name to it, that should be yours."

And most scholars now accept that some of the essays published under 
Mill's name were written by Harriet Taylor: "The Enfranchisement of 
Women" (the _Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review_ 1851), for 
example.

Most important evidence comes from the works of Harriet Taylor herself:

*   Jacobs, Jo Ellen, ed., and Paula Harms Payne, asst. ed.
Mill, Harriet Taylor
The Complete Works of Harriet Taylor Mill
Indiana University Press, September 1998, 592 pp., 20 black-and-white 
photos, ISBN 0-253-33393-8, $59.95 (higher outside North America)

Description:
For the past 170 years, historians have presented Harriet Taylor Mill 
as a footnote in John Stuart Mill's life.  Few of her works have ever 
been transcribed from the manuscripts held at the London School of 
Economics. This volume presents Harriet Taylor Mill in her own voice. 
Readers may assess for themselves the importance and influence of her 
ideas on issues such as marriage and divorce, domestic violence, 
education and suffrage for women.  Those reading her ideas on ethics, 
religion, arts, socialism, and historical figures will be able to 
note the overlap of her ideas (many expressed in letters from the 
1830s) with her more famous husband's important works, On Liberty and 
Utilitarianism, which were published at least twenty-five years later.

The works in these pages are filled with Harriet Taylor Mill's 
passionate and practical understanding of the world.  She attacks 
organized religion for its irrelevance to most people's spiritual 
lives and praises the co-operative unions producing goods in France. 
Readers will learn about Victorian medical practices, the "watering" 
spas where members of the nineteenth-century middle class sought 
cures for ailments from tuberculosis to stomach "derangement," and 
the intricacies of travel in Europe during this period. HTM's letters 
to her daughter disclose the classic difficulties of a young adult's 
first departure from home, while her letters to her sons reveal an 
affectionate but more distant relationship. Harriet Taylor Mill's 
correspondence with John Stuart Mill demonstrates her willingness to 
open her heart to him -- along with her lust, her anger, and her 
curiosity.

This volume contains all of the published and unpublished writing of 
Harriet Taylor Mill, including her drafts and essays on women and 
women's rights, marriage, women's education, domestic violence, 
ethics, religion, and arts, along with some revealing personal 
writing. This collection also comprises her letters to John Stuart 
Mill, John Taylor, and various family and friends. Approximately 
seventy percent of this work is appearing in print for the

Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Brad De Long]

>Brad De Long wrote:
>
>>If this Republican tide does sweep over the land, there will still 
>>be a country called "America." But that country will lack much of 
>>what made America special, and lovely.
>
>Just when was it that the U.S. was not a place where inherited 
>wealth mattered a lot? I thought U.S. income/wealth distribution 
>started getting more unequal in the 1820s, and by the Civil War had 
>approached European levels.
>
>Doug

Hmmph. Facts.

I *finally* stop doing vulgar materialism and start doing cultural 
studies, and he wants facts...

Estate tax repeal ain't going to pass this year, so this isn't a 
public finance issue. Thus I wrote a cultural studies op-ed.

 From a cultural studies perspective, the shift from the ruling 
ideology of equality of opportunity--"Free Soil, Free Labor, Free 
Men"--to GWB's ruling ideology of let-my-daddy-give-me-more-stuff is 
interesting, no?


Brad DeLong

Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[md7148]

>well."  _Considerations of Representative Government_, read (against 
>the grain) as description of liberal democracy and not as an apologia 
>of it, beautifully summarizes what it is.

>Yoshie

good point Yoshie, but this is what "liberal democracy" is all about, so
_Considerations of Representative Government_is indeed an apologia of
liberalism. It is not an anti-liberal text. The problem with liberal
thinking is that it wants to maintain individual freedoms (including
"economic freedoms" such as right to "private property") and protect the
public at the same time from the "evils" they entail. This liberalism is
typical of Mill's moralism, if we read the rest of the text on the role of
"prudent" government. Liberalism wants to deliver justice within an unjust
system--bourgeois idealism. The only way liberalism can live up to its
idealism is by extending the scope of freedoms to middle classes (white,
male) while effectively using public authority in the name of justice to
obscure inequalities liberalism generates.


thanks,

Mine Doyran
SUNY/Albany

Re: Re: "Orthodox Marxism"

[Carrol Cox]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> . But I did mean to attack dogmatic Marxists, who of course will deny thatthey are 
>being dogmatic, but who respond to any criticism of Marx, engels, Lenin, and 
>sometimes Trotsky with a porcupine response,

I really don't understand something. You, Doug, others on this list are
forceful writers, well read, widely knowledgeable, quite capable of
carrying out a principled argument on most topics. So why then are you
so fucking lazy intellectually? Do you really need this crutch of the
myth of dogmatic marxism? Proposition X is true or false -- what
in the hell is added to an argument for or against it by tagging on
the label "sectarian" or "dogmatic"? It's pure intellectual slovenliness
on your part to be so dependent on labels.

On a number of issues I've fought with Lou until he was practically
gnawing the carpet -- and I've never needed this childish tactic
of calling him dogmatic.

Carrol

Re: Re: Re: "Orthodox Marxism"

[Doug Henwood]

Carrol Cox wrote:

>I really don't understand something. You, Doug, others on this list are
>forceful writers, well read, widely knowledgeable, quite capable of
>carrying out a principled argument on most topics. So why then are you
>so fucking lazy intellectually? Do you really need this crutch of the
>myth of dogmatic marxism? Proposition X is true or false -- what
>in the hell is added to an argument for or against it by tagging on
>the label "sectarian" or "dogmatic"? It's pure intellectual slovenliness
>on your part to be so dependent on labels.
>
>On a number of issues I've fought with Lou until he was practically
>gnawing the carpet -- and I've never needed this childish tactic
>of calling him dogmatic.

"Childish," "slovenl[y]," "fucking lazy." Thank god those aren't 
labels, just mere descriptions.

Doug

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Orthodox Marxism"

[Carrol Cox]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> "Childish," "slovenl[y]," "fucking lazy." Thank god those aren't
> labels, just mere descriptions.

Both. Dogmatism, when it occurs, is a political and/or intellectual
error. The habit of  replacing principled argument with charges of
dogmatism or sectarianism (which, properly used, are always
self-criticisms) is a character flaw.

Carrol

Marx and India

[Louis Proyect]

There's an article in Aijaz Ahmad's "In Theory: Classes, Nations and
Literatures" titled "Marx on India: a Clarification" that was written as a
reply to Edward Said. Said had included Marx as a "Eurocentric" in his
polemic against Orientalism. The problem is that the articles that figure
in Said's polemic are not reflective of the thinking of the mature Marx.

Said quotes the famous paragraph from a June 10, 1853 Herald Tribune piece
that described Indian village life as superstition-ridden and stagnant. The
model that Marx had in mind when writing this article was North America.
Marx was concerned with the possibilities of capitalist economic
development within a colonial setting around this time. In the 1850s, he
entertained the possibility that India could follow the same line of march
as the United States. Ahmad reminds us that the gap in material prosperity
between India and England in 1835 was far narrower than it was in 1947. 

Part of the problem was that Marx simply lacked sufficient information
about India to develop a real theory. His remarks have the character of
conjecture, not the sort of deeply elaborated dialectical thought that mark
Capital. And so what happens is that enemies of Marxism seized upon these
underdeveloped remarks to indict Marxism itself. 

Ahmad notes that Marx had exhibited very little interest in India prior to
1853, when the first of the Herald Tribune articles were written. It was
the presentation of the East India Company's application for charter
renewal to Parliament that gave him the idea of writing about India at all.
To prepare for the articles, he read the Parliamentary records and
Bernier's "Travels". (Bernier was a 17th century writer and medicine man.)
So it is fair to say that Marx's views on India were shaped by the overall
prejudice prevailing in India at the time. More to the point is that Marx
had not even drafted the Grundrisse at this point and Capital was years
away. So critics of Marx's writings on India are singling out works that
are not even reflective of the fully developed critic of capitalism. 

Despite this, Marx was sufficiently aware of the nature of dual nature of
the capitalist system to entertain the possibility that rapid capitalist
development in India could eliminate backward economic relations and lead
to future emancipation. His enthusiasm for English colonialism is related
to his understanding of the need for capitalist transformation of all
precapitalist social formations. His animosity towards feudal social
relations is well-known. He regards them as antiquated and a block on
future progress. The means by which they are abolished are universally
cruel and inhumane such as the Enclosure Acts. What he is looking for in
this process is not a way of judging human agencies on a moral basis, but
what the dynamics of this process can lead to. That goal is socialism and
the sole measure of every preceding historical development. 

A few weeks later, on July 22nd, Marx wrote another article that had some
more rude things to say about India and England as well. But here he was
much more specific about the goal in question. He says that the English
colonists will not emancipate the Indian masses. That is up to them to do.
Specifically, Marx writes, "The Indian will not reap the fruits of the new
elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till
in Great Britain itself the new ruling classes shall have been supplanted
by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus themselves shall have
grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether." 

So unless there is social revolution, the English presence in India brings
no particular advantage. More to the point, it will bring tremendous
suffering. 

Furthermore, there is evidence that Marx was becoming much more sensitive
to the imperialist system itself late in life. He wrote a letter to
Danielson in 1881 that basically described the sort of pillage that the
socialists of Lenin's generation were sensitive to: 

"In India serious complications, if not a general outbreak, are in store
for the British government. What the British take from them annually in the
form of rent, dividends for railways useless for the Hindoos, pensions for
the military and civil servicemen, for Afghanistan and other wars, etc.
etc., -- what they take from them without any equivalent and quite apart
from what they appropriate to themselves annually within India, -- speaking
only of the commodities that Indians have to gratuitously and annually send
over to England -- it amounts to more than the total sum of the income of
the 60 million of agricultural and industrial laborers of India. This is a
bleeding process with a vengeance." 

A bleeding process with a vengeance? Make no mistake about this. Marx did
not view England as on a civilizing mission. It is also difficult to
understand why Edward Said put so much stock in Gandhi, who said: 

"The more we indulge in our emotions the more unb

Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[md7148]

>>And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny
>>von
>>Westphalen...

>No use pretending Marx was as sensitive a feminist as Mill (although the
>former was well ahead of the pack in this regard),

>Rob.

J. S. Mill and Harriet Taylor are the architects of what came to be
known as _liberal feminist movement_. You need female folks like
Kollontai, Zetkin, Luxemburg, and male feminists like Engels, in order to 
make sense of the systemic roots of Women's Opression, including
class. Radical feminists do not find them perfect either. That being said,
however, they were the ones who first raised the question of Women in
Marxism. Liberal feminism wants to liberate women without trying to
liberate them from sexism, the class society, with all its petty moralism
and bourgeois traditionalism, entails. In their agenda, some women are
emancipated, but the rest is unliberated. Marxist feminism wants to
liberate women from capitalism and sexism simultaneously. It is an
advancement over Sir Mill's and Lady Taylor's limited feminism.

thanks,

Mine

Re: Re: Functional Explanation

[Joel Blau]

Perhaps you meant something else, but the following passage sure sounded like 
functionalism--not functional adaption-- to me.

Joel Blau

Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare
> is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in damping
> social unrest, stabilizing the capitalist state that is itself functional for
> capitalist reproduction.

Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Michael Perelman]

Doug is probably correct, but I think that the question should revolve
around the chance for social mobility.  I suspect that it was higher --
No, I don't have the data -- in the 1820's than today.  Foner's image of
the free labor ideal was not entirely a fantasy for white men.  Land,
even though the Turner thesis was overdone, could be had, and it could
appreciate significantly with a higher probabilty than a lottery ticket.

What is the likely career path for someone without a college education
today.

Doug Henwood wrote:

> Just when was it that the U.S. was not a place where inherited wealth
> mattered a lot? I thought U.S. income/wealth distribution started
> getting more unequal in the 1820s, and by the Civil War had
> approached European levels.
>
> Doug

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

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

social security

[Michael Yates]

Here in Pittsburgh a group of leftists and progresive unionists have
proposed to the Central Labor Council the formation of an education
group.  We met today with the president of the Council with our
proposal.  He responded very favorably.  One of the things we proposed
was the development of labor "educationals," short 15-20 minute
presentations/discussions on various topics of interest to workers.  We
suggested that we try one of these educationals out at a Central Labor
Council meeting.  The president agreed.  The first one will probably be
in August on the subject of social security, an important issue in the
upcoming national elections.  It looks like I will be drafted to make
the presentation.  Can anyone on the lists suggest a good visual way to
present the issue?  I would also like to have a packet of charts for the
delegates to take back to their unions.  Any suggestions?  Also, what
points do you think should absolutely be stressed? (Doug and Max on LBO,
don't be shy!)

Any replies can be sent to me offlist, unless you think that others
would be interested.

Thanks!!

Michael Yates

Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Joel Blau]

Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.

Joel Blau

Michael Perelman wrote:

> Doug is probably correct, but I think that the question should revolve
> around the chance for social mobility.  I suspect that it was higher --
> No, I don't have the data -- in the 1820's than today.  Foner's image of
> the free labor ideal was not entirely a fantasy for white men.  Land,
> even though the Turner thesis was overdone, could be had, and it could
> appreciate significantly with a higher probabilty than a lottery ticket.
>
> What is the likely career path for someone without a college education
> today.
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Just when was it that the U.S. was not a place where inherited wealth
> > mattered a lot? I thought U.S. income/wealth distribution started
> > getting more unequal in the 1820s, and by the Civil War had
> > approached European levels.
> >
> > Doug
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Brad De Long]

>Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
>rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.
>
>Joel Blau

That's my household from 1983 to 1988. But that *ain't* 
socio-economic mobility in any *real* sense... that's finishing 
graduate school.


Brad deLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Michael Perelman]

My question has to do with the trends in this statistic.  Is it worse today
than in earlier times?

Joel Blau wrote:

> Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
> rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.
>

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

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Joel Blau]

Well, perhaps not quite a graduate student who is going to be tenured some
day, but it is certainly not intergenerational. On that score, my memory is
that if your family is in the bottom fifth, you have about a 40% chance of
rising to the middle (sorry, without rumaging around a lot, I can't give the
citation for this one).

Joel Blau

Brad De Long wrote:

> >Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
> >rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.
> >
> >Joel Blau
>
> That's my household from 1983 to 1988. But that *ain't*
> socio-economic mobility in any *real* sense... that's finishing
> graduate school.
>
> Brad deLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Joel Blau]

I think so. My sense is that there has been a petrification of the U.S. class
structure, one which may allow some movement between the lower quintiles, but
simply on a numerical basis, offers less probability of sling-shotting yourself
from the bottom to the top.

Joel Blau

Michael Perelman wrote:

> My question has to do with the trends in this statistic.  Is it worse today
> than in earlier times?
>
> Joel Blau wrote:
>
> > Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
> > rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Gary Graham

[Michael Perelman]

Nailing GW for this murder is easy.  He mocked Carla Fay Tucker and
vetoed legislation to make a strong defense easier for indigent
defendents.  Yet, looking at Texas from Cal., I see that our own
"liberal" governor has allowed equally questionable executions.  He has
also tried to put law and order Repugs on the parole boards, etc.  Do we
have any reason to believe that a Governor Gore would do much better.
We already know about Governor Clinton.

Now, that the Death Penalty is becoming less popular, you can bet that
some people will opportunistically jump on the band wagon.  The whole
system is disgusting.

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

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Jim Devine]

Michael Perelman wrote:

 > My question has to do with the trends in this statistic.  Is it worse today
 > than in earlier times?

Joel Blau wrote:
>I think so. My sense is that there has been a petrification of the U.S. class
>structure, one which may allow some movement between the lower quintiles, but
>simply on a numerical basis, offers less probability of sling-shotting 
>yourself
>from the bottom to the top.

I don't have any stats, but it seems to me when the availability of Indian 
land to grab dried up ("the closing of the frontier"), the ability of 
whites to rise to the top was weakened. We should also remember that upward 
mobility goes with downward mobility, by definition.


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

Re: Gary Graham

[Jim Devine]

At 03:16 PM 6/22/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Now, that the Death Penalty is becoming less popular, you can bet that 
>some people will opportunistically jump on the band wagon.  The whole 
>system is disgusting.

In the recent issue of the NATION, Hitchens argues that it's not the 
Democrats who are leading the charge against the death penalty. It's the 
GOPsters, including very conservative ones, which suggests a turnabout on 
the usual liberal "lesser of two evils" strategy.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il 
tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) 
-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.

How We Live Today in America

[Jim Devine]

"By 2000, the machines will be producing so much that everyone in the U.S. 
will, in effect, be independently wealthy. With government benefits, even 
nonworking families will have, by one estimate, an annual income of 
$30,000-$40,000 (in 1966 dollars). How to use leisure meaningfully will be 
a major problem." -- TIME magazine, February 25, 1966.

"By the year 2000, people will work no more than four days a week and less 
than eight hours a day. With legal holidays and long vacations, this could 
result in an annual working period of 147 days [on] and 218 days off." -- 
New York TIMES, Oct. 19, 1967.

In 1999 dollars, TIME was predicting incomes of about $150,000-$200,000, 
whereas in reality, the 1999 median family income was about $46,000 
($29,000 for Blacks).

The NYT's prediction about days of work per year is totally off, though I 
don't have the needed data available. (I'd make a conservative guess that 
on average, people work about 240 days per year.)  They're closer when it 
comes to paid hours per day, which is about 7 hours per week in the private 
sector. However, that statistic ignores moonlighting, unpaid labor hours, 
commuting hours, work-preparation and calm-down hours, etc. Even so, they 
asserted that people would work for pay for 4 days a week. If we distribute 
the approximately 34.5 hours per week over 4 days, then that's a 8.6-hour 
day (to which we'd have to add in moonlighting, etc.) To come up with these 
predictions, they must have thought that we live in France.

I'm afraid that U.S. capitalism wouldn't run very well if everyone in the 
U.S. were independently wealthy, since almost no-one _wants_ to work for 
GM, WalMart, or Microsoft (at least given the way they're currently 
organized). An independently wealthy individual would choose a completely 
different type of job. Or rather, almost all of our labor would have to be 
done by non-U.S. citizens.

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Joel Blau]

Jim Devine wrote:

> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>  > My question has to do with the trends in this statistic.  Is it worse today
>  > than in earlier times?

Hence the drive to reopen the frontier, through imperial expansion. If you want to
push this argument a little farther, you could even correlate the  outer limits of
this expansion as marked by the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam and the
petrification of class structure that we have seen over the last quarter century.
Of course, in some sense, the goal of  most recent  foreign and domestic policy
has been to figure out another way to get around those limits.

Joel Blau

> Joel Blau wrote:
> >I think so. My sense is that there has been a petrification of the U.S. class
> >structure, one which may allow some movement between the lower quintiles, but
> >simply on a numerical basis, offers less probability of sling-shotting
> >yourself
> >from the bottom to the top.
>
> I don't have any stats, but it seems to me when the availability of Indian
> land to grab dried up ("the closing of the frontier"), the ability of
> whites to rise to the top was weakened. We should also remember that upward
> mobility goes with downward mobility, by definition.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: How We Live Today in America

[Joel Blau]

In this genre, there is also the 1967 Fortune magazine prediction that by 2000,
wages would rise another 150%.

Joel Blau

Jim Devine wrote:

> "By 2000, the machines will be producing so much that everyone in the U.S.
> will, in effect, be independently wealthy. With government benefits, even
> nonworking families will have, by one estimate, an annual income of
> $30,000-$40,000 (in 1966 dollars). How to use leisure meaningfully will be
> a major problem." -- TIME magazine, February 25, 1966.
>
> "By the year 2000, people will work no more than four days a week and less
> than eight hours a day. With legal holidays and long vacations, this could
> result in an annual working period of 147 days [on] and 218 days off." --
> New York TIMES, Oct. 19, 1967.
>
> In 1999 dollars, TIME was predicting incomes of about $150,000-$200,000,
> whereas in reality, the 1999 median family income was about $46,000
> ($29,000 for Blacks).
>
> The NYT's prediction about days of work per year is totally off, though I
> don't have the needed data available. (I'd make a conservative guess that
> on average, people work about 240 days per year.)  They're closer when it
> comes to paid hours per day, which is about 7 hours per week in the private
> sector. However, that statistic ignores moonlighting, unpaid labor hours,
> commuting hours, work-preparation and calm-down hours, etc. Even so, they
> asserted that people would work for pay for 4 days a week. If we distribute
> the approximately 34.5 hours per week over 4 days, then that's a 8.6-hour
> day (to which we'd have to add in moonlighting, etc.) To come up with these
> predictions, they must have thought that we live in France.
>
> I'm afraid that U.S. capitalism wouldn't run very well if everyone in the
> U.S. were independently wealthy, since almost no-one _wants_ to work for
> GM, WalMart, or Microsoft (at least given the way they're currently
> organized). An independently wealthy individual would choose a completely
> different type of job. Or rather, almost all of our labor would have to be
> done by non-U.S. citizens.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[Doug Henwood]

Michael Perelman wrote:

>My question has to do with the trends in this statistic.  Is it worse today
>than in earlier times?

Studies of mobility over the last several decades come up with 
conflicting results. And that's with pretty good data. Anything that 
purported to measure 19th century mobility would be less scientific 
than haruspicy.

Doug

Re: RE: Re: Gary Graham

[Doug Henwood]

Max Sawicky wrote:

>Not necessarily, Jimbo.  The DP is not much less
>popular than ever.



POLL RELEASES
February 24, 2000

Support for Death Penalty Drops to Lowest Level in 19 Years, Although 
Still High at 66%

Widespread agreement, even among those who favor it, that innocent 
people sometimes get death penalty
by Frank Newport

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Although a significant majority of Americans still 
favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, the 
percentage has been gradually decreasing over time since its high 
point in 1994, and is now -- at 66% -- at its lowest level since 
1981. A new Gallup poll also shows that even those who favor the 
death penalty agree that innocent people at least occasionally are 
given the death sentence in error. Additionally, when given an 
explicit alternative to the death penalty -- life imprisonment with 
no chance for parole -- the percentage of Americans favoring the 
death penalty drops, but is still above 50%.

Support for the death penalty has varied significantly over the 
years, to some degree coinciding with its legality within the United 
States and the frequency with which it has been imposed. In 1953, 68% 
favored the death penalty, a number that dropped to as low as 42% in 
the mid-1960s. In 1978, a year after capital punishment resumed after 
a number of years in which there were no executions in the United 
States, 62% of Americans supported the death penalty. That support 
rose consistently through the 1980s before peaking in 1994, when, as 
noted, 80% of Americans favored the death penalty in murder cases. 
Since then, the number has gradually fallen back to the current 66% 
favor, 28% opposed measured in Gallup's February 14-15 survey.

[...]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won'tMind

[Brad De Long]

>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>>My question has to do with the trends in this statistic.  Is it worse today
>>than in earlier times?
>
>Studies of mobility over the last several decades come up with 
>conflicting results. And that's with pretty good data. Anything that 
>purported to measure 19th century mobility would be less scientific 
>than haruspicy.
>
>Doug

Any reasonable measure of upward mobility would place a high value on 
mid-nineteenth century migration from Ireland to America, and 
assimilation in the subsequent generations; and would place a high 
value on turn-of-the-century migration from Poland and Italy to 
America, and subsequent assimilation. And an *extremely* high value 
on ceasing to be a slave...

With the closing of the immigration door in 1925 and the coming of 
the Great Depression, upward mobility has to have slowed.

Of course, all this gets mixed up in overall income inequality. It's 
less of a deal to make it from percentile 25 to percentile 50 if the 
distribution is tight...


Brad DeLong

RE: Re: Gary Graham

[Max Sawicky]

At 03:16 PM 6/22/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Now, that the Death Penalty is becoming less popular, you can bet that 
>some people will opportunistically jump on the band wagon.  The whole 
>system is disgusting.

In the recent issue of the NATION, Hitchens argues that it's not the 
Democrats who are leading the charge against the death penalty. It's the 
GOPsters, including very conservative ones, which suggests a turnabout on 
the usual liberal "lesser of two evils" strategy.



Not necessarily, Jimbo.  The DP is not much less
popular than ever.  The Illinois Gov unleashed
serious doubts about accurate determination of
guilt, thanks I think to those Northwestern
U. law students who managed to exonerate a
number of the condemned.  In this case, your
'lesser evil' could be greasing the skids for
a new, more just death penalty.

If real or illusory measures are taken to make
guilt determination more accurate, the DP becomes
more legitimate, not less.  On the other hand, if
the empirical evidence of wrongful convictions
reaches some critical mass, the credibility of
the DP could be damaged for some time to come.

I say this strictly in the interests of objectivity.
One can doubt government efficacy in the application
of the DP -- or even the possibility of efficacy --
without denying the moral appropriateness
of the penalty in the abstract.

If I was crusading on this issue, I would look
for a dubiously-condemned person who wasn't a
certifiable scum like so-called Shaka whatzisface.

mbs

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won'tMind

[Michael Perelman]

Brad, you were listed in the acknowledgments of the Williamson - O'Rourke book.
Their idea is that the migration from Ireland would limit mobility in the U.S.
and maybe raise it in Ireland.  Most of what I have read about the end of
slavery, seems to suggest that upward mobility for freed slaves was limited.  I
gather that Gavin Wright would agree.

Brad De Long wrote:

> Any reasonable measure of upward mobility would place a high value on
> mid-nineteenth century migration from Ireland to America, and
> assimilation in the subsequent generations; and would place a high
> value on turn-of-the-century migration from Poland and Italy to
> America, and subsequent assimilation. And an *extremely* high value
> on ceasing to be a slave...
>
> With the closing of the immigration door in 1925 and the coming of
> the Great Depression, upward mobility has to have slowed.
>
> Of course, all this gets mixed up in overall income inequality. It's
> less of a deal to make it from percentile 25 to percentile 50 if the
> distribution is tight...
>
> Brad DeLong

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

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

GA Cohen

[JKSCHW]

I said:

. I think Cohen was right that
 >historical materialism is basically functional explanation,a nd I approve of
 >historical materialism.
 
Jim responds

 > Cohen's version of historical materialism . . . is  a bunch of 
transhistorical and 
 thus unhistorical abstractions that say little or nothing about real human 
 history. Its connection with Marx's ideas is weak,. . . . 

I didn't say I approved of Cohen's reconstruction of Marx's theory of 
history, either as an account of Marx or the truth about history In fact I 
don't, I rather think Brenner is a lot closer. What I said what that I 
thought that Cohen was right that historical materialism, correctly construed 
(both in Marx and in real history) turns centrally on functional explanation. 
This is also true in Brenner's version.

I said: 

 >You mistake functional explanation for teleology if you think it involves 
 >reference to the "purpose" of events in a "grander
 >scheme of things." Rather it explains events in terms of their usefulness 
 >for phenomena that support them. Thus (in the dated example of my paper), 
 >welfare is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in 
 >damping social unrest, . . . 
 
Jim replies: 

> I don't think that "welfare" can be seen in this way. Welfare does dampen 
 social unrest (in some cases, but remember the Welfare Rights movement). 
 But in the US, it was simply a result of the conflict between classes

Maybe not. I won't argue the point. As I said, it was just an example. The 
point is that explanations of this sort don't involve any obnoxious form of 
teleology.

> Joel Blau writes: >The other problem with functionalism is the implicit 
 tendency to homeostasis. Whatever happens serves the function of 
 maintaining the whole.

This confuses functionISM with functional EXPLANATION. I have explained this 
in a previous post.

 >  The basis 
 functionalist fallacy is to read the present as justifying the past.

So what makes historical materialist explanations that use functional 
explanation committed to homeostaic and justificatory of the past, including 
even Cohen's version?
 
  >  I will send you a copy if you like. --jks
 
 > I have a copy somewhere already. In fact, in moving to my new office, I 
 created a Justin Schwarz pile of papers. But my life is too disorganized to 
 get to it...
 
I am flattered.

--jks

A little thought or two (fwd)

[md7148]

Dear Doyle,

Those jerks deserve more than I said, but I just felt like not throwing 
gas to the fire any longer. As always, I am very much appreciated by your
supportive remarks and sincere comments, and will continue the struggle
against those unjustly attacking people!

in solidarity,

Mine

>Hi Mine,
 >   I was very touched by your remarks to me.  I thought about writing
>for
>the list, but I decided I wanted to say how much it seems to me struggle
>does draw people together.  Anyhow, like you addressed me, I feel you are
>dear to me now.
>Doyle

Re: Re: RE: Re: Gary Graham

[Max Sawicky]

O.K.  It's less popular than ever, but still popular
enough to carry the day, in the absence of strong
counter-vailing arguments.

mbs

-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2000 4:21 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20592] Re: RE: Re: Gary Graham


>Max Sawicky wrote:
>
>>Not necessarily, Jimbo.  The DP is not much less
>>popular than ever.
>
>
>
>POLL RELEASES
>February 24, 2000
>
>Support for Death Penalty Drops to Lowest Level in 19
Years, Although
>Still High at 66%
>
>Widespread agreement, even among those who favor it, that
innocent
>people sometimes get death penalty
>by Frank Newport
>
>GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
>
>PRINCETON, NJ -- Although a significant majority of
Americans still
>favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder,
the
>percentage has been gradually decreasing over time since
its high
>point in 1994, and is now -- at 66% -- at its lowest level
since
>1981. A new Gallup poll also shows that even those who
favor the
>death penalty agree that innocent people at least
occasionally are
>given the death sentence in error. Additionally, when given
an
>explicit alternative to the death penalty -- life
imprisonment with
>no chance for parole -- the percentage of Americans
favoring the
>death penalty drops, but is still above 50%.
>
>Support for the death penalty has varied significantly over
the
>years, to some degree coinciding with its legality within
the United
>States and the frequency with which it has been imposed. In
1953, 68%
>favored the death penalty, a number that dropped to as low
as 42% in
>the mid-1960s. In 1978, a year after capital punishment
resumed after
>a number of years in which there were no executions in the
United
>States, 62% of Americans supported the death penalty. That
support
>rose consistently through the 1980s before peaking in 1994,
when, as
>noted, 80% of Americans favored the death penalty in murder
cases.
>Since then, the number has gradually fallen back to the
current 66%
>favor, 28% opposed measured in Gallup's February 14-15
survey.
>
>[...]
>

Re: Marx's Accomplishments.

[JKSCHW]

>  I think that a market environment encourages individualism, but the 
 application of rat choice came first with Smith, not Marx. 

Who said Marx was first? Hell, Smith wasn't first. Hobbes was earlier and HE 
wasn't first. 

> And Marx, unlike 
 the rat choice types, saw "preferences" as endogenous.

As did Smith and Hobbes. But the exogeny of preferences can be just a useful 
assumption, adopted for limited purposes, as long as you don't get stuck on 
it.

 > He also clearly 
 rejected methodological individualism, though he saw that something like it 
 was the ordinary consciousness of many people within the system, shaped, 
 constrained, and mystified by commodity fetishism and the illusions created 
 by competition.

I agree and have said so in print.
 
 > Leontief was wrong to credit Marx with this. Marx's volume II is a 
 non-equilibrium system, while the equilibrium interpretation has hobbled 
 Marxian political economy (showing up in absurd ways in the "transformation 
 problem" lit, seen for example in Sweezy's THEORY OF CAPITALIST 
 DEVELOPMENT). Marx did present "equilibrium conditions" for the 
 proportional relationship between sectors, but he did not think equilibrium 
 could be achieved easily. 

Well, the point can be argued. As to the transf problem, it was 2d Int 
Marxists, not Walrasians, who made a big deal about the transformation 
problem. But part of the problem with the way of thinking of evenb some 
"methodological" as opposed to "orthodox" Marxists is revealed by Jim's reply 
to my comment:

 >What's wrong with those accomplishments? we are to eschew them because 
 >some use them apologetically?
 
 I think we should eschew them because they weren't Marx's accomplishments.
  >>

So we should eschew any accomplishments that were not Marx's? Get real, guy.

--jks

Sorry: A little thought or two (fwd)

[md7148]

I apologize for this private correspondence. I really thought I sent this 
to Doyle's address, and somehow it mistakenly went to the list. 
sorry again..

Doyle sorry! I did not do it on purpose...

Mine Doyran



-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:28:52 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A little thought or two (fwd)


Dear Doyle,

Those jerks deserve more than I said, but I just felt like not throwing 
gas to the fire any longer. As always, I am very much appreciated by your
supportive remarks and sincere comments, and will continue the struggle
against those unjustly attacking people!

in solidarity,

Mine

>Hi Mine,
 >   I was very touched by your remarks to me.  I thought about writing
>for
>the list, but I decided I wanted to say how much it seems to me struggle
>does draw people together.  Anyhow, like you addressed me, I feel you are
>dear to me now.
>Doyle

Re: Enjoying Orthodoxy (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (...

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 6/22/00 1:06:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<<  I get to play an "Orthodox Marxist" perhaps 
 only in the minds of posters on LBO-talk & PEN-L.  :)
 
 Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I 
 couldn't have been called "Orthodox" even a decade ago.  If I have 
 really become "Orthodox," perhaps the Marxist tradition has made more 
 progress on what used to be quaintly called the "Woman Question" than 
 I have been aware.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. But I meant that you were millenarian, not 
that you were orthodox.

--jks
 
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 6/22/00 11:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative 
 Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a 
 sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
 
 And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny 
 von Westphalen...
  >>

Right, but Marx was talking about JS as a political economist, where his 
reputation now seems inflated. As for Jenny, I don't think she ever let of if 
she was unhappy.  --jks

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Eco...

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 6/22/00 1:54:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< rad queries:
 >I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the 
 >morning re-reading it...
 
 unfortunately, this is something I picked up in a philosophy class taken 
 many years ago, while the prof. didn't mention the source.

  >>
It's probably true, also probably true that a lot of the great Mill was a 
joint effort in more than jsut that they talked about the stuff together. 
--jks

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Orthodox Marxism"

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 6/22/00 3:52:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

<< The habit of  replacing principled argument with charges of
 dogmatism or sectarianism (which, properly used, are always
 self-criticisms) is a character flaw.
 
 Carrol >>

I know, people complain, but I don't seem to be able to do anything about it. 
I blame my parents, because, after all, I have a flawed character. Moreover, 
everyone here knows I never engage anyone in substantive argument. --jks

Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 6/22/00 4:11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< Radical feminists do not find them perfect either. That being said,
 however, they were the ones who first raised the question of Women in
 Marxism. >>

What about August Bebel, whose Woman Under Socialism is the all time best 
selling Marxist book of all time? My old copy was translated by Daniel de 
Leon. Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg would also be surprsied to hear that it 
took Shulamith Firestone to raise The Woman Question in Marxism. Mine, you 
gotta hit the books. --jks

Re: Re: Re: Functional Explanation

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 6/22/00 4:19:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

<< Perhaps you meant something else, but the following passage sure sounded 
like functionalism--not functional adaption-- to me.
 
 Joel Blau
 
 Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare
 > is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in damping
 > social unrest, stabilizing the capitalist state that is itself functional 
for
 > capitalist reproduction.
  >>

Look, I told you I rejected functionalISM. It's true that functionists might 
use the particular functional explantion I used as an example, but so do 
Marxists like Milton Fisk and radical social democrats like Cloward and 
Piven. To subscribe to taht theory of welfare, at least as part of the story, 
does not mean you think society is a harmonious whole where everything is 
happily maximally functiobal. Besides, the theory is true in part. Welfare 
does dampen social unrest. --jks

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 6/22/00 6:02:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

<< Well, perhaps not quite a graduate student who is going to be tenured some
 day, >>

A mythical creature, like the unicorn and the centaur. More likely the 
graduate student will be detenured and go to law school, like me. --jks

Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)

[md7148]

In a message dated 6/22/00 4:11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< Radical feminists do not find them perfect either. That being said,
 however, they were the ones who first raised the question of Women in
 Marxism. >>

>What about August Bebel, whose Woman Under Socialism is the all time best 
>selling Marxist book of all time? My old copy was translated by Daniel de 
>Leon. Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg would also be surprsied to hear
>that it 
>took Shulamith Firestone to raise The Woman Question in Marxism. Mine,
>you 
>gotta hit the books. --jks

I don't have time because I have sepent with this list more hours
than I expected nowadays. why don't you "hit" the books dear Justin?
Schulamit Firestone is traditionally known to be on the radical feminist
front (Alison Jaggar _Feminism and Human Nature_, chapter 3, 1982).
Schulamit's relation to Marx's dielectic in _Dialectics of Sex_ is not set
to raise The Women Question in Marxism per se. In fact, Schulamit refutes
historical materialist explanation of women's oppression, since she finds
it largely functional and inadequately addressing/reducing gender
inequalities to class. Her radical feminist _reading_ of Marx that the
driving force of history is *not* between classes but between sexes (which
is where the _Dialectics of sex_ comes from) is mistakenly intended to
show that inequalities between men and women lie in _biology_ (women's
reproduction). Rather than seeing gender inequality as an historical and
social product, including reproduction, as Marxist feminists do, Firestone 
stresses the biological element in the final determination of
inequalities-- not social environment, not socialization, not marriage
institution, not capitalism, etc.. Correct biology! correct inequalities!
sort of biological reductionism! In a similar manner, for example, another
radical feminist, _Susan Brownmiller_ , conceives _rape_ as an outcome of
the structural predispositon of vagina and penis. Men are biologically 
structured to rape women, so rape is inevitable and sex is rape...(I am
criticizing this holistic world view btw)

secondly, we were not talking about second wave feminist movement--women's
activism, 60s, whateever, when the woman question was translated into some
form of political consciousness. were we? we were talking about the
_classical_ architects of _Marxist feminism_ just as we were talking about
the classical architecs of liberal feminism (Mill, Taylor). that is
actually what we were talking about!!! 

regards,
 
Mine

Mine's just so smart!

[Stephen E Philion]

Once again, all I can say before I get on a 20 some hour flight with long
connections just to catch some jass in Montreal is, wow Mine, you're so
smart you can talk to Justin Schwartz like he's so dumb...wish I were that
smart...

Mine wrote: 

I don't have time because I have sepent with this list more hours
than I expected nowadays. why don't you "hit" the books dear Justin?

Re: Mine's just so smart!

[Rod Hay]

Don't be too hard on Mine. We all remember when we were in graduate school and
knew everything before we had read it. I just wish that the internet was
around when I was there. I could have gone on and bashed professors without
any fear of reprisals. Unfortunately I had to do it in the Graduate Student
Union, and worry about some rat fink carrying the word back to the department.

yours in jerkdom

Rod

Stephen E Philion wrote:

> Once again, all I can say before I get on a 20 some hour flight with long
> connections just to catch some jass in Montreal is, wow Mine, you're so
> smart you can talk to Justin Schwartz like he's so dumb...wish I were that
> smart...
>
> Mine wrote:
>
> I don't have time because I have sepent with this list more hours
> than I expected nowadays. why don't you "hit" the books dear Justin?

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

Re: Mine's just so smart!

[michael]

I wasn't sure if Justin had earlier told Mine to hit the books.  His
language was ambiguous.  In any case, we are in trouble when one of us
becomes the subject of our conversations.  I have asked Mine to cool it,
and so far she has, except in this case where she may/may not have been
the offender.

In any case, this sniping as no place here.

> 
> Once again, all I can say before I get on a 20 some hour flight with long
> connections just to catch some jass in Montreal is, wow Mine, you're so
> smart you can talk to Justin Schwartz like he's so dumb...wish I were that
> smart...
> 
> Mine wrote: 
> 
> I don't have time because I have sepent with this list more hours
> than I expected nowadays. why don't you "hit" the books dear Justin?
> 
> 


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

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

The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 23 May 2000 -- 4:43 (#424)

[Paul Kneisel]

--- Sponsor's Message --
Knowledge is power, but at AllPredict it’s also cash
and prizes! Test how knowledgeable you are and get
rewarded for making accurate predictions.
Let’s AllPredict the future at: 
http://click.topica.com/oWbz8SnrbAjwjxa/EducationAd12





__

  The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 23 May 2000
 Vol. 4, Number 43 (#424)
__

The Criminal Right In the News:
   Reuters, "Two Accused of Murder in 1963 Alabama Church Blast," 13 May 00
   Dallas Mark Wrolstad (The Dallas Morning News), "Bombing suspect lived a
  quiet life: Neighbors think of ex-Alabaman as model citizen in town
  near," 19 May 00 
   Kansas City Star (mixed reports), "Leader of radical religious sect
  faces abduction charges," 18 May 00 
   Tim Richardson (The Capital-Journal), "ACLU threatens legal action
  against county treasurer," 19 May 00 
Rightwing Quote of the Week: 
   Ax Curtis (Nationalist Observer), "My Killers, or Yours?," 28 Apr 00

-- 

THE CRIMINAL RIGHT IN THE NEWS:

Two Accused of Murder in 1963 Alabama Church Blast
Reuters
13 May 00

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- Two former members of the Ku Klux Klan surrendered on
Wednesday to face murder charges in the 1963 bombing of a Birmingham,
Alabama, church that killed four black girls and galvanized the U.S. civil
rights movement.

Thomas Blanton Jr. and Bobby Frank Cherry, among four suspects named by the
FBI in its original investigation, were charged with eight counts each of
murder, U.S. Attorney Doug Jones said at a news conference.

The two turned themselves in to police on Wednesday and were being held
without bail in a Birmingham jail. They had been under a cloud of suspicion
for the past few days as a special grand jury heard evidence in the case.

"The state grand jury has returned the indictment. We have no idea at this
point when the case will be set for trial," Jones said. He added that he
did not think it would be a problem to try a case almost 40 years old.

Jones, who noted that U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno had supported
continued investigation of the bombing -- the case was reopened several
times in the 1970s and 1980s -- declined to discuss the evidence against
Blanton or Cherry.

Of the eight murder counts filed against each man, four cover "intentional
murder" and four involve "universal malice," referring to the possibility
of the bomb's killing a large number of people.

The suspects previously denied any involvement in the bombing. Their
lawyers were not immediately available for comment on Wednesday.

Baptist Church Was In Central Birmingham

Blanton and Cherry are believed to have been among a group of hard-core
members of the white supremacist Klan who planted a bomb that exploded on
Sept. 15, 1963, outside the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in downtown
Birmingham.

The blast demolished a wall, killing Denise McNair, 11, and three 14-year-
olds, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Addie Mae Collins, who were all
in the basement of the church.

The bombing shocked the nation and prodded many moderate whites into giving
active support to a campaign led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to win
blacks equal rights in Southern states, including Alabama.

A federal investigation at the time of the bombing did not result in any
charges, although the FBI named Blanton, Cherry and two other Klansmen as
suspects. The Klan had waged a campaign of terror against civil rights
workers and blacks in the South.

An investigation in the 1970s led to the murder conviction of one suspect,
Robert Edward Chambliss, who died in prison in 1985 while serving a life
term. The fourth suspect, Herman Cash, is dead.

The arrests are part of a growing wave of current prosecutions of white
suspects believed responsible for attacks on blacks in Alabama, Mississippi
and other Southern states in the 1960s.

Many hate crimes in the South went unpunished in the 1960s because of the
willingness of local law-enforcement officials to turn a blind eye to
attacks on blacks and the reluctance of all-white juries to convict white
defendants for such crimes.

Mississippi is now investigating the case of three civil rights workers
killed in 1964 while registering black voters in Neshoba County. Seven men
were convicted of conspiracy for the crime, but none served time for the
killings.

In 1994, the state convicted Klan member Byron de la Beckwith of the murder
of Medgar Evers, a civil rights activist in Mississippi, 31 years earlier. 

- - - - -

Bombing suspect lived a quiet life: Neighbors think of ex-Alabaman as model
citizen in town near 
Dallas Mark Wrolstad (The Dallas Morning News)
19 May 00

PAYNE SPRINGS

Re: new zealand

[Bill Rosenberg]

Michael Yates wrote:
> 
> Not long ago, on one of these lists, there was a post about the
> rejuvenation of the NZ Labor Party and the reversal of some of the
> anti-labor policies of previous Labor and National governments.  Can
> anyone in the know on these matters comment?  Has the NZ Labor Party
> really moved left? Have the unions gone along?
> 
> Michael Yates

The short answer is that yes, the NZ Labour Party has moved somewhat to the
left, forced in part by its need to form a coalition with the more-left Alliance
Party, and its reliance on the further-left Greens. Labour is still the dominant
force in
the coalition but has to a substantial extent renounced its extreme
neo-liberalism of the 1980's and early 90's. However (cold shivers down spine)
it talks about its programme being "Third Way" and Labour leader and Prime
Minister Helen Clark attended the recent meeting of "Third Way" leaders
including Blair and Clinton in Germany. 

Nonetheless it has moved rapidly to reverse the privatisation of workers'
compensation, introduce more union-friendly labour legislation (including
restoring recognition of unions, the right to strike for multi-employer
contracts, right to join collectives etc), and to increase the highest tax rate
and the minimum wage among a rush of other actions. Worryingly the labour
legislation (which in historical terms is very mild - the right to strike does
not exist before the expiry of a contract, except on grounds of health and
safety, for example) has been delayed because of a ferocious employer campaign
against it and the workers' compensation reversal. Union - and opinion poll -
support for the government is still very strong, but its honeymoon is now over
and the next few months will tell whether it continues on its mildly reformist
centre left path or becomes paralysed with fear. It is highly susceptible to
capital flight, which is already occurring, due to the huge overseas debt and
current account deficit. Its recent budget made some small positive steps away
from the social stringency of the previous government, but it is tied rigidly to
budget surpluses and "no new taxes" other than the one already enacted.

I have written about this in an article for the May issue of Canadian Dimension
(just out) but can provide a copy to interested non-Canadians. It is naturally
already a little
dated.

If you want to read more about the proposed labour legislation, the Employment
Relations Bill, have a look at the CTU site http://www.ctu.org.nz/ or go to
http://library.psa.org.nz/collection/ctu/index.asp for a collection of papers -
the ones by Hughes, Wilson and Conway are the most worth reading. (The CTU -
Council
of Trade Unions - has a new lease of life too, with an almost completely new
leadership.)

Bill Rosenberg


-- 
The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private
capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, TheyWon'tMind

[Brad De Long]

>Brad, you were listed in the acknowledgments of the Williamson - 
>O'Rourke book.
>Their idea is that the migration from Ireland would limit mobility in the U.S.
>and maybe raise it in Ireland.

Limit mobility for *native born* Americans...

But the act of moving from Ireland to America in the nineteenth 
century is one hell of an upward step.

>Most of what I have read about the end of
>slavery, seems to suggest that upward mobility for freed slaves was limited.

Once again: freedmen couldn't go anywhere. But the change in status 
from *slave* to freedman is one hell of an upward step.

Of course you don't see much upward mobility if you carefully avoid 
looking at the places where it takes place--crossing the Atlantic, 
emancipation.

Unsubscribe

[JensC . Andvig]

Re: Enjoying Orthodoxy (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>In a message dated 6/22/00 1:06:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><<  I get to play an "Orthodox Marxist" perhaps
> only in the minds of posters on LBO-talk & PEN-L.  :)
>
> Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I
> couldn't have been called "Orthodox" even a decade ago.  If I have
> really become "Orthodox," perhaps the Marxist tradition has made more
> progress on what used to be quaintly called the "Woman Question" than
> I have been aware.
>
>Fair enough. I stand corrected. But I meant that you were millenarian, not
>that you were orthodox.
>
>--jks

BTW, within the history of Christianity, millenarianism has been 
considered heretical & subversive, not orthodox:

*   MILLENNIALISM (MILLENARIANISM, CHILIASM)
Draft of article for the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of World Religions, 1999

Literally, millennialism refers to the belief, expressed in the book 
of Revelation, that Christ will establish a one-thousand year reign 
of the saints on earth before the Last Judgment.  More broadly 
defined, millennialists expect a time of supernatural peace and 
abundance here on earth.

At its origins, millennialism offers a concrete version of the 
fundamental eschatological belief that at the "end of time" God will 
judge the living and the [resurrected] dead.  This belief in an 
ultimate divine justice, has provided the solution to the problem of 
theodicy for countless generations of believers -- Jews, Christians, 
Muslims, Buddhists -- suffering hardship and oppression, and has, 
therefore, had immense appeal for commoners in every age.  Whereas 
the name comes from the 1000-year period, in fact the key factor 
concerns the earthly nature of the coming "new world": whether it is 
of a duration of forty years or four thousand, the radical 
transformation necessarily means an end to the current institutions 
of power and, therefore, gives all millennial beliefs a revolutionary 
quality that has made them unwelcome to those in positions of 
authority

...From its earliest manifestations, millennial beliefs bifurcated 
between imperial, hierarchical visions of the world to come, a 
kingdom ruled over by a just if authoritarian imperial figure who 
would conquer the forces of chaos and establish the true order of 
society (Cohn, 1993) and a demotic vision of a world of holy anarchy, 
where dominion of man over man ceased from the world.  Many world 
conquerors used millennial "savior" imagery to bolster their rule 
(Cyrus, Alexander, Augustus, Constantine), and especially in the 
Muslim and Christian Middle Ages these imperial uses of millennial 
imagery proliferated.  The contrary millennial tendency, however, was 
marked by a profoundly anti-imperial, even anti-authoritarian thrust. 
Indeed, one of the major strains of Hebrew messianic imagery foresaw 
a time when men shall beat the instruments of war and domination into 
instruments of peace and prosperity; each one sitting under his own 
tree, enjoying the fruits of honest labor undisturbed (Isaiah 2:1-3, 
Micah 4:1-4).  This millennialism foresees the end of the rapacious 
aristocracy (lion and wolf will lie down with the lamb) and the peace 
of the commoner, the manual laborer (lamb gets up the next morning). 
Perhaps no idea in the ancient world, where the dominion of 
aristocratic empires spread to almost every area of cultivated land, 
held more subversive connotations (Baumgarten).

Apostolic Christianity demonstrates many of the key traits of 
apocalyptic millenarian groups of this second, demotic, type:

*  the rhetoric of the meek overcoming the powerful and arrogant,
*  the imminence of the Lord's Day of wrath and the coming Kingdom of Heaven,
*  a leader and a following among common, working people,
*  rituals of initiation into a group preparing for and awaiting the End,
*  fervent spirituality and radical restructuring of community bonds,
*  large, enthusiastic crowds prominence of women visionaries,
*  the shift from a disappointed messianic hope (Crucifixion) to a 
revised expectation (Second Coming or Parousia)...

...As Christianity evolved from a charismatic cult on the fringes of 
the society into a self-perpetuating institution eager to live in 
harmony with Rome, the hopes of apocalyptic millenarianism 
embarrassed Church leaders who emphasized to Roman authorities that 
Jesus' kingdom was "not of this world."  Whereas almost every 
prominent Christian writer from the movement's first century assumed 
a literal millennialism, by the later second century ecclesiastical 
writers, striving to eliminate subversive millennialism from Church 
doctrine, began an assault on millenarian texts (especially 
Revelation, the only text in the New Testament to explicitly speak of 
an earthly kingdom).  Origen, an early 3rd century theologian, argued 
the millennium was to be interpreted allegorically, not carnally; 
others attempted (successfully in the Eastern Church) to eliminate 
Revelation

Gary Graham's lawyer

[Louis Proyect]

(This is from a NY Times article by Raymond Bonner and Sara Rimer, dated
June 11, that deals with the incompetence of Gary Graham's (aka Shaka
Sankofa) court-appointed lawyer. Bonner is a fiercely courageous journalist
who was removed from his post in Central America in the 1980s by editor
A.M. Rosenthal, who was responding to State Department complaints about
Bonner's alleged leftwing sympathies. One can only draw the conclusion from
reading this article that Graham has not received competent legal defense.
Moreover, those lacking his high-profile might have already been murdered
by the state already. Thus it becomes even more urgent to lend one's voice
to his defense. Appeal to Governor George W. Bush Jr. to stop the
execution. phone: 512-463-2000 or fax: 512-463-1849.) 



On death row at the Terrell unit of the Texas state prison in Livingston,
an hour's drive north of here, inmates and death penalty lawyers refer
sardonically to a place they call the Mock Wing. This metaphorical prison
enclave has housed at least a dozen death row inmates, some already
executed, others awaiting their final punishment, who shared the same
lawyer, Ronald G. Mock. 

Mr. Mock, who was appointed by Harris County judges to represent indigent
defendants in capital cases, says he believes he has had more clients
sentenced to death than any lawyer in the country. One of those clients,
Robert Anthony Carter, 34, was executed on May 31. On June 22, another
client, Gary Graham, 36, is scheduled to die by lethal injection after a
19-year court battle. 

In large part because Mr. Graham's conviction turned on a single eyewitness
who saw him only fleetingly and at night, his new lawyers are insisting
that he is innocent and are pressing for a postponement of his execution
and for a new trial. In earlier pleadings, they also raised questions about
Mr. Mock's competency as trial counsel. . .

Mr. Mock, who boasted in an interview this week that he had flunked
criminal law at Texas Southern University's Thurgood Marshall School of
Law, called no witnesses during the guilt phase of Mr. Graham's trial,
which lasted two days. He did not challenge before the jury the testimony
of the single eyewitness who sealed Mr. Graham's guilty verdict, although
there were other witnesses who could have provided conflicting testimony.
He called only two witnesses during the penalty phase, when his job was to
persuade the jury to spare his client's life. 

Mr. Mock, who had only three years of legal experience when he took on Mr.
Graham's defense, acknowledged in the interview that he did almost no
investigation of the case. He knew in his gut, he said, that none of the
witnesses could help his client. Mr. Mock's investigator, Mervyn West, as
well as his co-counsel, Chester L. Thornton, both say Mr. Mock had made it
clear that he assumed Mr. Graham was guilty, an assertion Mr. Mock disputes. 

Mr. Thornton said Mr. Graham's fate had haunted him for 19 years. It was
his first and last capital case. "I have serious questions whether we
presented a fair and adequate defense," he said. 

Mr. Mock said that five of his clients on death row have petitions pending
in court that accuse him of ineffectiveness of counsel. The Texas Bar
Association has reprimanded him several times for professional misconduct.
"I have a permanent parking spot at the grievance committee," Mr. Mock said. 

In the 1980's, Mr. Mock, who drives a Rolls-Royce and a Harley-Davidson,
was one of the top-earning court-appointed lawyers on death cases here,
making by his estimation $120,000 to $130,000 a year. Mr. Mock said he
stopped handling capital cases 10 years ago because there was not enough
money in them. . .

With his easy manner and jokes, Mr. Mock became a favorite of a handful of
Harris County judges, some of whom were impressed by the strong rapport he
established with clients. Another reason judges appointed Mr. Mock, Mr.
Thornton and other lawyers said, was that Mr. Mock is black, and with few
African-American lawyers practicing criminal defense law in Houston in the
1980's, judges were interested in promoting what diversity they could. 

Richard Trevathan, who was the judge in the Graham case and is now in
private practice, said, "I always thought Ron Mock was a good lawyer." 

But a review of Mr. Mock's legal career here shows that he was jailed
during jury selection in one capital murder trial for failing to file court
papers in another case on time for a condemned client's appeal. A federal
judge who later reviewed the case during which Mr. Mock was jailed wrote
that his confidence in the verdict was "completely undermined" because of
Mr. Mock's performance. Mr. Mock's client, Anthony Ray Westley, 36, was
executed in 1997. 

Several clients filed complaints against Mr. Mock, with one claiming that
he smelled alcohol on Mr. Mock's breath during their discussions. Mr. Mock
at one time owned 11 bars, including Buster's Drinkery, a popular downtown
hangout for judges and 

new zealand

[Michael Yates]

Not long ago, on one of these lists, there was a post about the
rejuvenation of the NZ Labor Party and the reversal of some of the
anti-labor policies of previous Labor and National governments.  Can
anyone in the know on these matters comment?  Has the NZ Labor Party
really moved left? Have the unions gone along?

Michael Yates

RE: Re: Re: "Jerks", was Re: Peter Dorman and RobinHahnel

[Max Sawicky]

No foreign epithets allowed.  Only domestic.
Instead of w*, there is the perfectly good
U.S. term of pud-whacker.

mbs
Fair Trade Coalition


Greetings Economists,
Doug Henwood asks if I give my permission to use the word "Wanker".  I
grant Doug Henwood permission to use the word Wanker.  He must first follow
the conditions put out here.  His useage must be run by a committee
consisting of Bill Clinton, Max Sawicky, and Alan Greenspan.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor