BILL FLETCHER, JR. TO TALK AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO
September 27, 2000 For more information: News ReleaseCall John Rowntree 916-446-1758 BILL FLETCHER, JR. TO TALK ABOUT THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN THE NEW MILLENIUM AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO Bill Fletcher, Jr., Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO and co-founder of the Black Radical Congress, will deliver a talk entitled The Challenges of Labor in the New Millennium, on Friday, October 13 at 7 p.m. at the Oak Park Community Center, 3425 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Sacramento, CA. Fletchers talk continues the Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on Current Issues, a speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of Sacramento. The American people need to build a labor movement that can challenge our economic system and the social inequities it creates, said Fletcher. Fletcher will share strategies and organizing techniques for raising working class consciousness, connecting labor activism to broader struggles against racism, linking labor and community activism and building a class conscious labor movement. There will be a question-and-answer period after Fletchers talk. This event is free and open to the public. Donations are welcome. For more information call John Rowntree at 916-446-1758. ### _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Morally Bankrupt economists on their way to becoming financially so...
[full article http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/27/national/27HARV.html ] September 27, 2000 U.S. Seeks Millions in Suit Against Advisers to Russia By CAREY GOLDBERG BOSTON, Sept. 26 Federal prosecutors today filed a civil suit contending that two Harvard University advisers who helped mold Russia's economic reforms in the mid-1990's misused their government-financed positions in pursuit of personal gain for themselves and their wives. The two advisers, Andrei Shleifer, a prize-winning economics star and tenured Harvard professor, and Jonathan Hay, a former Harvard legal expert, deny any wrongdoing. Harvard University, too, rejects the accusation that it failed in its obligation to supervise the advisers. Today the univerity's general counsel called the request for damages up to $120 million from Harvard and the defendants far out of proportion to any harm possibly done. The case, which has been under investigation for more than three years, concerns advisers who worked for the Harvard Institute for International Development, which spearheaded American efforts to help Russia make the transition from Communism to a market economy in the 1990's, and received more than $40 million in government grants to finance its efforts. United States Attorney Donald K. Stern, who announced the suit today, said in a statement: "The United States paid Harvard for impartial and unbiased economic advice, both in fact and in appearance. Despite clear prohibitions against investing in Russia, Harvard advisers abused their positions and attempted to tip the playing field to their own private financial advantage." The main accusations concern the advisers and their wives Nancy Zimmerman, Mr. Shleifer's wife, and Elizabeth Hebert, who was then Mr. Hay's girlfriend and is now his wife. Both women are financial professionals and were actively working on investments and funds in Russia. The four are accused of making prohibited purchases that include investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian companies and the creation of a real estate company. Prosecutors also accuse the advisers of using the staff and offices financed by the United States Agency for International Development money to make private investments. Mr. Hay's lawyer, David M. Zornow, issued a statement on Mr. Hay's behalf today, saying: "Mr. Hay's actions were lawful and proper. Indeed, at the time Harvard's program was in effect, the highest levels of the U.S. government recognized that it was enormously successful." In fact, prosecutors are not asserting that the Harvard advice given the Russians was bad. But, Mr. Stern said today, the situation was something like an investment counselor who has promised a client unbiased advice and then pushes stock in a company in which he owns shares. The client may make money, but a contract has been broken. Harvard's general counsel, Anne Taylor, emphasized today that the advisers did not simply have a contract from the aid agency; they were working in cooperation with it, and under its supervision as well. In any case, "all the services the government contracted for were delivered," Ms. Taylor said. "The government's own evaluation of the project over the years rated it extremely highly." Furthermore, Ms. Taylor said, the government's complaint against the advisers said they worked to conceal their private investing, adding: "If there's active concealment, it seems to us unreasonable to expect that we could have caught this. Nobody with administrative authority knew about this. Nobody." Professor Shleifer appears to be taking a different tack in his defense; his lawyer, Earl H. Nemser, issued a statement today saying that Dr. Shleifer and his wife were glad the matter was finally going to court and that the accusations against them "are meritless as a matter in law." "In the main," it said, "the complaint proceeds from the false premise that Professor Shleifer and his wife were prohibited from investing in Russia." But "as a consultant to the project, as opposed to an employee of the project, Professor Shleifer had a specific consulting contract which did not restrict his investment activities or those of his wife." Though prosecutors are not criticizing the Harvard advice given Russia, it does seem clear that the accusations, which were first publicly raised by American officials in 1997, harmed both the image of American aid in Russia and the reformers whom the Americans were trying to help. "When the accusations were first made, there were Russians who said, `You see, the Americans said they would come and be a big help and be selfless, and here they were just like everybody else, dipping in the pot,' " said Marshall Goldman, associate director of the Center for Russian Studies at Harvard, who has also challenged the wisdom of the substantive advice that the Shleifer team gave. "That has caused deep harm." Early this year, Harvard decided to disband the Harvard Institute for Internation
[Fwd: nudists for nader]
This post constitutes proof positive that Chico is in the forefront of politics, despite all the news from Prague. dna wrote: > If you would lke to join the Nudist for Nader here is the deal, > Meet at behind the stage in park plaza thursday at 6:30 > bring any funky costumes (or lack therof) that is fun, > there will a van for changing, > more the merrier, > at 7 after a Green Party speaker gives a short speech, > a security escort will run with you to the stage where > cheers and chants will occur with the crowd, > then a security escort will run with you back to the stage, > voila! > That's it, DO IT. YOU WILL FEEL GREAT! > e-mail any questions and I look forward to the event > it only took one bus of people to Alabama to start the civil rights movement. > Change starts with(in) you! > dna > > ryan libre wrote: > > > -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~> > > href="http://click.egroups.com/1/8150/11/_/_/_/969914551/">Start a new group! > > -_-> > > > > A FORCE MORE POWERFUL: A CENTURY OF NONVIOLENT CONFLICT, a riveting, > > new,three-hour documentary premiering thursady in holt 266 at 5:30 tells one > > of humanity's most important and least understood stories how, during a > > century of extreme violence, millions chose to battle brutality and > > oppression with nonviolent weapons and won. > > > > "These are powerful stories, about truth overcoming lies, love dissolving > > evil, and life eclipsing death," said former president Jimmy Carter of the > > documentary. "Nonviolent valor can end oppression, and the world of the 21st > > century will be safer, freer and more humane if it heeds the lessons of this > > series." > > > > this is brand new and very well done. we will watch 2 of the 6 parts each > > week, ie. 1 hour > > ps did i mention free popcorn. > > > > _ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > -_-> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To subscribe to this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -_-> -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you would lke to join the Nudist for Nader here is the deal, Meet at behind the stage in park plaza thursday at 6:30 bring any funky costumes (or lack therof) that is fun, there will a van for changing, more the merrier, at 7 after a Green Party speaker gives a short speech, a security escort will run with you to the stage where cheers and chants will occur with the crowd, then a security escort will run with you back to the stage, voila! That's it, DO IT. YOU WILL FEEL GREAT! e-mail any questions and I look forward to the event it only took one bus of people to Alabama to start the civil rights movement. Change starts with(in) you! dna ryan libre wrote: > -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~> > href="http://click.egroups.com/1/8150/11/_/_/_/969914551/">Start a new group! > -_-> > > A FORCE MORE POWERFUL: A CENTURY OF NONVIOLENT CONFLICT, a riveting, > new,three-hour documentary premiering thursady in holt 266 at 5:30 tells one > of humanity's most important and least understood stories how, during a > century of extreme violence, millions chose to battle brutality and > oppression with nonviolent weapons and won. > > "These are powerful stories, about truth overcoming lies, love dissolving > evil, and life eclipsing death," said former president Jimmy Carter of the > documentary. "Nonviolent valor can end oppression, and the world of the 21st > century will be safer, freer and more humane if it heeds the lessons of this > series." > > this is brand new and very well done. we will watch 2 of the 6 parts each > week, ie. 1 hour > ps did i mention free popcorn. > > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > -_-> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe to this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -_->
Re: Re: oil, wheat, argentina
Although payments to farmers are always discussed as subsidies, I prefer to think of them as covering the difference between marginal cost -- what the farmer sells at -- and average cost, which includes overhead cost. Farmers can't cover total costs while selling at marginal cost. So farming is not a viable business, but we prefer to eat. And of course the US uses food as a weapon in various ways. The above ignores the reality that the Federal payments go mainly to corporate agriculture, while family farmers gradually disappear from US agriculture. Gene Coyle Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote: > En relación a [PEN-L:2216] oil, wheat, argentina, > el 24 Sep 00, a las 22:33, Michael Perelman dijo: > > > > > A recent report by the Worldwatch's Lester Brown points out that while > > the U.S pays for its oil imports in part with grain exports, exports > > of grain and oil are each concentrated in a handful of countries with > > grain coming largely from NorthAmerica and oil mostly from the Middle > > East. > > > > Grain exports by the USA are very heavily subsidized. Part of this > subsidization policy might be under stress by the hike in oil prices. > Of course, the dominant position of the greatest grain exporter can > become an asset, since the world market of basic foodstuffs such as > wheat is more "marginalist" in its behavior than most markets (that > is, the price of wheat will be set by strong difficulties to bend the > consumption curve still further down). > > The problem with agricultural subsidies and how to finance them, > however, will loom with a soaring price for oil. So that either the > hike in oil will imply a hike in grains (implying more hunger), or > the hike in oil will imply some sort of deep restructuring in > American agriculture. > > Am I too rigid? > > Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: the Economist on globalization
from SLATE magazine's on-line summary of the content of other magazines: >Economist, Sept. 22 >The cover story criticizes the spate of WTO/World Bank/IMF protests, >scheduled to continue in Prague next week. To defuse the protesters, the >international organizations have farmed out responsibilities to NGOs, >which are neither elected nor regulated. >... The editorial makes the case for globalization, arguing that the only >way to end world poverty is by "accelerating [globalization], celebrating >it, exulting in it." ... An article details the troubles facing the six >small island nations in the eastern Caribbean (including St. Lucia and >Antigua). Globalization has interfered with their rum and sugar >industries, and though tourism thrives, the powerful airlines, telecoms, >and cruise lines bully the local governments. To diversify their >economies, many Caribbean nations have courted financial services, >sheltering investments by shady laundering operations. so globalization is wonderful, the best thing short of the Second Coming of the Messiah (or First, depending on your religion), but it's driving countries like Trinidad & Tobago to harbor the guys who illegally charged $500 to my MasterCard? that story about the NGOs is interesting. Can you spell co-optation? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Hostile takeovers: Russian style.
*** #1 Vodka Dispute Shows Russia Chaos September 26, 2000 By JIM HEINTZ MOSCOW (AP) - Heading the Kristall vodka distillery should be a businessman's dream - the chance to manage one of Russia's most prestigious enterprises, with a world-renowned array of products, a diligent work force and awards from the government. But it's closer to a waking nightmare. For seven weeks, Kristall has been split between two men, each claiming to be the manager. One runs the executive offices, the other runs the production floor, and both are backed by squads of guards. The standoff highlights the perils of doing business in Russia, where the legal system is often ineffectual. How the dispute is resolved could indicate whether President Vladimir Putin's government can improve the business climate by upholding the law and public accountability. Kristall is among the most famous of Russia's approximately 180 vodka distilleries, producing the Western hit Stolichnaya as well as home-country favorites such as Gzhelka. The plant's red-brick complex on a leafy Moscow side street looks like a 19th century fortress. The resemblance was especially strong on Aug. 4, when gun-toting men arrived in waves. First came masked tax police, who seized documents as part of a tax-evasion investigation. Within hours, Alexander Romanov and his private guards showed up and moved into the building's executive offices. Romanov said he was staking his claim to the post of general director, to which the board had elected him in May. Before the day was over, Vladimir Svirsky and another group of guards moved into the production facilities. Svirsky, who had been Kristall's acting director since April, pointed out that a Moscow court had voided Romanov's election. But on Sept. 1, the same court reversed itself. Svirsky said an appeal has been filed. The dispute is further complicated by allegations of deceptive stock trading. Romanov says that about 20 percent of company stock that once belonged to the factory workers' collective has gone offshore. ``I admit that 19 percent of the stock belongs to an offshore company in Cyprus,'' Svirsky said. ``But this is a friendly company, and the stocks never vanished: they are working for the collective.'' Romanov spent the first couple of weeks of the standoff living in the executive offices, saying he was afraid to leave because ``I see many men with guns out there.'' But recently, he has had to go out occasionally on business duties because the office phone lines have been cut. Vodka is a cornerstone of Russian life, despite attempts by a succession of leaders right up to Mikhail Gorbachev to curb drinking. And Kristall has done its part in slaking Russians' thirst. Despite the tensions, it met its usual monthly production level of over 2 million gallons, said Kiril Peskov, a Romanov deputy. The guards, meanwhile, seem relaxed and amused. ``I never saw such a situation as this,'' said one guard, laughing and glancing at his rivals a few yards down the street. Russia, however, has seen many such disputes over lucrative firms. Workers seized a paper mill last year to protest foreign ownership of the plant, and troops shot one worker when they raided the plant to end the occupation. This month, rival factions brawled for control of a chemical plant in Yekaterinburg. But the Kristall dispute is in a class of its own because the state owns 51 percent of its shares. It is also notable because the government had lauded Kristall's previous management, naming the plant Russia's Outstanding Taxpayer of 1999 ($89 million on profits of $142 million, according to Svirsky). Analysts say the Kristall case sends a discouraging message to foreign investors who have been otherwise heartened by the Russian economy's recent tentative expansion after years of decline. ``We're watching it closely. What happens to a Russian company can just as easily happen to a foreign one,'' said Scott Blacklin, head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia. At the least, he said, it seems to demonstrate a pattern that has plagued Russia under czarism, communism, and nascent democracy: ``The power elite has never been a friend of the entrepreneur.'' However, Z. Blake Marshall of the Washington-based U.S.-Russia Business Council said the attention-grabbing dispute could be seen as ``a step forward''
Re: Re: the labor theory of value
Ken Hanly wrote: > Surely it is too restrictive to distinguish only "use values" and "exchange > values". Things can be intrinsically valuable to humans i.e. the enjoyment > of a sunset, the taste of an apple, (Preliminary: Neither Marxism nor any other ism is a TOE [theory of everything]) "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself a "an immense accumulation of commodities," its unit being a single commodity." Now, if that establishes the parameters of the topic, why should the author discuss sunsets, etc. *except* as they enter into the social relationships constituting a commodity? It would be as confusing and irrelevant as to demand of Einstein that he include instructions for frying fish in his special theory of relativity. Carrol P.S. A commodity is an *immaterial object*, though it can't exist without being attached to some material product or service. It is a hugely complicated set of relations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dissolving history (was Re:Re: Re: TheUS buys ...
Carrol Cox wrote: >According to Doug (answering a question at the marxism 2000 plenary >he spoke at) the economics profession is intellectually and morally bankrupt. >(I think I have it right from memory. Doug can -- and no doubt will -- >correct me if I'm wrong.) Yeah, I got a little carried away there, didn't I? Started with Jim O'Connor's compelling observation that "economics is a criminal enterprise," went onto that epxerimental work showing that studying economics makes you a more selfish person, and concluded with the phrase, "The hell with 'em." This was in reponse to a question about that letter that Bhagwati & Co. wrote defending sweatshops. Doug
Re: RE: Re: RE: the labor theory of value
Ian wrote: >My sense is that this would be somewhat helpful in developing Marxian >theories of enterprises [not Marxian theories of capitalist firms] which >took legal factors into account. It is alternatives not more critique that >needs to be done now. For the last ten months the critiques have hit the >streets and will continue, especially if the [US] landing is hard. > >This would mean looking a lot harder at "the state of the industrial >arts", as it was the hidden abode of production that was, in Marx' view >violating democratic norms of self-governance, not exchange per se. right. I think that the way in which competition acts as a coercive force on individual capitals would be central to a theory of enterprises, if by that you mean capitalist enterprises. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dissolving history (was Re: Re: Re: TheUS buys ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Fair enough. Actually I think being an academic is more of a vice and being > an economist is a venial sin. According to Doug (answering a question at the marxism 2000 plenary he spoke at) the economics profession is intellectually and morally bankrupt. (I think I have it right from memory. Doug can -- and no doubt will -- correct me if I'm wrong.) Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dissolving history (was Re: Re: Re: The US buys ...
Fair enough. Actually I think being an academic is more of a vice and being an economist is a venial sin. As for stepping further in that direction, I really to think sometimes it is best to say, Look, I don't care who hit whom first: we have a Situation here, and what are we going to do about it now? --jks In a message dated 9/26/00 7:27:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << > I don't think that Nestor was accusing you of either crime. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I am not an academic or an economist. You will have to decide for > > yourself whether I am a faithful servant of the IMF. --jks Thank you, Michael. I actually wasn't, which I expressed on a previous mail. If there was anything personal, it was a warning like "Don't step further in that direction, thin ice ahead!" >>
Re: Re: Re: Re: 8 Eurocentric Historians
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And Blaut attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these two has higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that both "bend the stick" a little too far in an effort to make it straight (i.e., the exaggerate their positions, the way lawyers do in court). >> You're kidding right? There is no question who has the higher level of schilarship. Brenner is one of the major historians of our time. Blaut is just another professor. He might be right, but he can't touch Brenner for scholarship. Btw, good lawyers do not exaggerate their positions. Bad lawyers do it all the time, but a plain understated theory of the case is always the best approach. The best lawyers I have seen all employ this approach. --jks (a lawyer)
Re: Re: RE: the labor theory of value
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:09:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor) theory of why some people have property and some people have more than others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to change the name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theory of property." His theory is much better than Locke's. In fact, I think Marx's is more of a critique of Locke's theory (which was accepted implicitly by the political economists of his day) than it is of Ricardo's labor theory of price. However, a heck of a lot of people assume that Marx simply presented a gloss on Ricardo... >> Locke is mainly interesting in justifying private property than in explaining inequality. Insofar as he offers an explanation of inequality, it is that some people are rational and industrious and others are not. That's about it as far as his explanatory theory goes. His labor theory of property is about something totally different from Marx's, which is an explanation of the laws of commodity society, and certainly not a justification of private property. Some have argued--G.A. Cohen, notably--that Marx is implicitly commited to a Lockean labor theory of property by way of critiquing capitalist distributions of wealth. I disagree with this. But the main thin is that the two theories are not even on the same suvject matter. --jks
Re: oil, wheat, argentina
En relación a [PEN-L:2216] oil, wheat, argentina, el 24 Sep 00, a las 22:33, Michael Perelman dijo: > > A recent report by the Worldwatch's Lester Brown points out that while > the U.S pays for its oil imports in part with grain exports, exports > of grain and oil are each concentrated in a handful of countries with > grain coming largely from NorthAmerica and oil mostly from the Middle > East. > Grain exports by the USA are very heavily subsidized. Part of this subsidization policy might be under stress by the hike in oil prices. Of course, the dominant position of the greatest grain exporter can become an asset, since the world market of basic foodstuffs such as wheat is more "marginalist" in its behavior than most markets (that is, the price of wheat will be set by strong difficulties to bend the consumption curve still further down). The problem with agricultural subsidies and how to finance them, however, will loom with a soaring price for oil. So that either the hike in oil will imply a hike in grains (implying more hunger), or the hike in oil will imply some sort of deep restructuring in American agriculture. Am I too rigid? Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electoral Circuses or Working Class Struggles?
-- Forwarded Message -- From: neil, 74742,1651 TO: Neil C., 74742,1651 CC: DATE: 9/26/00 1:46 PM RE: Electoral Circuses or Working Class Struggles? Tis the season for yet another electoral circus. The Republican and Democratic Parties wallow in hundreds of millions of dollars in Corporate and personal "campaign contributions" from the rich and well-heeled--read massive bribery! By the time these Demopublican political hucksters reach their crescendo of lies, deceit, and playacting this year, nearly $3 billion will have been spent nationwide. The Corporate monopoly mass media has their own bourgeois agenda. They have differences in tactics but they have the same essential goals, to strenghten the hold of pro- capitalist ideas amongst the masses. They promote this electoral cess-pool as the "wonders of democracy". But they hide the fact that this 'democracy' is bought and paid for by the ruling class . This is not workers democracy but capitalist democracy, democracy for the wealthy. George W. Bush, Al Gore and their hangers-on go about nickel and diming the workers. For every dollar the government ,federal , state and local collect, the masses get back about 25 cents worth in needed services. The lions share is handed over to corporate parasites in form of war materials, Pentagon spending/contracts, interest to banks on loans, research for new products and technology that is handed back to corporations to make fat profits on, etc. Ralph Nader has claimed that this year alone corporate welfare amounts to nearly $275 Billion. The Green Party (Ralph Nader) and the Reform Party (Patrick Buchanan) are also trying to entice workers back the the voting booths. These parties both use "Populist" political appeals. Yes, they do denounce the Demopublicans wallowing in corporate money. They criticize this or that US military assault , they decry the loss of decent jobs and the huge social insecurity this brings to US workers. They might even nail some of the most obscenely wealthy moneybags. But their approach is a 'walk on water' attitude as they claim that they can work miracles in humanizing/reforming/managing the capitalist system of waged slavery. Mission impossible! Worse, both Nader and Buchanan (left and right -wing populism) are united with the AFL-CIO trade union apparatus and promote flag-waving US nationalism to line up the US workers behind the rich owners to compete with US rivals abroad. They demagogically blame workers in other lands for capital flight, especially productive capital, and so they cover-up the reasons for capital flight are the profit interests of capitals accumulation processes themselves, built into all national capitals in the world economy. Nader and Buchanan call for protectionist legislation , higher tariffs, etc,. to help US bosses. This leads to US competitors retaliating, resulting in political friction, trade wars, and these , as history shows, can eventually lead to hostile new power blocs emerging, and eventually nation states are impelled to escalate todays proxy wars into barbaric world wars where the major powers, armed to the teeth, directly confront their rivals. (Internet-- wsws.org -on the Green Party and Reform Party conventions) The workers have to be vigilant and and organize against these deadly tendencies of capitalism. Nationalists, left, centrist and right, will find ways to rally workers away from their real class interests and instead directly around the bosses flags. Failing that, like Medea Benjamin, US Senate candidate of the Greens, will try to justify military aggression and plunder for oil, etc, by the presence of the United Nations (that collective camouflage flag of the bosses) imprimaturs, resolutions and occupation troops. This is exactly what the Greens did in the German parliament during NATO's rain of ruin in Yugoslavia/Kosovo in 1999. (Medea Benjamin interveiw with Mary Moore on Adelphia Broadcasting). So much for the 'peace' credentials of the Green Party. The workers interests are hostile to the bosses interests. Workers can effectively organize politically and economically to fight their class battles. But the ruling class is slick and and has laid down many political and ideological minefields to keep workers passive, divided. Workers, kept atomized and chroloformed behind a boss dominated voting booth are impotent. Organizing our class movements from below based on a policy of class against class, we develop real power in practice . We can eventually build up a Internationalist Working Class Party that will unite the class struggles for workers rule, production for human need, not for sale and profit. Los Angeles Workers' Voice, Box 57483, Los Angeles, CA 90057 Internationalists Web: http://www.ibrp.org Sept. 27, 2000 .
The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 26 Sep 2000 -- 4:78 (#471)
--- Support our sponsor Great Dell prices. Great Dell value. Buy now and get $100 off powerful Dell(tm) Dimension(tm) 4100 desktops and mobile, lightweight Dell Inspiron(tm) 5000e notebooks. It's your money. Spend it wisely. Click now. http://click.topica.com/Fabz8SnrbAjwjxa/Dell __ The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 26 September 2000 Vol. 4, Number 78 (#471) __ Action Alerts Refuse & Resist!, "Murder is Not the Only Way Abortion Providers: Are Being Threatened ," 21 Sep 00 National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights , "Take Action Against Anti-Immigrant Brutality In New York State," 22 Sep 00 National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, "Break Germany's 'pass laws' against asylum seekers! Demonstration Sunday 3 Oct 00," 23 Sep 00 Demonstration Sunday 3rd October 2000: Budapest, 3-5 Dec 00, "Legal Aid 2000: Challenges Facing Legal Aid Providers The Refugee Law Clinic as a Protection Solution" Academic Job Listings -- African and Middle Eastern History Academic Job Listings -- African and Middle Eastern History: 13 jobs What's Worth Checking: 10 stories -- ACTION ALERT Murder is Not the Only Way Abortion Providers: Are Being Threatened Refuse & Resist! 21 Sep 00 Florida Abortion Provider Dr. James Pendergraft's attempt to provide protection for his clinic, staff, and patients has resulted in a Federal Indictment. He faces 30 years in jail and $1 million in fines. Refuse & Resist! calls on everyone who defends a woman's right to choose to join us in the defense of Dr. James Pendergraft against these unjust and very political federal charges, and against continuing harassment by the anti-abortion movement. The prosecution of Dr. Pendergraft is not about criminal behavior. He is one of a small number of doctors who perform high risk, 2nd trimester abortions, caring for patients who come from many states and foreign countries. Across the country, abortion providers, particularly later term providers, are under legal, legislative, and violent attack, and we must see Dr. Pendergraft's case as part of this climate of intimidation. Anti- abortion activists all over the country are using various methods to put providers out of business and intimidate the next generation of doctors out of providing abortions. Convicting and imprisoning Dr. Pendergraft would be a strategic blow to choice. If Dr. Pendergraft is convicted, all of his Florida clinics could be closed, and there would be one less in the small number of late-term abortion providers in the country. Dr. Pendergraft says in response, "I have done nothing wrong. I am only trying to provide abortions to the women who need them, and protect my people, and they don't want me to. I am continuing to do what is right." Doctors Gunn, Britton, Tiller, Slepian, Steir, Romalis, and now Pendergraft to name a few, all doctors, all victims of the politicization of a woman's right to reproductive freedom. For doing their jobs, for helping women live their lives as they choose, they have been harassed, indicted, jailed, shot, stabbed, and murdered. Dr. Pendergraft's trial is scheduled for mid-October. Now is the time to act and not let him be added to the list! Abortion On Demand and Without Apology! What You Can Do: Sign statement of support. Available at www.righttofight.org. (includes more info about the case) To sign on and/or to donate funds for this statement to be printed as a paid ad. Join Dr. Pendergraft's defense committee. Write to the Judge and Prosecutor and demand they stop this prosecution now! Mark B. Deveraux, U.S. Attorney's Office, 200 W. Forsyth St, Rm. 770, Jacksonville, FL 32202, 904-232-2682, Fax 904-232-2620. Donna A. Bucella, U.S. Attorney, 400 N. Tampa St., Ste 3200, Tampa, FL, 33602, 813-274-6320, Fax 813-274-6178. Judge: William Taro Hodges, Magistrate Judge: Gary R. Jones, Golden-Collum Memorial Federal Building, 207 NW 2nd Ave, Ocala, FL, 34475, 352-369-4860, Fax 352-629-8701. Send urgently needed financial contributions for a solid legal defense to: Checks can be made payable to: Ocala Women's Center earmarked "Right to Fight Coalition" Attn: Patti c/o Orlando Women's Center, 1103 Lucerne Terrace, Orlando, FL, 32806. Spread the word, copy and distribute this material, post on your Web site, link Web sites, build active support for Dr. Pendergraft. Further info: www.refuseandresist.org R&R! Atlanta 404-239-8054 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Refuse & Resist! Reproductive Freedom Task Force, 305 Madison Ave. #1166, New Yo
RE: Re: RE: the labor theory of value
JD>> I think that for Marx, as with Locke, nature has no value _in society_ unless someone mixes labor with it. Both present theories of society when they present their labor theories. Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor) theory of why some people have property and some people have more than others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to change the name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theory of property." His theory is much better than Locke's. In fact, I think Marx's is more of a critique of Locke's theory (which was accepted implicitly by the political economists of his day) than it is of Ricardo's labor theory of price. However, a heck of a lot of people assume that Marx simply presented a gloss on Ricardo... === Yes! I would second that need to change the terms to the labor theory of property and agree that Marx is way better than Locke on the issue. My sense is that this would be somewhat helpful in developing Marxian theories of enterprises [not Marxian theories of capitalist firms]which took legal factors into account. It is alternatives not more critique that needs to be done now. For the last ten months the critiques have hit the streets and will continue, especially if the [US] landing is hard. This would mean looking a lot harder at "the state of the industrial arts", as it was the hidden abode of production that was, in Marx' view violating democratic norms of self-governance, not exchange per se. >Is the source of use-value [then on to exchange value] itself valuable and >what kind of value, if so, is it? Do we have to expand the taxonomy of >values given to us by M.? I ask because it is the source of a big rift in >the green "movement" which needs to be ameliorated in some form different >from the ick given by deep ecology. I don't think that there's a big conflict between Marx's law of value and ecological thinking. See, for example, my article, "The Law of Value and Marxian Political Ecology" In Jesse Vorst, Ross Dobson, and Ron Fletcher, eds., _Green on Red: Evolving Ecological Socialism_(Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes, vol. 9, 1993), Winnepeg/Halifax, Canada: Society for Socialist Studies/Fernwood Publishing, pp. 133-54. There are a lot of good articles in that volume. === Thanx 4 the ref. To the extent that "ecological thought" can serve as a check on letting instrumental values - Habermas' technological rationality - continue to run rampant via Capital' "accumulation for it's own sake" [an intrinsic value theory if ever there was one] I would suppose that we would need one very different than DE or the variants on critical theory, yet doesn't fall to the sort of hierarchical subsumption of one term to the other as I understand Ken H. to be alluding to. Perhaps talking directly to biologists and ecologists would help in this regard. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Dissolving history (was Re: Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yugoslavia.)
En relación a [PEN-L:2322] Re: Re: Dissolving history (was Re: , el 26 Sep 00, a las 8:30, Michael Perelman dijo: > I don't think that Nestor was accusing you of either crime. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I am not an academic or an economist. You will have to decide for > > yourself whether I am a faithful servant of the IMF. --jks Thank you, Michael. I actually wasn't, which I expressed on a previous mail. If there was anything personal, it was a warning like "Don't step further in that direction, thin ice ahead!" Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Dissolving history (was Re: Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yugoslavia.)
En relación a [PEN-L:2320] Re: Dissolving history (was Re: Re: , el 26 Sep 00, a las 10:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] dijo > I am not an academic or an economist. You will have to decide for > yourself whether I am a faithful servant of the IMF. --jks [I had previously pointed out that jks's way of thinking was the usual way by which people who began their academic carreers as "progressive" students finished them by working for the IMF] Sorry if you took it personal. What I wanted to do, and your angry answer simply ratifies my general point, is that these structures of mind are absolutely unconscious for those who slide to the muddy pond. I am not saying that YOU are sliding into it yourself, and in fact I hope you can catch the rope I am throwing to you. This is not up to me to decide, this is up to you to do. Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: 8 Eurocentric Historians
Louis says: >This isn't the problem with Brenner. Rather it is that he goes out on a >limb to attack the "development of underdevelopment" thesis associated >with dependency theorists around the Monthly Review associated with views >originally put forward by Sweezy and Baran. It seems to me that the entire >history of capitalism is about the development of underdevelopment in most >of the world. There are two theories in conflict here. One is the D-of-U theory (or, more generally, dependency theory), with its emphasis on international exploitative relations. The other -- what might be called the "classical Marxist" (CM) school -- has an emphasis on the class relations within nations. Brenner's theory is an example of that, because he sees class struggle in rural France, England, etc., as setting the stage for capitalist development there (which then spread to the rest of the world). Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And Blaut attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these two has higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that both "bend the stick" a little too far in an effort to make it straight (i.e., the exaggerate their positions, the way lawyers do in court). If you bend the stick too much, you might break the limb. Instead of dwelling on the conflict between these two, it seems that these two theories can and should be synthesized. People like Samir Amin and the whole MR school have tried to do so. In Latin America, many dependistas have come to emphasize internal class relations _along with_ international relations of dependency and exploitation. Similarly, CMs acknowledge the way that the center's economic development benefited from exploitation of the periphery. (It's in the last few chapters of vol. 1 of CAPITAL, after all, while people like Brenner are basing their theory on CAPITAL.) Of course, they note that without a capitalist "engine" already started, ripping off "fuel" from the rest of the world doesn't really benefit the rich countries in the long run. (They point to the case of Spain, which was extremely destructive and exploitative toward Latin American and other colonies but found that most of the benefits trickled off to the Netherlands and England.) The D-of-U school tends to see the world as a "zero-sum game." That is, any prosperity in the center (W. Europe, N. America, etc.) is simply the result of exploitation of the periphery (Latin America, Africa, etc.) The CM school, on the other hand, emphasizes the "zero-sum" nature of class relations within the center (and not only within the periphery). However, there is the CM emphasis on class antagonism is linked to capitalism's technological progressivism. This in turn, is linked to the emphasis seen in the MANIFESTO (the other CM) and elsewhere on the way in which capitalism is "progressive" in the sense that it sets the stage for socialism's rise. Despite the fact that a lot of the advantages of "modern" technology arise from destroying nature (or ripping off "folk science") and despite the fact that the advantages of science have been grossly exaggerated, I think there's a glimmer of truth here, getting beyond the D-of-U school's pessimistic view. After all, a computer spread-sheet program is superior to counting on one's fingers (or even an abacus). (I remember someone on pen-l saying that he thought that an economy could be run using a spread-sheet.) The point is to get the science and technology out of the hands of the "powers that be" before it destroys the world. The D-of-U school tends to equate capitalism with the market, whereas the CM school stresses the way in which capitalist class relations make it different from a market system. Here there's convergence: Brenner's recent work is on market competition amongst the rich countries. That, of course, is because capitalist class relations have been fully established there, so that they can be largely taken for granted (especially when describing a non-revolutionary era, when they are not put in doubt in practice). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: the labor theory of value
At 09:01 AM 9/26/00 -0700, you wrote: > By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are > sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values. >= >I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that >even though nature is the source of use-values, it "in-itself" does or does >not have value? Not the way he defines "value." But nature clearly has value in other senses of the word for Marx. After all, he sees humanity as part of nature rather than somehow being separate from it. Contrary to received wisdom, he didn't see the human conquest of nature as a "good thing." (see Foster or Burkett.) >In other words was he still operating within Lockean premises that nature >has no value until somebody mixes her/his labor with >it? I think that for Marx, as with Locke, nature has no value _in society_ unless someone mixes labor with it. Both present theories of society when they present their labor theories. Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor) theory of why some people have property and some people have more than others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to change the name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theory of property." His theory is much better than Locke's. In fact, I think Marx's is more of a critique of Locke's theory (which was accepted implicitly by the political economists of his day) than it is of Ricardo's labor theory of price. However, a heck of a lot of people assume that Marx simply presented a gloss on Ricardo... >Is the source of use-value [then on to exchange value] itself valuable and >what kind of value, if so, is it? Do we have to expand the taxonomy of >values given to us by M.? I ask because it is the source of a big rift in >the green "movement" which needs to be ameliorated in some form different >from the ick given by deep ecology. I don't think that there's a big conflict between Marx's law of value and ecological thinking. See, for example, my article, "The Law of Value and Marxian Political Ecology" In Jesse Vorst, Ross Dobson, and Ron Fletcher, eds., _Green on Red: Evolving Ecological Socialism_(Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes, vol. 9, 1993), Winnepeg/Halifax, Canada: Society for Socialist Studies/Fernwood Publishing, pp. 133-54. There are a lot of good articles in that volume. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Warning Signs
>I never lie. >mbs I, on the other hand, always lie (including this sentence). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: RE: Warning Signs
>A question for our more excitable contributors: is an ordinary business >cycle recession a "crisis"? Not really, though "crisis theory" (a.k.a. Marxian macroeconomics, which has a heavy infusion from Keynes) helps us understand it. In a real crisis, either there'd be a major change of course upon the part of the elites (perhaps a retreat from rampant neoliberalism, as with Krugman's advocacy of capital controls, but writ large). Or there's be a political mobilization of the subaltern classes. I'm afraid that a US recession would have world repercussions, which could become a true crisis. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: the labor theory of value
Surely it is too restrictive to distinguish only "use values" and "exchange values". Things can be intrinsically valuable to humans i.e. the enjoyment of a sunset, the taste of an apple, etc.etc. without being of any particular use in the ordinary sense of the world. "use values" recalls what philosophers have often termed instrumental or extrinsic values. Things that are good for some end or purpose. Does anyone know the history of "use value"? Is it adopted from utilitarianism and the concept of utility? Anyway there surely can be use values or instrumental values that have no relationship to what humans value. Food and drink are instrumentally valuable for dogs, cats, etc. Veterinary treatment for a dog's broken leg is instrumentally valuable even though it would give great joy to the owner that the dog suffer and die. Nature is instrumentally valuable in serving the needs of other organisms as well as our own. I do not comprehend deep ecology. Deep ecologists seem to give a value to nature that is not just instrumental to human and other species needs nor even to the intrinsic value felt by humans in contemplating nature or biosystems. For deep ecologists nature has some value wholly independent of any consciousness. The notion that the greater the biodiversity in a system the more valuable it is in some intrinsic sense makes no sense to me. I can see that it may be important from the point of view of instrumental value that there be greater biodiversity but not in terms of intrinsic value. G.E. Moore thinks of beauty as a type of value of the sort that deep ecologists give to Nature. Moore said something like this: if you consider two universes one filled with garbage etc and the other with flowers, babbling brooks, etc that the former is less beautiful than the latter independently of any consciousness that might be disgusted by the one and enjoy the contemplation of the other. I think Moore is dead wrong unless he simply means that there is more inherent value in the latter than the former. Inherent values are qualities that produce intrinsic values such as joy, aesthetic pleasure, etc. in consciousness. Biodiversity might produce such values in some but not in others. Personally I enjoy relatively barren country although I don't intend to migrate to Inuvik. Anyway the point is that inherent values are really a special type of instrumental value in nature whose value is relative to production of intrinsic values but are not in themselves or intrinsically of any value. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:10 PM Subject: [PEN-L:2341] the labor theory of value > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:01PM >>> > > By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are > sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values. > = > I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that > even though nature is the source of use-values, it "in-itself" does or does > not have value? In other words was he still operating within Lockean > premises that nature has no value until somebody mixes her/his labor with > it? > > ( > > CB: My thought is that for Marx, Nature itself is the ultimate source of all use-values. If I look around, I may be able to find a quote to this effect. I know he says that human material exchange with Nature is necessary for life itself, human life itself ( an obvious truth). And certainly human life itself is in some sense the source of all human input into creating use-values. > > Note: Marx actually does capitalize "Nature" in the usage we are discussing, which indirectly addresses your question. > > > > > Is the source of use-value [then on to exchange value] itself valuable > and what kind of value, if so, is it? Do we have to expand the taxonomy of > values given to us by M.? I ask because it is the source of a big rift in > the green "movement" which needs to be ameliorated in some form different > from the ick given by deep ecology. > > ((( > > CB: The source of use-value, to the extent that source is human labor power, is valuable in Marx's scheme. Labor-power has both use-value and exhange-value for Marx. > > To the extent the source of use-value is Nature, yes , Nature is valuable. What kind of value or valuable is it ? It is use-value or use-valuable. it has no exchange-value, because exchange-value is all human labor, which in this context is contrasted with non-human Nature. > > Note: Use-value means of valuable use to humans. Exchange-value means human labor in the abstract. > > So, there is no value to Nature that is not in some way related to humans. Even use-values for which Nature is the source obtain their definition of being usefully valuable by their usefulness to humans (in Marx's approach). > > So, before the human species existed, there was no value
Fwd: [fla-left] [women's health issues] Study: Poor Access to (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover > > Poor Access to Abortion Endangers Women's Health > > > > Run Date: 09/18/00 > > > > By Melinda Voss > > WEnews contributing editor > > > > States can improve women's > > health by ensuring access to abortion services, but most states, and the > > nation as a whole, have failed to do so, according to a comprehensive > > state-by-state study. It grades 48 states "F." A newly developed Report > > Card on women's health gave 48 states an "F" because, it says, the lack > > of health care practitioners who provide abortion services in those > > states endangers women's health and lives. > > > > Only Hawaii, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia received a > > passing grade. The nation, as a whole, flunked because almost one-third > > of all women live in a county with no abortion provider. > > > > Released in August, the Report Card was created by the National Women's > > Law Center, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine's FOCUS on > > Health & Leadership for Women and The Lewin Group, a health policy > > consulting firm. > > > > Abortion services are a critical indicator of women's health, said > > Sharon Levin, senior counsel for the National Women's Law Center. "The > > reality is that there are times when an abortion is necessary to protect > > the health and life of a woman, and if there is no abortion provider, > > that can and does put her health or her life at risk." > > > > States were graded on the availability of abortion services by comparing > > the percentage of women living in counties without abortion providers to > > the percentage of women living in counties without an office-based > > obstetrician-gynecologist. The authors said abortion services should be > > as available as services for obstetrics and gynecology. Each of the 48 > > states that failed had at least 10 percent more women without access to > > an abortion provider in their county than the percentage of those > > without an office-based obstetrician-gynecologist. > > > > Called "Making the Grade on Women's Health: A National and > > State-by-State Report Card," the report used various indicators besides > > abortion services to measure access to health care for women. These > > measures included family planning services, prenatal care, maternity > > care in hospitals and services for victims of domestic violence and > > sexual assault. > > > > Far too many women have no health insurance > > > > In addition, the picture of women's access to health care was bleak. > > Fourteen percent of American women have no health insurance, the report > > showed. > > > > The goal, as defined by the federal government's Healthy People 2010 > > project, is for 100 percent coverage. > > > > But no state has met this goal, the Report Card found. And, only eight > > states--Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, > > Nebraska, Rhode Island and Wisconsin--have come within 10 percent of > > that benchmark. > > > > As a result, those eight states received a "U" for unsatisfactory. The > > remaining 42 states and the District of Columbia received an "F" because > > they missed that benchmark by more than 10 percent. The nation as a > > whole also received an "F." > > > > "Access to health care services is an area where almost all of the > > states did badly and the nation as a whole did badly," said Levin. > > > > "We have a lot of work to do here to make sure women have health > > insurance. Even those women who are insured often do not have > > comprehensive insurance that covers all their needs." > > > > Access to prenatal care still not widespread > > > > The Report Card also looked at the availability of prenatal care because > > it is often seen as an indicator of whether women have access to general > > health care services. Prenatal care is also important because women who > > have prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy tend to stay > > healthier and have healthier babies, the authors noted. > > > > But no state met the federal government's Healthy People 2000 goal of > > providing first-trimester care to at least 90 percent of all pregnant > > women, the Report Card found. Thirty-six states, however, were within 10 > > percent of the benchmark, thus earning a "U" for unsatisfactory. The > > other 14 states and the District of Columbia missed the mark by more > > than 10 percent, so they received an "F." The nation received a "U." > > > > Two simple options for wider prenatal care > > > > To offer prenatal care to more women, states have two simple options, > > said Lewin. States can extend Medicaid benefits to pregnant women who > > earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level and they can adopt a > > "presumptive eligibility" rule, which would allow pregnant women to > > receive prenatal care earlier in their pregnancies but before their > > applications for Medicaid have been processed. > > > > On these two policies, the states have a mix
the labor theory of value
Actually air is a good example of a use-value from nature that does not have exchange-value because there is no human labor producing it for exchange. It is an example of wealth that human labor is not a source of . It's free, for now. CB >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 08:35PM >>> Of course, the cost of reproduction must be the least cost option. Oxygen is a by product of growing plants. The technology Brad proposes is not very cost-efficient. > > If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can > make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one would say that > the cost of air is determined by its cost of reproduction... > > Brad DeLong > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Marx and Nature
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 10:28PM >>> Didn't Marx argue that labor-power was the measure of exchange-value? ((( CB: Hello Andy ! The amount labor-time socially necessary for for the production of a commodity is the measure of the magnitude of its exchange-value. Labor-power is the potential or ability to labor. The distinction between labor-power and labor Marx makes, which is often confusing, is that the labor-power, not labor, is the commodity bought by the capitalist. Labor-power has the unique quality of being able to give more value producing labor than the value it took to produce the labor- power. $10 of labor-power can expend and add to a commodity $20 worth of labor (time). But the magnitude of the value added is measured in labor-time, not labor-power. Karl Marx Capital Volume One Part I: Commodities and Money CHAPTER ONE: COMMODITIES -clip- A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour-time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. -clip- We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. [9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. [10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. "As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour-time." [11]
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Motorists have plenty of pungent words for the gasoline prices that have shot upward since 1998, says Peter Behr, writing in The Washington Post "Business" section (page 10). Economists sometimes call them a tax. That's how gasoline price increases work -- they take away money from consumers, just like a tax, and turn it over to oil-exporting nations and to oil companies and their stockholders. And like sales and payroll taxes, high gas prices hit proportionally harder on consumers standing on the lower range of the income ladder. The Bureau of Labor Statistics details consumer spending by individuals living alone as well as family members living together. ... An average Washington area household will pay just over $1,700 on average for gasoline in 2000 for two cars, assuming ... prices don't change during the balance of the year, according to the BLS consumer survey results. (Figures from the 1998 survey have been raised to take account of the 45 percent increase in gasoline prices since then). Now look at how that motor fuel bill varies depending on a household's income: Households with after-tax income between $5,000 and $9,999 will spend an average of $614 this year for their one car. Those with after-tax incomes in the $20,000 to $29,999 range will spend twice as much on average -- $1,294 for the two cars they own. And the gasoline and oil bill will nearly double again, to $2,354, for a household with $70,000 in after tax income, the BLS figures show. ... Accompanying the article is a table that show how gas and oil prices hit consumers at different income levels, accounting for 5.6 percent of income at the $5,000 to $9,999 income-after-taxes level, 3.8 percent at the $20,000 to $29,999 level, and 1.7 percent at the $70,000 and over level. Source of the data is given as BLS. Workers younger than age 20 face a serious risk of death from work-related injuries in agricultural operations, particularly when working in crop production and with tractors, other vehicles, and industrial equipment, according to findings announced by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-15). Employer-sponsored benefits are important to business success, and this importance will continue in the next decade, according to most respondents to the American Benefits Council's membership survey. "Ninety-nine percent of our members think employer-sponsored benefits are key to the competitive success of American business, and that importance has more than doubled in the last 10 years," said the council's president. ... The ABC survey was conducted by Harris Interactive Inc., an Internet market research firm. The American Benefits Council was formerly the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-14). Employees worldwide share a low level of loyalty and commitment and a dwindling level of faith in their organization's ethics and leaders, according to a global workforce study. ... The survey, conducted by Walker Information Global Network and the Hudson Institute, found only one-third of worldwide employees believe their organization is highly ethical, and only 6 in 10 believe their senior people are people of high integrity. ... The "2000 Global Employee Relationship Report" contains the results of a survey completed by 9,718 full- and part-time employees in 32 countries in business, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-7). Is the boom in technology spending -- a driving force behind the economy's strength -- beginning to fade? While statistics continue to show that companies are spending a fortune on building high technology infrastructure, some economists and analysts warn that the growth in spending on a wide variety of high-technology products -- including computers, servers and switching devices, and software -- will level off soon at best and possibly even decline. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2). application/ms-tnef
Re: More re John Graaf's point
Gene Coyle: >"Combining government leadership with market incentives, a >Global Green Deal would do for environmental technologies >like solar power and green cars what industry and government have >already done so well for computer technologies: luanch their commercial >take-off. THE RESULT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST JOBS AND BUSINESS STIMULUS >PROGRAM OF OUR TIME, not to mention a powerful weapon against global >poverty and a reversal of our current environmental folly" I have Mark Hertsgaard's book but have not begun reading it yet. I am under the impression that it is mostly about corporate abuses rather than some kind of fully elaborated green-utopian capitalism schema of the kind people like Hawken put forward. That being said, I do find it disappointing that he would come to that kind of conclusion. His "On Bended Knee" was one of the finest indictments of Reagan era media subservience on behalf of the contra war in Nicaragua. Something I have mentioned to John Bellamy Foster repeatedly, I will mention here now. There is a vast amount that Marxism has to do to catch up with the kind of production that has been mounted by non-Marxists in this field for the past 25 years. Not only do we have to contend with the likes of Worldwatch Institute, which puts out excellent material with an unfortunate neo-Malthusian spin, but with a failure of a large part of our movement to properly theorize red-green issues. What is needed, first of all, is a grand synthesis from a diverse group of ecosocialists that can tie together investigations into areas that are now perceived as different: global warming, farming/food crisis, ocean and marine sustainability, environmental health crisis (TB, West Nile, etc.). It also needs to put forward a basic global solution that is both economically/ecologically feasible and worth fighting for. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
More re John Graaf's point
The other day I received an unexpected package. A copy of the book EARTH ODESSEY by Mark Hertsgaard. It was a gift, courtesy of a man with bone cancer who wanted a safer world for his child. This wonderful person bought 20,000 copies of the book for distribution to "...activists, teachers, policymakers and opinion leaders such as yourself." I haven't opened the book yet, but the cover letter by the author, which explained my unexpected gift, promoted "A Global Green Deal" as the way forward for all of us -- environmentalists, labor and human rights activists -- to become "part of the solution." He says: "Combining government leadership with market incentives, a Global Green Deal would do for environmental technologies like solar power and green cars what industry and government have already done so well for computer technologies: luanch their commercial take-off. THE RESULT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST JOBS AND BUSINESS STIMULUS PROGRAM OF OUR TIME, not to mention a powerful weapon against global poverty and a reversal of our current environmental folly" It seems to me that even people like Herstgaard, acutely aware of environmental destruction, feel the need to offer obesience to profits. Hertsgaard is not alone, of course. Hunter and Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken very effectively promote the idea that technology and growth is the way to deal at the same time with both poverty, north and south, and global environmental problems. But it brought to mind the issue pointed out the other day by John Graaf. Can we have more growth and profits and still protect the environment? My view is that we cannot. The issue is one eloquently raised in Anders Hayden's book, "Sharing the Work, Sparing the Planet" -- efficiency versus sufficiency. Can we protect the environment with better refrigerators, or do we need a radical change in the culture, so that "more" is not the goal of our lives? Well, you might say, this is a legitimate difference of opinion. And I guess it is. But it is more than that. Environmental advocates like Hunter and Amory Lovins, like Paul Hawken, and like Herstgaard, provide a story that is very appealing. For it assures us that nothing needs to change, that we only need to point out to the world's CEOs that they can increase profits by doing the right thing. Capitalism can go on as before. Such an easy path is very appealing but it is a path with a dead-end. Perhaps its worst feature is that it is leading a whole generation of concerned citizens, and particularly young people engaging environmental problems for the first time, into work and struggle that is doomed to fail. Hertsgaard's sentence, following what I've quoted above, begins: "A Global Green Deal provides a pragmatice but visionary basis for environmental, labor and human rights activists to build upon their alliance at the WTO talks in Seattle last December. . " This seems to me to miss the point of the activists in Seattle, and attemps to wrap the idea of salvation by technology into a movement for fundamental political change, which is what I think and hope Seattle (and D. C. and Melbourne) signified. The conversation about the issue of efficiency versus sufficiency is one to pursue. Gene Coyle
prison time for ADM
Yesterday's Wall St. Journal (9/25/00) carried the news that two ADM executives were ordered to serve sentences longer than originally set. The Appeals Court concurred with the prosecuter that the initial sentences were too short (two years each) and ordered the judge to tack a bit on. The District judge just complied, and added one year to Michael D. Andreas' sentence, to reach a total of three years. He was the Executive VP of ADM and was expected to succeed his "politically connected father" as chief executive. The second convicted executive had nine months added to his original two year sentence. Gene Coyle
Warning Signs
( CB: An honest person ! I never lie. mbs (( CB: But you've been known play a joke or two in fun.
Warning Signs
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:01PM >>> A question for our more excitable contributors: is an ordinary business cycle recession a "crisis"? ) Karl Marx Capital Volume One 1873 AFTERWARD TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION -clip- (last paragraph) The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.
the labor theory of value
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:01PM >>> By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values. = I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that even though nature is the source of use-values, it "in-itself" does or does not have value? In other words was he still operating within Lockean premises that nature has no value until somebody mixes her/his labor with it? ( CB: My thought is that for Marx, Nature itself is the ultimate source of all use-values. If I look around, I may be able to find a quote to this effect. I know he says that human material exchange with Nature is necessary for life itself, human life itself ( an obvious truth). And certainly human life itself is in some sense the source of all human input into creating use-values. Note: Marx actually does capitalize "Nature" in the usage we are discussing, which indirectly addresses your question. Is the source of use-value [then on to exchange value] itself valuable and what kind of value, if so, is it? Do we have to expand the taxonomy of values given to us by M.? I ask because it is the source of a big rift in the green "movement" which needs to be ameliorated in some form different from the ick given by deep ecology. ((( CB: The source of use-value, to the extent that source is human labor power, is valuable in Marx's scheme. Labor-power has both use-value and exhange-value for Marx. To the extent the source of use-value is Nature, yes , Nature is valuable. What kind of value or valuable is it ? It is use-value or use-valuable. it has no exchange-value, because exchange-value is all human labor, which in this context is contrasted with non-human Nature. Note: Use-value means of valuable use to humans. Exchange-value means human labor in the abstract. So, there is no value to Nature that is not in some way related to humans. Even use-values for which Nature is the source obtain their definition of being usefully valuable by their usefulness to humans (in Marx's approach). So, before the human species existed, there was no value, and Nature was not valuable ( use or exchange). Which is not to say that Nature didn't appreciate itself, in some Animistic sense, Spinozanism or something ( but that's not Marxism) I believe Marx's idea is somewhat the opposite of the deep ecology idea. Marxism is a form of humanism. I don't know if it helps with the rift in the Greens, but it is sensible to me.
RE: Warning Signs
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:08PM >>> CB: So do you not feel that there will inevitably , eventurally be a danger to the economic system as a whole ? Are you saying that capitalism might be eternal, permanent, unending ? Max: yup. ( CB: An honest person ! I never lie. mbs
Doug's two questions
Doug asked if the normal downturn of the business cycle constituted a crisis. He also asked if the ongoing recession in various parts in the world was a positive factor. I don't feel particularly confident to give an absolute answer to either question, but his questions do merit an answer. The ongoing crisis in Latin America and in Africa has not helped the people there. I guess I am still influenced by Gunder Frank's idea that the great depression gave people in Latin America space to maneuver. Now they have the local depression without the space to maneuver, because nothing can restrain the U.S. government at this time. So I guess the answer is that a real crisis would be required to create an opening. Would the normal (and overdue) downturn constitute a crisis? I suspect that one aspect of a crisis is reflected in the confidence of the ruling classes (if I may use such vulgar language). So long as they see a downturn as they normal correction, I don't think it would represent a crisis. Coming now after period of almost almost supreme overconfidence, it might well be a crisis of serious proportion. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: RE: Warning Signs
CB: So do you not feel that there will inevitably , eventually be a danger to the economic system as a whole ? Are you saying that capitalism might be eternal, permanent, unending ? yup. mbs === But Jean-Luc Piccard says that in the 24th century material gain and economic prerogatives will no longer be the driving force of "civilization" :-) We won't even go into how that show has warped peoples technological expectations of abundance; ever notice they rarely go to earth but when they do it's been fixed? Duck Dodgers...
Re: Re: Re: RE: Warning Signs
>All you fans of crisis: what's the political benefit been of Japan's >decade of stagnation? Of Latin America's two decades of polarization >punctuated by depression, and of Africa's two decades of depression >and social crisis? The next president of Mexico is going to be a >morally conservative economically neoliberal right-wing Catholic. > >Doug There is no direct relationship between crisis and revolution. The "subjective factor" is required in order to transform mass discontent into political action. Speaking of two areas that I am somewhat familiar with, you can say that Africa has suffered from an underdevelopment of Marxism while Latin America is currently working through a solution to the crisis in the region through a combination of Marxism and populism. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is surrounded by veterans of the guerrilla movement of the 1960s and 70s, while in Colombia the threat of guerrilla success is prompting US intervention on a financial scale not seen since the Vietnam war. In Mexico, the collapse of the PRI will allow openings to the left as well as to the right. In general, Marxists do not pay much attention to who wins a bourgeois election. In 1968, immediately after the biggest general strike and working class mobilization in France since the 1930s, Charles DeGaulle won the election. All that crisis does is make ordinary working people open to the idea of social revolution. If the left fails due to sectarianism or opportunism, then the crisis will simply work itself out through the ordinary operations of capital accumulation. The idea is to break the cycle and begin production for human needs rather than private profit. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Warning Signs
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:08PM >>> CB: So do you not feel that there will inevitably , eventurally be a danger to the economic system as a whole ? Are you saying that capitalism might be eternal, permanent, unending ? Max: yup. ( CB: An honest person !
Warning Signs
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:19PM >>> All you fans of crisis: what's the political benefit been of Japan's decade of stagnation? Of Latin America's two decades of polarization punctuated by depression, and of Africa's two decades of depression and social crisis? The next president of Mexico is going to be a morally conservative economically neoliberal right-wing Catholic. (( CB: Ask it this way: All you fans of CAPITALISM: what's the political benefit been of Japan's decade of stagnation? Of Latin America's two decades of polarization punctuated by depression, and of Africa's two decades of depression and social crisis? The next president of Mexico is going to be a morally conservative economically neoliberal right-wing Catholic.
Re: Re: RE: Warning Signs
All you fans of crisis: what's the political benefit been of Japan's decade of stagnation? Of Latin America's two decades of polarization punctuated by depression, and of Africa's two decades of depression and social crisis? The next president of Mexico is going to be a morally conservative economically neoliberal right-wing Catholic. Doug
RE: Warning Signs
CB: So do you not feel that there will inevitably , eventurally be a danger to the economic system as a whole ? Are you saying that capitalism might be eternal, permanent, unending ? yup. mbs
Warning Signs
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 06:44PM >>> CB: "Suppose" ? Do you have any doubt that there will eventually be a crisis, or do you believe that we have reached permanent prosperity, land of milk and honey continuously ? I do have doubts as to the inevitability of crisis, but I don't believe we have reached "permanent prosperity, . . . " The latter is a separate matter. Everyday life might be in crisis, but crisis as a danger to the economic system is a whole different story. I think the term "crisis" should be reserved for the latter, and we should keep our eyes open as to its likelihood. I think overuse of the term 'crisis' is a hindrance, in this regard. (( CB: So do you not feel that there will inevitably , eventurally be a danger to the economic system as a whole ? Are you saying that capitalism might be eternal, permanent, unending ?
Re: Re: 8 Eurocentric Historians
Jim Devine: >does Brenner say that the impact of capitalism has been, on balance, >progressive? why? (Marx's argument here was that capitalism was progressive >because it set the stage for socialism, which is hardly a ringing >endorsement.) what is meant by "progressive" anyway? > This isn't the problem with Brenner. Rather it is that he goes out on a limb to attack the "development of underdevelopment" thesis associated with dependency theorists around the Monthly Review associated with views originally put forward by Sweezy and Baran. It seems to me that the entire history of capitalism is about the development of underdevelopment in most of the world. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Marx and Nature
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 06:46PM >> Ollman provided the clearest exposition that I have ever encountered -- clearer and more forceful than anything in Marx himself, Engels, Lenin, or Luxemburg -- of the rationale for marxism's emphasis on class as the primary analytic and political category. What was remarkable -- and what Ollman himself remarked on in some of the responses to his presentation, was the reductivist view of class and class interests implicit in many of the questions directed to him. CB: What did Ollman say ? Clearer than _The Manifesto_ ?
the labor theory of value
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 05:49PM >>> >At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote: >> >Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates >>>value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the >>>enterprise. > >for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only >labor creates value. But use values have exchange value if they are scarce *whether* *or* *not* *there* *is* *any* *wage* *labor*--whether or not there is any surplus value... ( CB: But FOR MARX, the scarcity (supply relative to demand) is not the source of their exchange-value. Scarcity impacts price. See _Value, Price and Profit_ on this difference. For Marx the exchange-value of the Hope Diamond is based on the socially necessary labor time to mine it and cut it. Use-values that are the products of non-wage labor, in a society where the market and wage-labor prevail ( capitalism) , have the exchange-value of similar use-values produced by the average socially necessary wage-labor. It is not their scarcity that determines their exchange-value (for Marx). )) Brad DeLong, who has finally broken down and is unable to keep his mouth shut. ( CB: The strong, silent type.
Re: RE: RE: Marx and Nature
Andrew, you are correct in so far as you go. Marx did sys, as you said, that "he only basis for their exchange, since they are otherwise differentiated (which is why their exchange is desirable), is the labor they contain." However, he qualifies that approach in Volume 3. "Austin, Andrew" wrote: > I haven't touched on this matter in quite a while, but I recall in the > Results of the Immediate Process of Production Marx arguing that > exchange-value acquires a form independent of its use-value as the pure form > of materialized social labor-time. Moreover, in Capital I, doesn't he > distinguish between use-value (a thing that is useful, a value independent > of the labor that produced it) and exchange-value, with the latter being > use-values that exchange with one another? It follows that the only basis > for their exchange, since they are otherwise differentiated (which is why > their exchange is desirable), is the labor they contain. Under capitalism > this labor takes the form of labor-power (a commodity), which Marx > generalizes (as abstract labor) to the totality social labor (for > equivalency). If I am remembering this correctly, what is wrong with what I > wrote previously? > > Andrew Austin > Green Bay, WI > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 10:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RE: Marx and Nature > > No, he did not. Although he did not elaborate on the reasons until the > 3rd volume. > > "Austin, Andrew" wrote: > > > Didn't Marx argue that labor-power was the measure of exchange-value? > > > > Andrew Austin > > Green Bay, WI > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Warning Signs
Max Sawicky wrote: >I do have doubts as to the inevitability of crisis, >but I don't believe we have reached "permanent prosperity, >. . . " The latter is a separate matter. > >Everyday life might be in crisis, but crisis as a danger >to the economic system is a whole different story. I think >the term "crisis" should be reserved for the latter, and we >should keep our eyes open as to its likelihood. I think overuse >of the term 'crisis' is a hindrance, in this regard. A question for our more excitable contributors: is an ordinary business cycle recession a "crisis"? Doug
RE: the labor theory of value
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values. = I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that even though nature is the source of use-values, it "in-itself" does or does not have value? In other words was he still operating within Lockean premises that nature has no value until somebody mixes her/his labor with it? Is the source of use-value [then on to exchange value] itself valuable and what kind of value, if so, is it? Do we have to expand the taxonomy of values given to us by M.? I ask because it is the source of a big rift in the green "movement" which needs to be ameliorated in some form different from the ick given by deep ecology. Ian
Re: 8 Eurocentric Historians
Why are we discussing this again? didn't we kill this topic? Nonetheless, I don't see why Blaut's distortions should go unanswered. Jim Blaut wrote: >ROBERT BRENNER IN THE TUNNEL OF TIME > >Robert Brenner is a Marxist, a follower of one tradition in Marxism that >is as diffusionist, as Eurocentric, as most conservative positions. I >cannot here offer an explanation for this curious phenomenon: a tradition >within one of the most egalitarian of all socio-political doctrines yet a >tradition which, nonetheless, believes in the historical superiority (or >priority) of one community of humans, Europeans, over another, >non-Europeans. Eurocentric Marxists are not racist, nor even prejudiced, >although most of them believe that Europeans have always been the leaders >in the forward march of history; that Europe is the fountainhead of >civilization, the main source of innovative social change. Europeans are also the font of the barbarism of imposing capitalism on the rest of the world. I don't see why Blaut misses this. If capitalism did arise outside Europe, say, in Africa, then we should see Africa as the source of the moral plague that characterizes capitalism. Blaut seems to be assuming that capitalism is a good thing, god's gift to the world. If a disease like small pox arose in Western Europe and then spread to the rest of the world and Brenner showed that this had happened, would he then be Eurocentric? If I remember correctly, Blaut also conflates capitalism with commodity production. Or maybe I'm confusing him with A.G. Frank. >For these scholars, the origins of capitalism are European. As Marx wrote, the origins of capitalism are violent and immoral. >Capitalism's further development consisted of an internally generated >process of improvement within its classic homeland, the European world. >The impact of capitalism on the rest of the world has been, on balance, >progressive. does Brenner say that the impact of capitalism has been, on balance, progressive? why? (Marx's argument here was that capitalism was progressive because it set the stage for socialism, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.) what is meant by "progressive" anyway? >Colonialism and (today) neocolonialism are not significant for capitalism, >are rather a marginal process, a temporary aberration or diversion or >side- show, not a vital need of the system as a whole, which evolves in >response to internal laws of motion. Isn't that a substantive point that can be debated using facts and logic rather than insults? >This point of view is basic diffusionism: autonomous development at the >center, diffusion of development to the periphery. It is also tunnel >history: a form of tunnel-vision which tries to explain the rise of >capitalism, and the rise of Europe, by looking only at prior European >facts, looking, as it were, down the European tunnel of time, ignoring the >history of the world outside of Europe both as cause of change within >Europe and as the site of historically efficacious change in its own right >(Blaut, 1989). If Brenner ignores the non-European world, he should be criticized. If Blaut can find the prevalence of production using wage-labor that's been divorced from direct access to the means of subsistence (i.e., capitalism) that's begun to spread to take over the rest of the world (rather than simply staying in a holding pattern) in a large country (not just a city) somewhere outside of Europe before the European conquest, he should be praised. He's shown that the Brenner thesis (that capitalism arose in Europe, due to changes in rural relations of production there) is wrong. >The Euro-Marxists -- as I will call the socialists of this tradition -- >accept this view, and so they are diffusionists. To this extent, they >agree with their mainstream colleagues about the rise of Europe, of >capitalism, of modernization, of industrialization, of democracy: >basically all of it is European. Democracy, modernization and democracy are quite different from capitalism. As far as I know, Brenner doesn't equate capitalism with modernization, democracy, or industrialization. It seems to me that two of these are vaguer concepts than capitalism, too. Modernization is something defined by whoever wins the war (what I achieved is "modern," while what you achieved is "backward"). Industrialization involves some sort of use of machinery, but unless one is clear, we can say that industrialization happened thousands of years ago. (Many equate tools with machines, and we've been using tools for a million years or so. Democracy, while not vaguely defined, is something that's been around for millennia. Most tribal and nomadic communities have big elements of democracy. >Euro-Marxism went into eclipse during the period when liberation movements >were decolonizing most of the world. In this period, the idea that the >colonial or Third World has been, and is, unimportant in s
Re: Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yugoslavia.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 06:09PM >>> > Given the >pressures on it, the Milosevic government has been one of the mildest in recent history. It is no more repressive than the FSLN in Nicaragua... Why this compulsion to lie to blacken the reputation of the Sandinistas? ((( CB: Would you say the Sandinistas were/are a democratic tendency ?
the labor theory of value
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values. If an apple falls off of a tree and someone eats it, Nature was a source of that use-value. But there is no such thing as an exchange-value falling directly off of a tree into the commodity market. In order, to become a commodity and contain exchange-value, human labor, even if just picking it up and carrying it away to market to exchange, must be involved. A commodity has both use-value and exchange-value. Only use-values can embody exchange-values. CB >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 04:52PM >>> But Marx does not explicitly equate use-values with wealth in his opening rebuttal sentence. Value, use-value and wealth are confused and entangled in his retort. Is the source of use-values itself a use-value, a value or wealth? Doug's query from a while back hits the last sentence below quite hard; where and when does the society/nature / become temporally/epistemically/ontologically permeable? Is value theory another word for politics? Ian > > > At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote: > > >Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates > > >value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the > > >enterprise. > > for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only labor > creates value. Use-values refer to the relationship between > commodities (or > non-commodities) and people, whereas values are societal by nature. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine >
Re: Re: Dissolving history (was Re: Re: Re: The US buysdemocracy for Yugoslavia.)
I don't think that Nestor was accusing you of either crime. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am not an academic or an economist. You will have to decide for yourself whether I >am a faithful servant of the IMF. --jks > > In a message dated Tue, 26 Sep 2000 7:45:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Nestor >Miguel Gorojovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > << En relación a [PEN-L:2302] Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yu, > el 25 Sep 00, a las 23:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] dijo: > > > I disn't say that the historical facts are unimportant--although > > sometimes I think it's advisable to forget them for pragmatic purposes > > when trying to frame a solution to a current problem. > > This is exactly the way by which "progressive" students of economics > in Argentina became faithful servants to the IMF. Is it a general > set of mind in academic economists? > > Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Marx and Nature
[By mistake, Michael P. sent the answer to Andrew's question to me rather than to the list as a whole. ] > >"Austin, Andrew" wrote: > > > > > Didn't Marx argue that labor-power was the measure of exchange-value? > > > > > > Andrew Austin > > > Green Bay, WI Michael Perelman wrote: >Here is a thumbnail explanation. Prices, for Marx, operate at a >superficial level. They reflect the individualistic aspect of the economy >in which decisions are fragmented. Values operate at a more fundamental >level, reflecting the social organization of labor. > >Values reflect the amount of abstract labor put into the a product. >Competitive forces can and do make the prices diverge from the underlying >values. Michael, Andrew is asking about labor-power, not labor. It's labor-time, not labor-power, that's the measure of value, since labor-power is the just the ability to work, not the work itself. The amount of labor actually done depends on the speed of the work process, the motivation of the worker, etc. The amount of labor-power refers to the quantity of time during which the worker submits to the authority of the capitalist, in exchange for the wage. LP is what's sold, whereas L is what's done. Socially necessary abstract labor (done) time -- i.e., value -- isn't the measure of exchange-value, either. However, in the first two volumes of CAPITAL, Marx assumes that value = exchange-value, since he abstracts from the heterogeneity of use-values. This makes sense, since value is the shared characteristic (or "essence") of exchange-values, so that values are manifested in exchange-values, though usually in different forms. That is, exchange-values and prices usually differ from values. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Dissolving history (was Re: Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yugoslavia.)
I am not an academic or an economist. You will have to decide for yourself whether I am a faithful servant of the IMF. --jks In a message dated Tue, 26 Sep 2000 7:45:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << En relación a [PEN-L:2302] Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yu, el 25 Sep 00, a las 23:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] dijo: > I disn't say that the historical facts are unimportant--although > sometimes I think it's advisable to forget them for pragmatic purposes > when trying to frame a solution to a current problem. This is exactly the way by which "progressive" students of economics in Argentina became faithful servants to the IMF. Is it a general set of mind in academic economists? Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>
Workers' Entitlements
Many people have complained about my typos. they are no doubt due to my bkindfolding by imperialist propaganda. The argument that the ethical basis of Marxism is worker's is respectable, but, I believe, a mistaken reading of Marx. there is an extensive debate on this. A main figure on the pro-entitlement side is Norman Geras, who has several papers on the debate on Marx and Justice. Allan Wood is a main critic of that view. My own contribution, "What's Wong with Exploitation?" (Nous 1995), sides with Wood as a matter of interpretation, at least as far as the question of entitlements goes. I think it is pretty clear that Marx thought that the notion of fairness or just distribution was (a) merely relative to a mode of production, so not suitable for a critique of a mode of production, and (b) internally incoherent. For references, see the sneers at "die alte dreck" (the old shit) as a characterization of fairness in the Critique of the Gotha Program, and the letter to Engels where he apologizes for having to lard up the Inagural Statement of the 1st international with fairness talk becau! ! se the workers' movement is so backwards. I think that Marx's own ethical basis for communism is freedom, as I said before, not justice or entitlement. However, I also think that his critiques of justice are not cogent,a nd that he should not have rejected justice. --jks In a message dated Tue, 26 Sep 2000 1:30:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << Ignoring the typos, it seems to me that you claim both that Marx is not interested in notions of entitlement and that insofar as Marxism has an ethical basis it is that communism will give workers that to which they are entitled. So even though Marx has no interest in entitlement the ethical basis of Marxism is worker's entitlements. CHeers, Ken Hanly > Cohen observes that the vulgar LTV is often used to providea kind of ethical > basis for Marxism--the idea being that workers are entitled to the value > becausde they created it. He makes a lot of this, but Marx was not interested > in notions of entitlement. The strict LTV is basically what occupies his > attention in his critique of PE. Insofara s he had an ethical basis for > Marxism, it was the notion that communism will promode freedom, nit give thew > orkers what they are entitled to. > > --jks > > In a message dated 9/25/00 5:42:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>
Re: clarifications
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 10:56PM >>> The personal squabble between Lou and Doug is going to ruin all three lists -- pen-l, marxism, and lbo -- if it doesn't stop. CB: Didn't Marx answer the question "What is ? " , " squabble" ?
Dissolving history (was Re: Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yugoslavia.)
En relación a [PEN-L:2302] Re: Re: The US buys democracy for Yu, el 25 Sep 00, a las 23:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] dijo: > I disn't say that the historical facts are unimportant--although > sometimes I think it's advisable to forget them for pragmatic purposes > when trying to frame a solution to a current problem. This is exactly the way by which "progressive" students of economics in Argentina became faithful servants to the IMF. Is it a general set of mind in academic economists? Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
