Re: "Transformation problem" [was US Consume r Confidence...]

[Michael Perelman]

I published an article pertaining to the transformation problem.

Someone posted a version of my Cambridge Journal article on the Web.

http://www.ucm.es/wwwboard/bas/messages/223.htm

On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:49:08PM -0500, Andrew Hagen wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:57:06 -0600, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
> 
> >I haven't been following this thread (multiple apologies), but what was wrong
> >with Shaikh's solution? []
> 
> The New Palgrave entry on "Transformation Problem" argues that the solution given in 
>Shaikh's 1977 paper did 
> not have total surplus value equal total profit. Additionally, the further 
>development in the 1984 paper is 
> susceptible to criticism that it assumes balanced growth, which is fine for a von 
>Neumann system where that is 
> an expected property, but not for "a real economy where balanced growth is not 
>satisfied." 
> 
> I'm not sure, but I think Shaikh and his students have probably improved his theory 
>since then, or addressed 
> this criticism.
> 
> Andrew Hagen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 

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

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

Re: "Transformation problem" [was US Consume r Confidence...]

[Andrew Hagen]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:57:06 -0600, Forstater, Mathew wrote:

>I haven't been following this thread (multiple apologies), but what was wrong
>with Shaikh's solution? []

The New Palgrave entry on "Transformation Problem" argues that the solution given in 
Shaikh's 1977 paper did 
not have total surplus value equal total profit. Additionally, the further development 
in the 1984 paper is 
susceptible to criticism that it assumes balanced growth, which is fine for a von 
Neumann system where that is 
an expected property, but not for "a real economy where balanced growth is not 
satisfied." 

I'm not sure, but I think Shaikh and his students have probably improved his theory 
since then, or addressed 
this criticism.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "Transformation problem" [was US Consumer Confidence...]

[Andrew Hagen]

Interspersed comments follow.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:54:01 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
>I don't think that this is an accurate presentation of history or the 
>literature on this matter. I, for one, think that the so-called "New 
>solution" (which is hardly "new" at this point) solves all the issues. 
>Instead of burdening the list with this, I'll refer you to Duncan Foley's 
>work or to my article in the 1990 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY volume. 

Thanks. I found a web site of Foley's at
. A recent Foley paper on this subject
is at . The OPE-L list,
mentioned elsewhere, is archived at
. 

In the paper linked to above, Foley argues that the Labor Theory of
Value can serve a similar function in political economics as Newtonian
mechanics does in physics. (p. 23) There is also a discussion of
whether Foley's theory is a mere redescription or more. Although Foley
means to base his concepts on Marx, I don't see how Marx could have
ever conceived of the big picture that Foley argues so well. Thus, I'd
assert that Foley's theory is original.

The Foley solution is open to some criticism. The New Palgrave entry on
"Transformation Problem," written by E.K. Hunt and Mark Glick, for
example, has a few criticisms of Foley's theory as presented in 1982,
developed simultaneously by Dumenil. The entry also criticizes the
Shaikh theory. (I'm relying on the subset edition "New Palgrave on
Marxian Economics," published in 1990.)

>In addition to using Ricardo's phrase "labor theory of value" to discuss 
>Marx's non-Ricardian "law of value," this is a misinterpretation. 

Marx's version of the LTV is better called the "law of value," I admit.
It retains the same grounding premise of Ricardo, though, that from
labor springs value. It's true that Marx has a much more complex notion
of value than this. In reality, according to Marx, prices don't reflect
value, except in society as a whole. Initially, in volume 1, Marx
treated values and prices alike. Then, in what became volume 3, he
wished to show that value and price did not proportionally reflect one
another, except at the general societal level. This fed into his
complaint that something was awry in capitalism. Prices seemed ordinary
and real, though unstable. But according to Marx they were only a thin
veil that concealed a morally revolting hidden reality. Only Marx's
application of the dialectic could penetrate the veil and allow the
proletariat to see reality for what it was, and thereby to progress to
class consciousness. Thence, to revolution.

But reality is much more complicated than this supposed bait and
switch, even the commercial reality of price and value. I won't deny
that prices often don't reflect what a commodity is actually worth. But
there seems to be much more going on in the capitalist economy than
this naked deception.

The Transformation Problem arises because Marx's math didn't add up at
a crucial point in volume 3. He didn't live to finish editing those
manuscripts, unfortunately, so one can argue that Marx had the right
idea, but simply had not expressed himself well. To me, however the
Transformation Problem is indicative of the larger problem in Marx's
law of value. 

>[] Further, just because uses a single measure (e.g., the Celsius scale for 
>temperatures) doesn't imply "monovalency," i.e., a single-factor theory of 
>why the temperature is so high today.

You're right. The Celsius scale measures air temperature, and is
susceptible to bad temperature approximations if placed in shade, or if
there is a significant so-called "windchill effect," etcetera. Celsius
is not, however, a reliable determinant of such a basic thing as at
what point does water boil, because that varies with altitude, air
pressure, and other factors in addition to temperature. Temperature
measurements are useful, but they can't be our only tool.

>"Overdetermination" refers to an actual theory, usually to a theory of how 
>history works. Any specific institution or concrete event can be seen as 
>the result of several different causes, with the political and ideological 
>"levels" playing a role along with the economic. (I like Althusser's vision 
>of overdetermination better than Resnick & Wolff's, in which everything 
>determines the character of everything else.)

Overdetermination is dialectic, as far as I can tell. I don't see why
we should use overdetermination or dialectic to understand that social
system we call "capitalism," but not to understand that phenomenon of
capitalism and other economies we call value. 

Ricardo's contribution is fallacious that the overall amount of value
present in a society, subject to distribution, is all created by labor.
Ricardo uses deduction extensively. In this way he follows Hume. IMHO,
Hegel undermined Hume by resurrecting the contributions of those Greek
philosophers who came before Artistotle, n

RE: Re: Re: "Transformation problem" [was US Consumer Confidence...]

[Forstater, Mathew]

I haven't been following this thread (multiple apologies), but what was wrong
with Shaikh's solution? He offers a critique of the Bortkiewicz procedure and
proposes a method of transformation which reconciles the contradiction (of
Bortkiewicz/Sweezy, where the aggregate equalities assumed by Marx either do not
hold, or depend on rigid conditions--some mutually exclusive--which are not
assumable, e.g., organic composition of capital in Dept. III equal to average
for total social capital)--through an extension of Marx's method.

For Shaikh, the Bortkiewicz procedure and its many variations break "the crucial
links between price and value magnitudes which Marx" stressed, and cloud if not
"sever the link between values and money-prices" through the application of
arbitrary numeraires and vision-blurring algebra.  both his critique and the
procedure he proposes are based on a crystal clear view that the whole issue
concerns ":a *transformation in the form-of-value*."  The only place where value
can be altered is in the sphere of production. Changes occurring in the sphere
of circulation can change the *form* of value only.

Shaikh's intention is to "demonstrate that one can, *precisely in the manner set
out by Marx*, calculate the 'correct prices of production'". Shaikh's position
is not, like that of Sweezy's, that Marx's method "went only half way," but
rather that Marx performed only the first step* of the procedure. The solution
requires an iteration.  Taking Marx's initial calculation as the first step,
input costs are then adjusted to reflect the transformation.  This results in a
new average rate of profit and the prices of production are transformed again to
reflect it. Input prices are then readjusted, and so on, until the 'equilibrium'
figures are arrived at.

Total prices are proportionate to total values, the deviation of the money rate
of profit from the value rate is "systematic and determinate" and the magnitude
of surplus-value expressed in values is not equal (or similarly proportional as
total values-total prices of production) to the magnitude of profits expressed
in prices of production.  while the 'solution' Shaikh arrives at can be achieved
through the Sweezy/Bortkiewicz method where total values are held constant with
total profits, it is his *method* of transformation that illuminates that the
transformation does not affect values, but is a redistribution of surplus-value
in the sphere of circulation:

"Certainly, the issue of calculation is relevant; but the *conception* of
that-which-is-to-be-calculated comes first, for in that conception lies the
superiority of Marx's method."

Shaikh's presentation of the 'problem', portrayal of the production/circulation
dialectic, and reflection on the "real content of Marx's transformation
procedure", are all major contributions to the literature on the subject, not to
mention his introductory summary of the basic Marxian notions relevant to the
issue.

(More could be said in fairness to Sweezy, where he departs from Bortkiewicz,
etc., but still Shaik's criticisms concerning the arbitrary numeraires and
algebra continue to hold, and there is no question that Sweezy views Marx's
procedure as "faulty" and "unsatisfactory."

Anwar Shaikh, 1977, 'Marx's Theory of Value and the "Transformation Problem"' in
J. Schwartz _The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism_, Santa Monica: Goodyear.

Paul Sweezy, _The Theory of Capitalist Development_

see also Duncan Foley, 1986, _Understanding Capital_, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
U. Press.

Re: Re: "Transformation problem" [was US Consumer Confidence...]

[Jim Devine]

Andrew Hagen writes:
>The Transformation Problem is in no way boring. IMHO it is at the crux of 
>the question of the validity of classical Marxism. It is unfair, though, 
>to judge Marx as a thinker who failed for this reason; Marx died before he 
>could finish editing volume 2, and far before volume 3, where the Problem 
>appears. Thus, we are left with a few crufty notes as interpreted by 
>Engels. Engels was better than Marx at mathematical operations, and he 
>couldn't make sense of his comrade's work. Nieither can the rest of the 
>world. Every solution to the Transformation Problem proposed so far hinges 
>on key assumptions not strictly justified by Marx's own corpus. Far from 
>Boehm-Bawerk's claim that the Problem by its existence negates any 
>validity of that corpus, however, it only calls into question Marx's 
>economic thought.

I don't think that this is an accurate presentation of history or the 
literature on this matter. I, for one, think that the so-called "New 
solution" (which is hardly "new" at this point) solves all the issues. 
Instead of burdening the list with this, I'll refer you to Duncan Foley's 
work or to my article in the 1990 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY volume. I 
think these details don't belong on pen-l, however.

>In my view, the Transformation Problem is bound up with the labor theory 
>of value. My big complaint against the LTV is its monovalency. Everything 
>of "value" in the world must have that much labor tied up into it.

In addition to using Ricardo's phrase "labor theory of value" to discuss 
Marx's non-Ricardian "law of value," this is a misinterpretation. It's only 
commodities within a commodity producing society -- not "everything" --- 
that have "value." Marx first and foremost interprets an economy as a 
community (though it's a fragmented, undemocratic, and thus alienated one). 
The "value" of a commodity is the contribution to that community by the 
workers who produced it. Charlie Andrews' book FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY 
is pretty good on this, and on the other issues discussed below. (I'm sure 
Charlie can tell you where to get a copy.)

>Even diamonds and gold, and attractive chunks of deadwood.

This confuses issues of use-value, exchange-value (roughly, price), and 
value. Attractive chunks of deadwood can have clear use-value without 
having exchange-value or value (if I appropriate the deadwood for my living 
room and carve it to make it even more attractive).

Even if I decide to put the deadwood into circulation in society (in which 
case, it can gain value), its price reflects not just the socially 
necessary abstract labor-time I put into picking it up, toting it, carving 
it, and finishing it (its value), but also scarcity, perhaps because I have 
some special artistic talent. Because of the scarcity of some commodities, 
someone can _claim_ a lot of value (or "command" it, as Adam Smith put it) 
without actually producing it. Thus, the mere ownership of land can get one 
the ability to claim part of the society's product, even though that 
ownership makes no contribution to society.

I don't know where people got the idea that Marx equated price with value. 
He assumed they were equal sometimes (as in volume I of CAPITAL) but that 
was an _assumption_.

>Value has one main source in the LTV. The LTV measures the value of one 
>person's labor much like that of any other's. I find this particular 
>assumption even less acceptable then the various NCE [??] assumptions.

Because we're talking about contributions of workers within a complex 
societal division of labor to the community as a whole, it's reasonable to 
talk about a single measure of these contributions, i.e., socially 
necessary abstract labor time per unit. Similarly, if you are looking at 
commodity-producing society from a capitalist perspective, or from the 
perspective of individual participants in the system, it makes sense to 
talk about a single measure, i.e., pesos per unit (the price).

Further, just because uses a single measure (e.g., the Celsius scale for 
temperatures) doesn't imply "monovalency," i.e., a single-factor theory of 
why the temperature is so high today.

>Whatever happened to overdetermination, as Resnick and Wolff termed 
>dialectic, in "Knowledge and Class," in a somewhat unfortunate choice? Why 
>can't value itself be overdetermined, that is, have more than one, or more 
>than a few, causes? To me, the LTV's problem is its monovalency.

"Overdetermination" refers to an actual theory, usually to a theory of how 
history works. Any specific institution or concrete event can be seen as 
the result of several different causes, with the political and ideological 
"levels" playing a role along with the economic. (I like Althusser's vision 
of overdetermination better than Resnick & Wolff's, in which everything 
determines the character of everything else.)

The "law of value" isn't a theory of this sort as much as it is a 
heuristic, a basic framework u

David Noble denied a chair

[Michael Perelman]

>From time to time, we discuss the
marginalization of the left within the
university.  Here's another example.

The Chronicle of Higher
Education
March 30, 2001

David Noble says he was rejected by
Simon Fraser U. over his anti-
technology views

By Jeffrey R. Young

This month, a faculty search
committee at Simon Fraser University
gave David Noble, a professor of history
at York University, the nod to
hold the J.S. Woodsworth Chair in the
Humanities. A dean has now
rejected that recommendation, and Mr.
Noble, an outspoken critic of
distance education, is accusing
university officials of blocking his
appointment because of his
anti-technology beliefs.
"We were intrigued by David's
contemporary critique of science and
technology," says Stephen Duguid, head
of the humanities department at
Simon Fraser and leader of the search.
"And of course, he's a highly
respected scholar."
Mr. Noble says he was excited
about the position and was "waiting for
the call from the dean to talk turkey
about salary and about the usual
details."
That call never came. Instead,
he says he heard from a recruiting firm
asking for his permission for the
university to call four people of their
choice to act as references for him. Mr.
Noble says the list of names
included people who had publicly
criticized his views and who had never
worked directly with him. Mr. Noble
denied the firm permission, arguing
that he had already provided more than a
dozen references.
Subsequently, Mr. Duguid was
notified that his dean, John T. Pierce,
would not support the committee's
recommendation. Mr. Pierce did not
respond to a request for an interview.
John Waterhouse, vice president
of academics at the university,
which offers more than 90
distance-education courses per term,
said in
an e-mail interview that while "S.F.U.
has a longstanding history of
involvement in distance education," Mr.
Noble's "position on technology
was not the basis for the dean's
recommendation to me." He added that a
final decision about the position has
not yet been made. "The nomination
is following normal policy process," he
wrote.
But Mr. Duguid expresses
surprise at the administration's extra
scrutiny of their nominee. "This is not
standard," he says.
James L. Turk, executive
director of the Canadian Association of
University Teachers, says such
background checks are "most unusual"
for faculty searches. "I think it's
standard practice in hiring that the
employer can't just go on a fishing
expedition trying to find people that
hate you."
Mr. Noble sent a letter to the
teaching association asking it to
investigate.
"The blocking of my appointment
stems from the S.F.U.
administration's opposition to my
political views on matters of grave
political import," Mr. Noble wrote. "It
violates academic norms."

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Re: Polarization in the 90s

[Andrew Hagen]

I grant that the proportional imbalance in average personal incomes has increased 
between rich and poor 
countries over the last 40 years. Nevertheless, if the American economy grows, it can 
help a lot of poorer 
countries. Here's what The Economist recently said, anyway:

"Conventional economic models, which focus on trade links, tend to understate the 
impact of an American 
recession on the rest of the world. In recent years, other channels have become more 
important, notably 
foreign direct investment and financial contagion through stockmarkets." 

"Can the world escape recession?, The Economist, Mar 22nd 2001


Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Andrew Hagen wrote:
>>(Are you suggesting that there is a global polarization of income and
>>wealth? 
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>*   For some reason, the 1990s do not share the 1980s' bad 
>reputation for stagnation in average incomes and polarization between 
>the extremes, but it should.  []
>*   The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been 
>charting this gap in its annual human development reports.  The 
>income gap between the fifth of the world's people living in the 
>richest countries and the fifth in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997, 
>up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960, it said in its 1999 
>report. 
> 

Re: "Transformation problem" [was US Consumer Confidence...]

[Andrew Hagen]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:46:05 +0100, Chris Burford wrote:
>[] However, even though "the transformation problem" is extremely boring, I 
>note that Barkley does not necessarily imply inverted commas around it. He 
>does not appear to think it can be dismissed, as I do, as an artefact of 
>mechanical thinking applied to Marx's dialectical materialist model. []

The Transformation Problem is in no way boring. IMHO it is at the crux
of the question of the validity of classical Marxism. It is unfair,
though, to judge Marx as a thinker who failed for this reason; Marx
died before he could finish editing volume 2, and far before volume 3,
where the Problem appears. Thus, we are left with a few crufty notes as
interpreted by Engels. Engels was better than Marx at mathematical
operations, and he couldn't make sense of his comrade's work. Nieither
can the rest of the world. Every solution to the Transformation Problem
proposed so far hinges on key assumptions not strictly justified by
Marx's own corpus. Far from Boehm-Bawerk's claim that the Problem by
its existence negates any validity of that corpus, however, it only
calls into question Marx's economic thought.

In my view, the Transformation Problem is bound up with the labor
theory of value. My big complaint against the LTV is its monovalency.
Everything of "value" in the world must have that much labor tied up
into it. Even diamonds and gold, and attractive chunks of deadwood.
Value has one main source in the LTV. The LTV measures the value of one
person's labor much like that of any other's. I find this particular
assumption even less acceptable then the various NCE assumptions.
Whatever happened to overdetermination, as Resnick and Wolff termed
dialectic, in "Knowledge and Class," in a somewhat unfortunate choice?
Why can't value itself be overdetermined, that is, have more than one,
or more than a few, causes? To me, the LTV's problem is its
monovalency.

To really solve the Transformation Problem, I think we need to wholly
revamp our theory of value. Of course, in so doing, we will be (at
last) abandoning classical Marxism. 

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

John Hope Franklin replies to Horowitz

[Charles Brown]

>  Letter: Horowitz's diatribe contains historical
>inaccuracies
>
>  By John Hope Franklin
>
>  Here are a few things to bear in mind when reading the
> diatribe on slavery and reparations that  appeared in The Chronicle a few
> days ago.
>
>  All whites and no slaves benefited from American slavery.
> All blacks had no rights that they  could claim as their own. All whites,
> including the vast majority who had no slaves, were not
>only encouraged but authorized to exercise dominion over all slaves,
> thereby adding strength to
>the system of control.
>
>  If David Horowitz had read James D. DeBow's The Interest
> in Slavery of the Southern on-slaveholder, he would not have blundered
into
>the fantasy of claiming
> that no single group  benefited from slavery. Planters did, of course. New
>York merchants did, of
> course. Even poor whites benefited from the legal advantage they enjoyed
>over all blacks as
> well as from the psychological advantage of having a group beneath them.
>  Meanwhile, laws enacted by states forbade the teaching of
> blacks any means of acquiring knowledge-including the alphabet-which is
the
> legacy of disadvantage of educational privitization  and discrimination
> experienced by African Americans in 2001.
>
>  Most living Americans do have a connection with slavery.
> They have inherited the preferential advantage, if they are white, or the
> loathsome disadvantage, if they are black; and those positions are
> virtually as alive today as they were in the 19th century. The pattern of
> housing, the discrimination in employment, the resistance to equal
> opportunity in education, the racial profiling, the inequities in the
> administration of justice, the low expectation of blacks in the
>discharge of duties assigned to them, the widespread belief that blacks
> have physical prowess but little intellectual capacities and the
widespread
>opposition to
> affirmative action, as if that had not been enjoyed by whites for three
>centuries, all indicate that the
>vestiges of slavery are still  with us.
>
>  And as long as there are pro-slavery protagonists among
> us, hiding behind such absurdities as "we are all in this together" or "it
> hurts me as much as it hurts you" or "slavery benefited you as  much as it
> benefited me," we will suffer from the inability to confront the tragic
> legacies of slavery and deal with them in a forthright and constructive
> manner.
>
>  Most important, we must never fall victim to some scheme
> designed to create a controversy  among potential allies in order to
divide
> them and, at the same time, exploit them for its own  special purpose.
>
>  John Hope Franklin
>  James B. Duke Professor Emeritus,
>  John Hope Franklin Center for Interdisciplinary and
>
>
>

Re: Re: "History of Labor in the United States"

[Andrew Hagen]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:17:44 -0800 (PST), Tim Bousquet wrote:
>Isn't this somewhat ethno-centric? Or maybe
>wage-labor-centric? Surely slave revolts can be
>considered strikes. []

Yes, that's a great point. The books were written in parts dating from the 19th 
Century to sometime in the 30s, 
seemingly. An update is badly needed, not only to chart the course of labor since 
then, but also to expand the 
coverage to slavery and all the neglected stories. The books mostly focus on labor 
unions and union-like 
associations (the Knights of Labor, for instance), and they should cover unorganized 
labor much more.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

WBAI Local Advisory Board statement on charges of "violence"

[Louis Proyect]

On behalf of the WBAI Local Advisory Board, I have been asked to circulate
this statement by the board. Could you please disseminate it further.

Thank you very much.

Andrew Norris WBAI LAB member

__

 The WBAI LAB comments on allegations of violence made by Pacifica management

The members of the WBAI LAB abhor violence and condemn its use by whatever
party. In the midst of the continuing crisis, allegations of violent
behavior are being broadcast on WBAI, other Pacifica stations, and
affiliates by Pacifica management. Democracy Now! and the Pacifica Network
News were both interrupted on 3/26/01 with a recording of the Executive
Director Bessie Wash. In this recording, which has been played on air many
times since, Ms. Wash makes specific allegations against an unnamed WBAI
producer. Her statement amplify a press release from the Pacifica
Foundation on 3/25/01 which said, in part:

"This incident in Houston followed another attack two weeks ago when the
female General Manager of WBAI in New York was physically attacked by a
supporter of the "Pacifica Campaign" during a live interview with a Member
of Congress. The point of the attack was to deny her access to the airwaves
so that WBAI's listeners would not hear a different point of view."

We can make no informed statement about Houston, but feel compelled to
comment on the WBAI incident. This occurred on 3/5/01 when Interim General
Manager Utrice Leid removed Ken Nash from the air during his regularly
scheduled show "Building Bridges". Mr. Nash was interviewing Congressman
Owens when he was cut off by Ms. Leid about 5 minutes into the one hour
program. Ms. Leid unilaterally cancelled the remainder of the program,
fielding phone calls from listeners.

Mr. Nash is accused of two things: violence and censorship. He says the
allegation of violence is untrue. We can add no more to that except to
comment that Mr. Nash does not have the same bully pulpit available to
Pacifica management. He cannot interrupt national programs, and he does not
have the resources of the Pacifica foundation and its public relations
agents. But even if he had these resources, he cannot easily undo the harm
caused by the aspersions made against him.

Regarding the accusation of censorship, it is incredible to suggest that
Mr. Nash or anyone would attempt to deny Ms. Leid access to the airwaves.
Ms. Leid appears on the air whenever she feels like it, and has complete
discretion with programming. Ms. Leid defines the gag rule, she decides who
breaks it, and she removes people from the air whenever she so wishes. Mr.
Nash was banned from the airwaves for his attempt to offer WBAI listeners a
different point of view.

The accusations against Mr. Nash are a smear campaign that diverts
attention from the real issues, such as the continuing economic and real
violence suffered by workers in the WBAI listening area who are denied a
voice now that "Building Bridges" has been removed. The New York area is a
safer place for corporate interests who can rest assured now that the
longest running labor program has been banned from the air. Important
issues are being ignored, such as the attempt of 35,000 home care workers
in New Jersey to organize, to gain a union that can increase their pay from
the lowly $7/hr. they receive. Pacifica is deserting its community, it is
not serving their interests, as it embarks on an ugly phase in our
internecine struggle in which everyone loses except the bosses.


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: "History of Labor in the United States"

[Tim Bousquet]

--- Andrew Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Volume 1  1918, 1946. "The 'first recorded
> [American] labour strike,' says Mrs. Van Rensselaer
> (History of the 
> City of New York, II, 219), occurred in 1677, when
> 'the licensed cartmen . . . combined to refuse full 
> compliance when ordered to remove the dirt from the
> streets for three pence a load.' A later strike,
> that of the 
> New York bakers in 1741, is usually referred to, on
> the authority of the United States Commissioner of
> Labor, as 
> the first American strike. (citation)" p. 25
> 

Isn't this somewhat ethno-centric? Or maybe
wage-labor-centric? Surely slave revolts can be
considered strikes. 

In "American Negro Slave Revolts," Herbert Aptheker
(1943) uncovered about 250 slave revolts where a
minimum of ten slaves joined in the activity. I've
been unable to locate that book, but I once gathered
this abbreviated list of slave revolts:


--In 1639 there were a series of slave revolts on the
island of St. Christopher.

--1663: slave white servants and black slaves
"conspired" togethered in Gloucester County, Va.

--April 7, 1712 there was a slave revolt in New York.
Nine Whites were kill, twenty-one slaves executed.

--1730 Slave conspiracy discovered in Norfolk and
Princess Anne counties, Va.
 
--1739: Slave revolt, Stono, S.C., Sept 9. Twenty-five
Whites killed before insurrection was put down. 

--in 1733, 90 slaves revolted on St. John's island,
killed many whites and controlled the island for six
months (apparently with the aim of entering the sugar
business themselves), before the island was reclaimed
by French forces.

--On St. Patrick's Day of 1768, the slaves of
Montserrat planned a revolt, but it was frustrated by
an informer. Nine of the leaders of the rebellion were
hanged. 

--The Haitiian revolution began in 1791, leading to
the the establishment of the nation of Haiti in 1801.

--On Aug. 30, 1800, Gabriel Prosser grouped with about
1,000 other slaves outside Richmond, Va. with the plan
of attacking the city, seizing the armories, killing
most of the whites, and declaring Virginia a "free
state." The plan was delayed because of swollen
creeks, but by the next day the VA militia was
alerted. Prosser and 34 others were hanged.

--In January of 1811, Charles Deslondes led some 500
slaves in a very well-planned rebellion in Louisiana.
They liberated 25 miles worth of plantations and aimed
to take New Orleans. While the rebellion was put down
by the army, it encouraged a wave of revolts in the
City that carried on for at least two more years.

--1816: Three hundred fugitive slaves and about 20
Indian allies held Fort Blount on Apalachicola Bay,
Fla., for several days before it was attacked by U.S.
Troops. 

--Denmark Vesey ( a free black) organized some 9,000
slaves around Charleston SC in 1822. 131 blacks and 4
whites were arrested, 37 hanged.

--Nat Turner and his band killed 55 whites in Virginia
in 1831

--The Amistad was seized in 1839

--Nov 7, 1841 Slave revolt on slave trader 'Creole'
which was en route from Hampton, Va., to New Orleans.
Slaves overpowered crew and sailed vessel to Bahamas
where they were granted asylum and freedom. 

--November 15, 1842, 40 slaves rise up against their
Cherokee masters.

=
Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $30 annually or $20 for six months. Mail cash 
or check payabe to "Tim Bousquet" to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

Law as aggressive protector of privateproperty

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 03:47PM >>>
David S. wrote:
>Maybe I am just being dense.  You defined "private property" (which you seek
>to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
>connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
>to production in a society with an enormous division of labor or
>soicalization and specialization of the production process."

I apologize to the participants for not having paid enough attention to 
this thread, but I think the point is that even though capitalist "private 
property" is private in terms of formal ownership rights, it is not private 
_in practice_, in terms of its impact on people. Appropriation of profits, 
interest, and rent is individualized, but the basis of the production of 
these types of property income (surplus-value) is socialized, relying on 
the domination of society by the capitalist minority, because they control 
the means of production (and we don't).

(

CB: Exactemente. The basic contradiction of capitalism is that production( the actual 
work) is very social, but the appropriation of the fruits of that production is 
private or by a tiny minority. As Jim says, in practice, in fact, the work is social 
,e. g. Mexican and Japanese and US. workers are sometimes all making parts for one car 
( global socialization or division of labor)  But the factory and the end product cars 
are owned by a private corporation, a small minority elite ( the legal "fiction" 
relative to the productive fact).

The workers only own their labor power, and no means of production to work.

(


In the case of owning a car or something like that, formal property rights 
are more in line with societal impact, though obviously they are not 
totally in line (since cars produce pollution, congestion, etc.)

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

RE: Law as aggressive protector of privateproperty

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 03:23PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:

--

There is enormous division of labor and specialization in the historical
socialist states. It is pretty much the same level of divsion of labor as
the capitalist state it takes over from.

  Miners only mine. They don't make steel , by and large. Doctors only don'
t usually do much more than the speciality of medicine.  Physics profs teach
physics mainly.  Autoworkers make one part of the car .

Socialism is not the return to small , relatively autonomous/self-sufficient
units of production as in precapitalist societies.

By the way, this is why there is still exchange (not the market) in
socialism.

---

Maybe I am just being dense.  You defined "private property" (which you seek
to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
to production in a society with an enormous division of labor or
soicalization and specialization of the production process."

According to your definition, then, historical socialist states have not
only extreme division of labor and specialization, but in fact "private
property," because your definition of "private property" includes the
ownership necessary to an enormous division of labor and specialization.



CB: In socialism it is publcially or socially, not privately owned. Does that clear it 
up ?

Socialism has socialist or social ownership of the basic means of production. 



The means of production are operated or the work is actually done socially, in a 
modern society with an enormous division of labor ( or socialization of production) . 
But even though the work is done socially (social production) in capitalism the means 
of production are owned privately ( by a tiny minority who don't do the work , which 
has to be done by a mass of people because it is social production) 

Capitalism has social production and private appropriation. Socialism has social 
production and social appropriation.

When we say expropriate the expropriators, we mean the people who actually do the work 
take over ownership of the means of production and own them collectively.


(((


You then say socialism is not a return to self-sufficiency as is typical of
precapitalist societies -- but then that would mean you would not be
abolishing "private property" (if you define private property as the
ownership necessary to enormous division of labor and specialization.)

((

CB: By the way, there was private property in feudalism , even though there were, 
small relatively self-sufficient feudal manors in feudalism. The feudal lords and 
church enforced their private property through tribute and tithes on the working 
classes.

Re: RE: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Jim Devine]

David S. wrote:
>Maybe I am just being dense.  You defined "private property" (which you seek
>to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
>connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
>to production in a society with an enormous division of labor or
>soicalization and specialization of the production process."

I apologize to the participants for not having paid enough attention to 
this thread, but I think the point is that even though capitalist "private 
property" is private in terms of formal ownership rights, it is not private 
_in practice_, in terms of its impact on people. Appropriation of profits, 
interest, and rent is individualized, but the basis of the production of 
these types of property income (surplus-value) is socialized, relying on 
the domination of society by the capitalist minority, because they control 
the means of production (and we don't).

In the case of owning a car or something like that, formal property rights 
are more in line with societal impact, though obviously they are not 
totally in line (since cars produce pollution, congestion, etc.)

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

Re: finale to the non-profit sector?

[Jim Devine]

At 01:23 PM 3/30/01 -0500, you wrote:
>The show made the point that corporate philanthropy cannot be counted on 
>as before. Instead, a quid pro quo
>will be required. Just as we've seen municipal stadiums renamed (from 
>Candlestick Park to 3Com Park, from
>Hoosier Dome to RCA Dome), we are perhaps going to see non-profit 
>organizations take on corporate
>sponsorships. At the extreme end, we might eventually be talking about the 
>Lexus Lincoln Center, the Chrysler
>Cleveland Orchestra, the Du Pont Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the TWA 
>Gateway Arch, the Merrill Lynch
>Modern Museum of Art, and many, many others.

the US is already going down this road. All shows at the L.A. County Museum 
of Art, for example, have corporate sponsors.

I'm hoping that they sell the names of the freeways in L.A. to 
corporations. I can imagine people saying "damn this goddamn Microsoft San 
Diego Freeway!! ^$&%*%!" before pulling out their guns to shoot other 
drivers...

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

RE: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[David Shemano]

Charles Brown wrote:

--

There is enormous division of labor and specialization in the historical
socialist states. It is pretty much the same level of divsion of labor as
the capitalist state it takes over from.

  Miners only mine. They don't make steel , by and large. Doctors only don'
t usually do much more than the speciality of medicine.  Physics profs teach
physics mainly.  Autoworkers make one part of the car .

Socialism is not the return to small , relatively autonomous/self-sufficient
units of production as in precapitalist societies.

By the way, this is why there is still exchange (not the market) in
socialism.

---

Maybe I am just being dense.  You defined "private property" (which you seek
to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
to production in a society with an enormous division of labor or
soicalization and specialization of the production process."

According to your definition, then, historical socialist states have not
only extreme division of labor and specialization, but in fact "private
property," because your definition of "private property" includes the
ownership necessary to an enormous division of labor and specialization.

You then say socialism is not a return to self-sufficiency as is typical of
precapitalist societies -- but then that would mean you would not be
abolishing "private property" (if you define private property as the
ownership necessary to enormous division of labor and specialization.)

Thanks,

David Shemano

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

> BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2001:
> 
> Both the total number of mass layoff events and the number of employees
> involved climbed in February, reaching their highest levels for that month
> since the data series began 6 years ago, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
> reports. Mass layoffs -- those involving 50 or more workers -- totaled
> 1,501 in February, and they affected 172,908 employees who filed
> unemployment insurance claims in their states.  Those totals are both up
> sharply from February of 2000, when there were 1,045 mass layoff events
> involving nearly 104,000 workers.  (Daily Labor Report, page D-12)
> 
> New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits
> declined by about 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted total of 362,000 during
> the week ending March 24, according to the Employment and Training
> Administration figures.  The 4-week moving average of initial jobless
> claims -- a figure that is more closely watched than the more volatile
> weekly numbers -- fell by 3,000 to 374,750 for the period ended March 24.
> "The job market has deteriorated over the last year, but the weekly data
> still does not portray negative payroll growth," said an economist at
> Merrill Lynch (Daily Labor Report, page D-17; The New York Times, page
> C2)..
> 
> The Conference Board's help-wanted advertising index declined 5 percentage
> points in February to 71 percent.  The help-wanted index is down by nearly
> 20 percentage points from the year earlier reading of 90 percent.  In
> January, it stood at 76 percent.  "Demand for labor dipped in February and
> is currently about 20 percent lower than a year ago," a Conference Board
> economist said.  The latest help-wanted index reading suggest that nonfarm
> payroll employment is growing by no more than 100,000 a month, the
> economist said.  Analysts are expecting sluggish job growth when the
> Bureau of Labor Statistics releases the March employment report April 6
> (Daily Labor Report, page A-7).
> 
> The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the fourth
> quarter of last year, just a little weaker than previously estimated, the
> Department of Commerce reports.  Real gross domestic product, the output
> of goods and services, produced in the United States, rose at a 1.0
> percent pace, not 1.1 percent, after expanding 2.2 percent in the third
> quarter.  "The deceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily
> reflected downturns in exports, in personal consumption expenditures for
> goods, and in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by
> an upturn in federal government spending and a step-up in personal
> consumption expenditures for services", the Commerce Department said.
> "Imports turned down" (Daily Labor Report, page D-1).
> 
> The economy, hit by a drop in spending on expensive items by businesses
> and consumers, grew at an annual rate of just 1.0 percent during the last
> 3 months of 2000, the weakest performance in more than 5 years.  The final
> reading of the Department of Commerce's fourth quarter gross domestic
> product data -- the total output of goods and services within the United
> States -- showed the economy grew a bit more slowly than previously
> thought (The Washington Post, page E2).
> 
> The economy grew in the fourth quarter at the slowest pace in five and a
> half years and profits fell for the first time since 1998, revised
> Commerce Department figures showed today.  The personal consumption
> expenditures price index, a gauge watched by Federal Reserve policymakers,
> rose at a 1.9 percent pace after a 1.8 percent increase in the third
> quarter (Bloomberg News in The New York Times, page C2).
> 
> The economy slowed more in the fourth quarter of last year than first
> estimated, as businesses curtailed spending.  While the downward revision
> in business inventories trimmed GDP growth, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
> Greenspan and others have said that the higher growth rates won't return
> until excess inventories are worked off. (The Wall Street Journal, page
> A2).
> 
> As the economy sputters, worker anxiety is increasing, says Business Week
> (April 2, page 30).  The biggest concern for many who lose their jobs is
> not that another post will be hard to find, rather that a new job may mean
> a pay cut.  According to the Labor Department's latest Displaced Workers
> Survey, conducted last year, one-quarter of the reemployed reported
> earnings losses of 20 percent or more.  To ease the anxiety -- and
> financial pain -- of a job loss due to changing economic conditions, a new
> Brookings Institution report by two economists introduces a plan they call
> "wage insurance."  Their idea:  have government make up part of the wage
> loss experienced by a displaced worker who takes a pay cut to get back to
> work.
> 

 application/ms-tnef

Re: Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Andrew,
  Some blather from old Karl Marx on this one.
When a lot of people do not own capital, and
it is necessary to work with capital in order to
survive, then those who own capital will be able
to exploit those who do not and who must work for
them.
Barkley Rosser
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Hagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:9826] Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property


> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
> >Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative
relations of production. So, it is the numero uno
> effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's
exploitative form of productive relations.
> >
> >The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is:
Abolition of private property.
>
> I disagree with this goal. The right to property is merely the right to
exclude, nothing more. Property rights are,
> IMHO, necessary for any right to privacy. I don't see anything wrong with
people owning stuff. I see a problem,
> however, when labor is exploited. The link between private property and
exploitation of labor is tenuous. On
> what basis would you say the two are linked?
>
> Andrew Hagen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 01:52PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:

-
People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal
property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned.

Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social
productive means that are necessary to production in a society with an
enormous division of labor or soicalization and specialization of the
production process. The fuller statement of the goal is abolition of private
property in the basic means of production, for which abolition of private
property is shorthand.

So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises.

Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary
condition for exploitation.

-

I do not understand this.  There is no division of labor or specialization
in a socialist state?

(

CB: There is enormous division of labor and specialization in the historical socialist 
states. It is pretty much the same level of divsion of labor as the capitalist state 
it takes over from.

  Miners only mine. They don't make steel , by and large. Doctors only don' t usually 
do much more than the speciality of medicine.  Physics profs teach physics mainly.  
Autoworkers make one part of the car . 

Socialism is not the return to small , relatively autonomous/self-sufficient units of 
production as in precapitalist societies.

By the way, this is why there is still exchange (not the market) in socialism.

THE FABULOUS BAKER BOY

[Robert Naiman]

I figured PEN-L would get a chuckle out of this...

-b

National Post (formerly The Financial Post)
Monday, March 19, 2001

THE FABULOUS BAKER BOY


Many observers of U.S. and international economic
affairs learn a lot from Paul Krugman, even if
they don't always agree with him. They may wonder
if there's any other economist who offers a
comparable flow of insights. In fact, there is
one, and his name is Dean Baker.

He's the economist who, one year ago when the
Nasdaq index was more than double its current
level, had the foresight to write: 'If the market
falls 50% and loses US$10-trillion of wealth in a
correction, it's going to be very hard to avoid a
recession. A lot of these dot-coms are worth a
corner lemonade stand and are putting real
companies out of business.'

Writing just a few days later on a trip to
England, Paul Krugman offered what, from today's
vantage point, seems a considerably less
perceptive assessment: In their attitudes towards
tech stocks, U.S. 'investors seem moderate,
sensible and on the right track -- at least when
you compare them with their counterparts elsewhere
in the world.'

Paul Krugman, in case you haven't heard, is the
Princeton University economist who writes a
twice-weekly column for the New York Times. If The
Economist newsweekly is anything to go by, he may
be the most influential economist writing today.
As a columnist, Prof. Krugman's stock-in-trade is
the exposure of economic myths and distortions. A
Gore administration might have provided him a
position, I would guess, but at least the Bush
team has provided him with a rich vein of
material.

And who is this Dean Baker? He's a PhD economist
who puts out the weekly Economic Reporting Review,
a free e-mail analysis (archived at TomPaine.com)
of economics coverage in the New York Times and
the Washington Post. And the record shows Mr.
Baker has a better grasp of current economic
events than even Mr. Krugman.

Though Mr. Baker is exceptionally bright, his
advantage is not that he knows more economics.
Indeed, the Economic Reporting Review frequently
cites Mr. Krugman as an authority -- on the
microeconomics behind California's energy
deregulation fiasco, say, or on the macroeconomics
behind Japan's decade of stagnation.

One advantage is that Mr. Baker keeps his thumb on
the pulse of the economy. At the standard
intervals when the U.S. government releases
macroeconomic data, he issues his own commentary
on it (for free, under the auspices of the Center
for Economic and Policy Research, of which he is
co-director). If my own experience as an economics
professor is any guide, while Mr. Baker is busy
mastering the data, Mr. Krugman is probably off in
some classroom scribbling on the blackboard and
covering himself in chalk dust. This builds
character but it doesn't help in predicting
economic events.

Another advantage is that, although Mr. Baker is
well to the left of Mr. Krugman on the policy
spectrum, he is less ideological. When Mr. Krugman
goes astray in his analysis, it is often because
he has failed to control his partisan feelings as
a centrist Democrat. Al Gore's economic agenda
makes more sense than George Bush's, but it's not
something to which you can get closely attached
and still be fully coherent.

Mr. Baker's relative freedom from ideology can be
illustrated by his analysis of the World Trade
Organization, an organization typically criticized
by the left for pushing a free trade agenda. Mr.
Baker's take on the WTO is different, and very
timely given the ongoing controversy over the
pricing of AIDs drugs in Africa.

Contrary to its free trade rhetoric, he observes,
the WTO is extremely protectionist in its efforts
to intensify the costly forms of protection known
as patents and copyrights. While protection in the
forms of tariffs or quotas will rarely raise the
price of products by more than 20%, patents and
copyrights routinely raise prices by a few hundred
per cent or more. In the case of copyrighted
information that can be digitized (songs, movies,
computer software, books, etc.), the marginal
costs of production and distribution can drop to
zero. The potential payoffs to finding better ways
to encourage research and development and to
reward creative work are becoming enormous.

The facts about prices are beyond dispute, and
even cause mixed emotions on the part of
pro-business writers, who find their love of
property rights in conflict with their love of low
prices. And the costs associated with high prices
are not the only ones. With patents as the reward
system for pharmaceutical innovation, Mr. Baker
argues, 'much of the research conducted by the
drug companies is directed not toward
breakthroughs to better our lives but toward
finding ways around the lucrative patents of
competitors.'

Back issues of Mr. Baker's weekly economic reports
are archived on the Internet and, in keeping with
his views on intellectual property, are freely
available for all to browse. If there's any
right-of-centre econo

Re: nostalgia for the USSR part ii

[Andrew Hagen]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:56:59 -0600, Ken Hanly wrote:
>March 15, 2001
>Nearly four fifths of Russians are nostalgic about Soviet Union
> 
>According to a poll conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation shortly
>before the 10th anniversary of a referendum on the preservation of the
>Soviet Union, the overwhelming majority of Russians regret its subsequent
>collapse. []

The USSR had a unique constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, and more like the 
Articles of Confederation, 
the USSR's constitution allowed the individual "SSR's," like Ukraine, Turkmenistan, 
and the like, to secede from 
the USSR if they wished to. In practice, such secession was simply not allowed until 
the late 1980s. This legal, 
theoretically peaceful process was how the USSR in fact dissolved. The individual 
SSR's (except maybe Russia) 
all announced they were leaving the USSR. It was far from perfect, but at least all of 
the former SSR's have not 
been at constant war with one another. 

Thus, when the survey says that most "Russians" favored the continuation of the USSR, 
the survey is 
apparently talking about the people who live in that former SSR now called the Russian 
Federation, and excludes 
the many expatriate ethnic Russians who are living in the rest of the former Soviet 
Union. We should bear this in 
mind when considering the survey.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PRC to follow California deregulation model!

[Ken Hanly]

It is interesting that those who remain committed to socialism and/or
communism are hard-line conservatives whereas their opponenets are
reformers! It used to be that socialists and communists were leftists and
radicals.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
From: Stephen E Philion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:44 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:9743] PRC to follow California deregulation model!


> BNA, Inc., International Trade Reporter, January 18, 2001
> Copyright 2001 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., International Trade
> Reporter
>
> CHINA'S STATE POWER SECTOR PREPARES TO DEREGULATE, SELL OFF POWER
GENERATORS
> By Noah J. Smith
>
>   BEIJING -- China's monopoly State Power Corp. is preparing to sever its
> regulatory functions and sell off its power generators, as reformers have
> gained the upper hand over entrenched resistance that held up deregulation
> for years, industry sources told BNA.
>
> Power officials, backed by hard-line conservatives, were loath to loosen
> their grasp on the powerful state monopoly, which still controls one-sixth
of
> state-owned assets (about $ 96.6 billion), according to figures in the
most
> recent edition of China's official Business Weekly.
>

loose ends

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Folks,
 Later today I shall be unsubbing again from 
pen-l for an extended period of time, probably longer
than my last absence.  Work on a book and other
matters is simply pressing way too hard on me.  Will
be on for a bit more for any immediate responses to 
this message.
 1)  To Yoshie:  I was too abrupt with you in our last
exchange.  It may be true, as I argued, that it is a bit
odd to talk of Japan as a labor scarce economy as its
unemployment rate rises.  However, you are correct in
your characterization of the general demographic
state and attitudes and behaviors regarding women
and immigrants.  I think that it is also the case that the
sharp decline in the population growth rate, combined
with the rising percent of older people in the population,
has been a factor in the general slowdown of economic
growth in Japan.   
  More generally, I thought that this was a good thread
on the list.  I would simply leave the discussion by noting
that there is a lot about what is going on in Japan that 
nobody really understands, including those in Japan.
 2)  To Jim Devine:  You are correct that Marx spoke
of the "law of value" and not the "theory of value."  I was
simply being forgetful.  I also think that noting that Volume
I of Capital emphasizes a more aggregate analysis while
Volume III focuses on a more disaggregated analysis is a
very good way of characterizing at least part of what is
involved in the "transformation problem" controversy.  But,
this is a vast topic.
 3)  I have apologized offlist to Louis Proyect for poking
at him too hard.  I was doing so partly because I knew I 
was about to leave the list, and sometimes he is just such
a tempting target when he gets a bit too pompous, especially
when he starts spouting capital letters at people.  I do respect
his knowledge, intelligence, and activism, even when I disagree
with him, which is quite often.  
 One issue on which I gave him a hard time was the 
business about the corrupt privatizations in Serbia.  I believe
that it was in an article he attached or cited where someone
complained about the "illegality" of the worker seizures of
corruptly privatized plants in Serbia, and was not a remark
by Louis himself.
 Just to go out on the Yugo question, I would warn those
who wish to denigrate the current regime and beatify the
recently fallen one to hold off a bit and wait and see.  There
is a high probability that your (and my) worst fears will be
fulfilled.  There certainly are/were remnants of the admirable
parts of the old system still persisting in Yugoslavia, and
they may be undone.  Certainly there have been some 
disturbing things happening.  But, I believe it is still too soon
to say.  The undoing of (some of) the corrupt privatizations
is one piece of this.  But another is the clearly independent
political stance of President Kostunica.  He is not a patsy
for the US or the EU or anybody, and has taken some strong
stands for what he perceives to be Yugoslav, or at least
Serbian, nationalist interests.  This guy is no pushover.  If
his advisers and managers can actually follow what they claim
to want in their rhetoric (the "Polish-Scandinavian-Slovenian"
model") things might not be too bad.  Then again, they may
simply cave and follow the worst of the Washington Consensus
models.  This would be disastrous.  It is not, however, what
they claim they want to do, at least not now.  This is a matter
where we shall just have to wait and see.
  4)  As for George W. Bush, well, I am still waiting to see
even one area where he proves to be better rather than worse
than expected or forecast.  Each new day seems to bring a
fresh outrage.
  Just in case anybody out there is still operating under the
delusion that he is better on the Middle East, forget it.  He
may have removed CIA Director, George Tenet, from 
intermediating between the Israelis and the Palestinians, 
but I see no effort on his part to halt new Israeli settlements
in Palestinian territory, something somebody on this list
was claiming he might do.  I am afraid that the Arab Americans
who voted for him are another group on the list of suckers
for this scumbag.
  5) And, finally, let me announce that it is now more than 
95% probable that I shall be replacing Dick Day as the editor 
in chief of the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
not later than January 1, 2002.  I shall keep you all up to date
on that when (if) it eventually happens.  As some of you know,
I am currently the book review editor of JEBO.
 In any case, my praise to michael once again for running
one of the best lists on the internet.  Behave yourselves im
my absence, and feel free to check out my various papers
on my website listed below, :-).
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.
Professor of Economics
MSC 0204
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807 USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb

Re: Law as aggressive protector of privateproperty

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 02:05PM >>>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:48:02 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social productive 
>means that are necessary >to production in a society with an enormous division of 
>labor or soicalization and specialization of the production >process. The fuller 
>statement of the goal is abolition of private property in the basic means of 
>production, for >which abolition of private property is shorthand.


I'm familiar with the shorthand, but, respectfully, I don't find it
meaningful. When you say "private property" has a technical meaning
concerning the means of production, we know what you mean, but most
people outside of pen-l don't. 

(((

CB: We are talking on PEN-L. When I explain it to other people I give those details. 
(See my paper "For a Constitutional Amendment for a Right to a Job at a Living Wage ")



As for owning one's own car, that's important. But what if you run a
small business and need a car to operate the business?

(((

CB: Are you "employing" workers' in your "small"  business ? That would be 
exploitation , and illegal.

((



 Is that a means
of production, too? Can I own my own equipment if I work in a home
office? 

(

CB: Just don't exploit others in what you are doing.


((


The old model is based on factories, but the typical workplace
is much more diverse. 




CB: Pizza chains exploit without factories Look at the Ilitches or Monihan in Detroit. 
Look at farmworkers who are not in factories. 

 Main thing is not having an owner or a few owners who are enriched based on the work 
of many others. This form is extended far beyond the factory by the bourgeoisie. Look 
at financiers and rich bankers. 

((



The old model has to be junked because it's
unworkable. Our main goal should be to curtail and abolish the
exploitation of labor. This can perhaps be accomplished with a series
of reforms. 



CB: Most of the historical evidence indicates it will take a revolution, not just 
reforms.

(((

We should attempt to prevent capital from dominanting labor. I don't
see how abolishing private property is necessarily tied to this goal.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

>So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises.
>
>Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary condition 
>for exploitation. 
>
>

Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Andrew Hagen]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:48:02 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social productive 
>means that are necessary >to production in a society with an enormous division of 
>labor or soicalization and specialization of the production >process. The fuller 
>statement of the goal is abolition of private property in the basic means of 
>production, for >which abolition of private property is shorthand.


I'm familiar with the shorthand, but, respectfully, I don't find it
meaningful. When you say "private property" has a technical meaning
concerning the means of production, we know what you mean, but most
people outside of pen-l don't. 

As for owning one's own car, that's important. But what if you run a
small business and need a car to operate the business? Is that a means
of production, too? Can I own my own equipment if I work in a home
office? The old model is based on factories, but the typical workplace
is much more diverse. The old model has to be junked because it's
unworkable. Our main goal should be to curtail and abolish the
exploitation of labor. This can perhaps be accomplished with a series
of reforms. 

We should attempt to prevent capital from dominanting labor. I don't
see how abolishing private property is necessarily tied to this goal.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises.
>
>Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary condition 
>for exploitation. 
>
>

RE: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[David Shemano]

Charles Brown wrote:

-
People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal
property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned.

Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social
productive means that are necessary to production in a society with an
enormous division of labor or soicalization and specialization of the
production process. The fuller statement of the goal is abolition of private
property in the basic means of production, for which abolition of private
property is shorthand.

So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises.

Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary
condition for exploitation.

-

I do not understand this.  There is no division of labor or specialization
in a socialist state?

David Shemano

Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 12:40PM >>>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of 
>production. So, it is the numero uno 
effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of 
productive relations.  
>
>The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is: Abolition of 
>private property. 

I disagree with this goal. The right to property is merely the right to exclude, 
nothing more. Property rights are, 
IMHO, necessary for any right to privacy. I don't see anything wrong with people 
owning stuff. I see a problem, 
however, when labor is exploited. The link between private property and exploitation 
of labor is tenuous. On 
what basis would you say the two are linked?



CB: People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal 
property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned.

Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social productive 
means that are necessary to production in a society with an enormous division of labor 
or soicalization and specialization of the production process. The fuller statement of 
the goal is abolition of private property in the basic means of production, for which 
abolition of private property is shorthand.

So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises.

Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary condition 
for exploitation. 

An Internet depression?

[Louis Proyect]

NY Times, March 30, 2001

Business Ups and Downs at Internet Speed

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

As one of the brightest lights of the Internet revolution, Cisco Systems
has long been looked to as the company that not only supplies the equipment
that holds the Web together but also understands how information technology
makes business work smarter.

So when Cisco announced earlier this month that orders for its products had
unexpectedly plunged and that revenue would decline for the first time in
its 11 years as a publicly traded company, it did not just send shudders
through the company itself and its own suppliers. It also raised profound
questions about the role of the Internet in the current slowdown.

The Internet, with its myriad online connections, speeds the transmission
of ideas, good and bad, and amplifies their reach. It has allowed business
managers to peek into every link of the supply chain that feeds their
manufacturing processes, and to change direction with a nimbleness that
would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.

Yet power incites hubris - a Porsche fairly demands to be driven at
breathtaking speed. The result for the economy can be jarring.

"The supply chain looks a lot more like the stock market," said Andrew B.
Whinston, director of the Center for Research in Electronic Commerce at the
McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas. "It becomes much
more volatile."

And that could help to explain why the economic downturn seems to be
happening on Internet time.

Since last summer, the economy has gone from a racetrack annual pace of
almost 6 percent to barely 1 percent. Business executives in one industry
after another have described being stunned by the abruptness of the drop in
orders. Caught by surprise, manufacturing companies have watched their
inventories soar.

With all the information supposedly at their fingertips, why were
executives so out of touch?

There appear to be several related reasons. As in past business cycles,
companies caught up in the boom expanded capacity and output to meet
expectations of continued strong growth that simply was not sustainable by
all of them together. But added on top of that, it seems, was a sense of
complacency that the new management-information tools would provide plenty
of advance warning of troubles ahead. That may have been asking too much of
them.

"It's important to understand that the Internet cannot change what is going
on in the marketplace," said Susan L. Bostrom, senior vice president of
Cisco's Internet business solutions group. "You can manage those variables
that you can control, but what makes business fun," she said with a nervous
laugh, "is that there are always variables that you can't control."

Finally, with so many companies farming out actual production to contract
manufacturers, some clearly lost touch with the overall market environment.
. .

During the headiest days of the 10- year economic expansion, some
commentators insisted that the Internet and other information technologies
were powering a new economy that would effectively eliminate the
boom-and-bust business cycle.

As things began to wobble, that view has given way to a counter- argument
that the dot-com bust could drag the rest of the economy down with it,
creating what the economist and journalist Michael Mandel calls an
"Internet depression."

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/30/technology/30INFO.html 


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: WTO and Canadian Health Care

[Andrew Hagen]

I don't understand what the problem is. Is the suggestion that the WTO
will force the Candian health care system to partially privatize? Maybe
foreign-owned companies could then enter the market and compete for
part of it. Why would this threaten Canada and not Europe? I thought
they both had government-run health systems.

Thanks,

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:18:15 -0800, Ian Murray wrote:

>
>Published on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 in the Toronto Star
>World Trade Organization Targets Canadian Health Care System
>by Stuart Laidlaw
>
>Despite its failure to get a mandate in Seattle, the World Trade
>Organization has been progressing with free trade talks in Geneva for more
>than a year.
>
>The talks, required to start by 2000 under past trade deals, have been held
>with very little fanfare, behind closed doors and with little input from
>those affected.
>
>This week, three more days of talks will take place - again in Geneva, again
>behind closed doors and again without input from those affected.
>
>And make no mistake about it: health care will be on the table.
>
>Ottawa, of course, has vigorously claimed otherwise. It has, after all,
>invoked a feature of existing world trade deals allowing countries to
>specifically exempt parts of their economies from international free trade
>rules. On the face of it, this would seem to protect our cherished health
>care services from foreign and private incursion.
>
>A closer look, however, reveals several concerns.
>
>First off, both the U.S. and Europe have said they will be demanding an end
>to such exemptions. If they are successful - and these two working together
>make a powerful team - Canada's protection will be gone. Canada's own
>bargaining position at these talks - demanding the right to export health
>care while not allowing any imports - dangerously undermines our credibility
>in arguing to keep health care off the table.
>
>But even if the U.S. and Europe are not successful, and even if we can
>successfully negotiate our import-banning, export-pushing trade position,
>there is still plenty of reason to worry. That's because, while health care
>itself is exempted, much of what makes it up is not.
>
>Take public health insurance. Canada has registered health insurance at the
>World Trade Organization as a financial service, leaving the very heart of
>medicare vulnerable to trade deals requiring Canada to open the field to
>foreign and private investors.
>
>You would hope that this classification applies only to the private health
>insurance plans many of us enjoy at work to cover dental care or medication,
>but there's nothing in Canada's WTO commitments to spell that out. It just
>says "health insurance," leaving it up to the WTO to define for us.
>
>There's more. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - echoing
>sentiments by more conservative trade experts such as John Kirton of the
>University of Toronto - argues that Canada could see much of its medicare
>system whittled away under the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services.
>
>Services such as labs, food services, janitorial services, accounting, data
>processing, telecommunications (such as Ontario's new phone-a-nurse service)
>and even hospital administration in the form of management consulting are
>already under the purview of the WTO's agreement on trade in services.
>
>A foreign company could argue that it is not trying to tell Canada how to
>run its health-care system, but just wants a shot at managing parts of it.
>If the WTO agrees - and it tends to favour free market arguments - we would
>be forced to allow private companies into our health-care system.
>
>Not that private companies aren't already in the health business in Canada -
>which further weakens the government's assertion that medicare is safe from
>the WTO.
>
>Here's how: The WTO allows governments to exempt any service provided "in
>the exercise of government authority," as long as such services are not also
>available commercially.
>
>In other words, if a service is exclusively provided by the government, it
>is exempt. But if that service is provided through a mix of both government
>and private interests, it is open to the full force of the WTO.
>
>Health care is such a service. The government, through medicare, obviously
>plays a huge role. But much of the health-care system is, in fact, privately
>run. Doctors' offices operate as private businesses. So do the labs in many
>hospitals, after-hours clinics, dental offices, homecare providers and
>nursing homes. Even the hospitals themselves are often private, non-profit
>corporations. This makes our health-care system a mixed private-public
>system, and therefore subject to WTO rules.
>
>Ottawa's trade negotiators have characterized such concerns as
>"hypothetical," and doubt any such challenges would ever materialize.
>
>That is folly, and we need only look as far as the recent death of the Auto
>Pact to see the threat to health care.
>

finale to the non-profit sector?

[Andrew Hagen]

The US non-profit sector is unique. Most other countries don't have so many 
organizations of this type. Is this 
sector about to undergo a wave of privatization?

Heard yesterday on "Radio Times," a local call-in radio program: the Please Touch 
Museum in Philadelphia, a 
children's museum, has accepted a corporate sponsorship. They will build a new 
building, to be framed by a sign 
announcing the new name of the museum: "Please Touch Museum, Sponsored by McDonald's." 
Inside will be a 
McDonald's restaurant. As a concession to the health concerns of museum executives, 
peanut butter and jelly 
sandwiches, grilled cheese sandwiches, and pizza will be added to the restaurant's 
menu. 

The show made the point that corporate philanthropy cannot be counted on as before. 
Instead, a quid pro quo 
will be required. Just as we've seen municipal stadiums renamed (from Candlestick Park 
to 3Com Park, from 
Hoosier Dome to RCA Dome), we are perhaps going to see non-profit organizations take 
on corporate 
sponsorships. At the extreme end, we might eventually be talking about the Lexus 
Lincoln Center, the Chrysler 
Cleveland Orchestra, the Du Pont Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the TWA Gateway Arch, 
the Merrill Lynch 
Modern Museum of Art, and many, many others. 

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: humor

[Doug Henwood]

Louis Proyect wrote:

>Actually, the character who inspired this thread--one Joe Queenan--is a
>frequent guest on the Don Imus show, which along with the Howard Stern
>show, encapsulates what's wrong with mainstream humor. Unlike the Marx
>Brothers, Mark Twain or Jonathan Swift, humor on these shows targets the
>weak, the underprivileged and the discriminated against. I once heard
>Queenan riffing on the Imus show about the tackiness and bad food at Red
>Lobster restaurants, which was in line with a book he was promoting titled
>"Red Lobster, White Trash, and the Blue Lagoon: Joe Queenan's America."

Queenan profiled me in Barron's about 10 years ago (on orders from 
his then-editor, not on his own initiatve), and I got to know him a 
bit. He's a pretty vile piece of work - right wing, cynical, selfish, 
and mean. His poliitcs and his personality are a perfect match. He 
can be funny sometimes - he did a piece on the men's movement for GQ 
that was hilarious - but not very often. Like O'Rourke, he thinks 
it's really funny to piss on the poor and weak. Ha ha. Fortunately 
most of his books end up quickly remaindered.

Doug

Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Nathan Newman]

- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>No, Goldman Sachs pays much better, with much better job security, and more
>respect for their employees.

-How do you know this? Aren't you aware of the racism of outfits like
-Goldman-Sachs? Furthermore, it is silly to compare the treatment of staff
-at ACORN with Goldman-Sach's downsizing. A typical ACORN employee is a
-youngster looking for a way to shake up American society.

How do I know this?  Because I have known folks who work in both kinds of
organizations.  Yes, many of the folks at ACORN know what they are getting
into, but then so should anyone benefitting from the largesse of the
financial overlords.  If we are going to hold Corzine responsible for
Goldman-Sachs actions, why shouldn't we hold some of the professional staff
(including yourself) who lend their skills to its success?  Not the same
level of culpability, of course, but then, given the ACORN staff's
dedication, they deserve better than the shit dumped on them by the top
leadership.

Why you think folks dedicating their lives for social change don't deserve
basic respect as employees (apparently because they are "youngsters"), but
we should weep for well-payed cogs in the financial world is beyond me.

As I note, and emphasize for those who miss the point, of course the money
Corzine has is dirty as hell and based on global exploitation.  That's the
contradiction worth emphasizing.

-- Nathan Newman

Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Andrew Hagen]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of 
>production. So, it is the numero uno 
effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of 
productive relations.  
>
>The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is: Abolition of 
>private property. 

I disagree with this goal. The right to property is merely the right to exclude, 
nothing more. Property rights are, 
IMHO, necessary for any right to privacy. I don't see anything wrong with people 
owning stuff. I see a problem, 
however, when labor is exploited. The link between private property and exploitation 
of labor is tenuous. On 
what basis would you say the two are linked?

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Andrew Hagen]

Just to underscore the irony, how else could Corzine have raked in billions of 
dollars, 80 million of which he would 
later use in a progressive senatorial campaign, except by exploiting workers? It's 
nice to get a few Jon Corzines 
on our side, but clearly our strategy is to stop exploitation of workers, rather than 
to allow it to continue in hopes 
that a few millionaires someday come out of the closet as Democrats.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:31:15 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:

>[Back in 1988 I was working for Goldman-Sachs. Robert Rubin was the vice
>chairman and Jon Corzine was a senior partner. Shortly after receiving a
>zero percent raise, I got a job as an independent consultant. Zero percent
>raises were the messages delivered to highly skilled programmers and other
>professionals over 40 that they were no longer needed. Goldman-Sachs openly
>stated that they would be replacing us with RCG's, or recent college
>graduates. Since I was something of a mercenary to start with, leaving
>Goldman was no big deal. But for the 20 to 30 senior programmers and
>managers who did not get the message, reality smacked them in the face a
>year later when they came to work one morning and discovered that their
>"Profs" email account--the same kind Oliver North used to use when
>organizing the contras--was disabled. They were escorted downstairs by
>security guards and driven home in town cars usually used for late night
>transportation home when they had worked unpaid overtime. Now this piece of
>shit Jon Corzine, who spent 60 million dollars to get elected in New
>Jersey, has the gall to tell the rancid Nation Magazine that he is too
>refined and liberal for the Democratic Leadership Council. Give me a break.
>I suppose the only solace one can take from this is that winds are
>beginning to blow from the left.]
>
>NATION MAGAZINE
>COMMENT | April 16, 2001 
>
>A Time To Be Bold
>
>by JON CORZINE  
>
>In recent months, as a newly elected senator, I have had to decide whether
>to join the Democratic Leadership Council. I have chosen not to because
>while I shared its founding purpose, which was to frame a successful
>response to President Reagan's efforts to portray Democrats as the party of
>"tax and spend," social engineering and failed personal responsibility, I
>believe that purpose has been largely accomplished. 
>
>Today, I believe that it is vital for Democrats to stand up for a sharply
>defined progressive agenda--one that is committed to fighting for practical
>and progressive policies for working families and America's middle
>class--even when that means challenging powerful interests and the status
>quo. I am absolutely convinced that, standing on the foundation of fiscal
>stability that Democrats have built and to which the DLC contributed, we
>now have to fight for our convictions. If we begin to negotiate from the
>middle, the end result inevitably takes us to the right of where I believe
>our nation should be. 
>
>Full article: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010416&s=corzine
>
>
>Louis Proyect
>Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>

Re: maximalism

[Louis Proyect]

>Louis wrote:
>>I am for radical organizing in the streets but advocate that all Senators
>>be thrown in jail for crimes against humanity. All of 'em. Who was that
>>woman in "Tale of Two Cities" that knitted a scarf with the names of all
>>the aristocrats slated for the guillotine in it? Madame LaFarge! That's her
>>name. That's the ticket.
>
>the above is an example of what old socialists called "maximalism." How 
>often has maximalism worked?
>
>(NB: I'm not saying that minimalism works either. Some old Russian guy came 
>to  kind of a "golden mean" between the two, referring to "transitional 
>programs," while others talk about "non-reformist reforms.")
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

No it is not "maximalism". It is called a "joke".

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: Marriage Penalty- Child Tax Credit Bill Passes- Where's Max to Analyze?

[Andrew Hagen]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:20:44 -0500, Nathan Newman wrote:
>As a number of conservatives have noted, we are reaching the point where a
>majority of families will be paying no income taxes at all.   This is
>actually quite positive, since any appeals to cut all taxes "X percent" will
>have no even propaganda appeal to such families, since X% of zero is still
>zero.

I have to respectfully disagree with Nathan on one point. In my view,
there is a distinct danger in the prospect of a majority of American
families not paying income taxes. Although I'd be hard pressed to be
more specific, I think it's conceivable that those Americans who do not
pay income taxes will be increasingly considered as having an
insignificant stake in the affairs of the federal government, and the
federal government an insignificant stake in them.

On the whole, the marriage tax reduction is a good thing. It will
encourage a lot of couples to get married and stay married. The result
will have a positive effect on social coherence, a quality today in
rare quantity, and eventually on public spirit. The other marital
reform that many neocons want, however, is the end of no-fault divorce.
This would again trap numerous women in abusive relationships. That
might help social coherence, but at inestimable cost. 

Just as there ought be little cost in forming a social association to
be anticipated, so ought there be little cost in dissolving
associations to be afeard.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

maximalism

[Jim Devine]

was: Re: [PEN-L:9817] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation 
Magazine  contributor

Louis wrote:
>I am for radical organizing in the streets but advocate that all Senators
>be thrown in jail for crimes against humanity. All of 'em. Who was that
>woman in "Tale of Two Cities" that knitted a scarf with the names of all
>the aristocrats slated for the guillotine in it? Madame LaFarge! That's her
>name. That's the ticket.

the above is an example of what old socialists called "maximalism." How 
often has maximalism worked?

(NB: I'm not saying that minimalism works either. Some old Russian guy came 
to  kind of a "golden mean" between the two, referring to "transitional 
programs," while others talk about "non-reformist reforms.")

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

"History of Labor in the United States"

[Andrew Hagen]

Speaking of remainder tables, I recently picked up a 4 volume set called "History of 
Labor in the United States." 
A number of scholars seemed took part in writing sections of it. 

Volume 1  1918, 1946. "The 'first recorded [American] labour strike,' says Mrs. Van 
Rensselaer (History of the 
City of New York, II, 219), occurred in 1677, when 'the licensed cartmen . . . 
combined to refuse full 
compliance when ordered to remove the dirt from the streets for three pence a load.' A 
later strike, that of the 
New York bakers in 1741, is usually referred to, on the authority of the United States 
Commissioner of Labor, as 
the first American strike. (citation)" p. 25

Volume 2. title pages ripped out

Volume 3. 1935

Volume 4. 1935

Macmillan published them. Lots of good stuff in them. The volumes seem like a valuable 
reference. Does 
anyone know if any scholar has begun to update it? 

Quotation from volume 4: "The American Federation of Labor as a 'government' is 
constructed like the 
Confederation of the United States prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 
The rights granted to the 
Federation by the international trade unions bestow no authority over strikes, but 
make it the most exalted 
tribune in the American labor world--a power, and an effective one--in nothing so much 
as in the molding of labor 
opinion. However, the denial to the Federation officers of the power to issue commands 
to the affiliated 
organizations has in practice made for strength. The officers and leaders of the 
Federation, knowing that they 
could not command, set themselves to developing a unified labor will and purpose by 
cultivating the art of 
persuasion. Where a bare order would breed resentment and backbiting, an appeal which 
is re-enforced by a 
carefully nurtured universal labor sentiment, might bring about common consent. This 
sort of government has 
not made hte American Federation of Labor the most harmonious family of international 
trade unions--the many 
jurisdictional disputes (citation) amply attest to that--but it has imposed upon a 
labor group as devoid of class 
consciousness as is the American, perhaps the maximum obtainable willingness to stay 
corralled and on 
important occasions to pull in harness." 

Maybe from our vantage point things look different. Maybe we'd say that the attiudes 
of American workers were 
in a dialectical relationship with the structure of the labor unions that represented 
many of them. Or something 
else.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Louis Proyect]

>No, Goldman Sachs pays much better, with much better job security, and more
>respect for their employees.

How do you know this? Aren't you aware of the racism of outfits like
Goldman-Sachs? Furthermore, it is silly to compare the treatment of staff
at ACORN with Goldman-Sach's downsizing. A typical ACORN employee is a
youngster looking for a way to shake up American society. The people that
got the boot at Goldman-Sachs were in their forties and had assumed that
the job was theirs until retirement. If you want to find out more about
what scumbags companies like Goldman-Sachs and Intel are, read "White
Collar Sweatshop: The Deterioriation of Work and Its Rewards in Corporate
America" by Jill Andresky Fraser. Henwood interviewed her last night. She
wasn't talking about people working at ACORN, as far as I know.



Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Nathan Newman]

- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>Although layoffs and bad employment practices better not disqualify anyone
>as a progressive, since Nader, ACORN, and every labor union I know has
>shitty internal labor practices.  The boss is the boss, no matter what
their
>external politics.   You'd probably do better citing the economic harm of
>Goldman Sachs financial dealings to really heighten the contradictions.

-Are you really comparing ACORN and Goldman-Sachs? Really really?

No, Goldman Sachs pays much better, with much better job security, and more
respect for their employees.

As I said, if you want to make running Goldman Sachs seem like a
disqualification, don't cite how they treat their own highly paid employees,
cite what they do to others.

-- Nathan Newman

Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Charles Brown]

On the ancient and long history of private property of different types especially in 
European history, see Engels' _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the 
State_.  

Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of 
production. So, it is the numero uno effective principle of bourgeois law and 
jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of productive relations.  

The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is: Abolition of 
private property. 

CB

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 11:38AM >>>

Intellectual property is old, too: Patents are in the constitution, and were 
known (I am sure) for centuries before that. Property is a "fiction," but it 
has a social objectivity that makes it quite real. --jks

>
>Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
>property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
>personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
>legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many
>centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes
>precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court
>upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum. Lends a new meaning to mock
>trial. See this map of the world? I drew this map and it is mine. The
>world is a copy of my map, so I own the world! Nyah, ah, ah! Ain't these
>post-modern times great?
>
>Kinda makes you want to hang around for the denouement.
>
>Tom Walker
>(604) 947-2213
>

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com 

Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property.

[Andrew Hagen]

>The court held that
>regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found
>them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and
>seedlings or pay royalties. 

I'm not familiar with Canadian patent law, but in general those bodies
of law that, grouped together, we call "intellectual property" have a
germane characteristic. When one violates a patent or copyright or
other intellectual property right, (American and other) courts will
find the violater to be strictly liable. "Strict liability" is
liability without regard to fault. Thus, if I brilliantly conceive an
invention (widgets), manufacture it, sell it, and only later discover
that someone else previously invented and patented widgets, I'm
violating the patent even though I did nothing wrong. A court could
order me to stop production of widgets and (probably) to destroy my
inventory. Even if the violater has good intentions, it doesn't matter.
Strict liability is harsh.

This part of intellectual property law is challengeable, I believe, on
the grounds that a person's conduct should be considered when judging
his liability. This would be a theoretical or academic challenge, and
would take many years to establish as the kind of law a court would
recognize. A popular movement against intellectual property is already
underway, led by GNU and other groups. The "fair use" exception to
copyright allows parodies, etc, of copyrighted work. Fair use has
broadened over the last few decades. Maybe patents will eventually have
a "fair use" exception, too.

Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Louis Proyect]

>Although layoffs and bad employment practices better not disqualify anyone
>as a progressive, since Nader, ACORN, and every labor union I know has
>shitty internal labor practices.  The boss is the boss, no matter what their
>external politics.   You'd probably do better citing the economic harm of
>Goldman Sachs financial dealings to really heighten the contradictions.

Are you really comparing ACORN and Goldman-Sachs? Really really?

>
>Corzine is hardly the ideal representative of the working class in our
>bastions of power, but he is there advocating "health care as a right" and
>fighting for a range of other progressive issues.  Since I tend to think the
>working class is not stupid and will notice his corporate background.

Most people vote with their feet by staying home.

>Sure we need more. As Jim Devine notes, depending on the kindness of the
>eccentric wealthy is not a longterm strategy.  But that's what radical
>organizing in the streets and in the workplace is for and why big globs of
>soft union money is a wonderful thing in politics.

I am for radical organizing in the streets but advocate that all Senators
be thrown in jail for crimes against humanity. All of 'em. Who was that
woman in "Tale of Two Cities" that knitted a scarf with the names of all
the aristocrats slated for the guillotine in it? Madame LaFarge! That's her
name. That's the ticket.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Ian Murray]

What's progressive about a man, who along with 
others in his firm and a handful of other arbtitraging firms "nuked" the Asian 
financial system, putting millions into dire straits.
 
Ian
 
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Nathan Newman 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:12 
AM
  Subject: [PEN-L:9808] Re: Re: Jon 
  Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor
  
  Why weird?  In a system dominated by outside 
  corporate money, self-financed progressives are the only ones who don't need 
  to compromise with corporate interests in order to fund their campaigns and 
  get elected.  
   
  -- Nathan Newman
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Michael Perelman 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:02 
AM
Subject: [PEN-L:9807] Re: Jon Corzine: 
Nation Magazine contributor
Wierd, but the richest Dems in the Senate are among the most 
progressive, within the low standards of that body. 
Louis Proyect wrote: 
[Back in 1988 I was working for Goldman-Sachs. 
  Robert Rubin was the vice chairman and Jon Corzine was a senior 
  partner. Shortly after receiving a zero percent raise, I got a job as 
  an independent consultant. Zero percent raises were the messages 
  delivered to highly skilled programmers and other professionals over 
  40 that they were no longer needed. Goldman-Sachs openly stated that 
  they would be replacing us with RCG's, or recent college graduates. 
  Since I was something of a mercenary to start with, leaving Goldman 
  was no big deal. But for the 20 to 30 senior programmers and managers 
  who did not get the message, reality smacked them in the face a year 
  later when they came to work one morning and discovered that their 
  "Profs" email account--the same kind Oliver North used to use when 
  organizing the contras--was disabled. They were escorted downstairs by 
  security guards and driven home in town cars usually used for late 
  night transportation home when they had worked unpaid overtime. Now 
  this piece of shit Jon Corzine, who spent 60 million dollars to get 
  elected in New Jersey, has the gall to tell the rancid Nation Magazine 
  that he is too refined and liberal for the Democratic Leadership 
  Council. Give me a break. I suppose the only solace one can take from 
  this is that winds are beginning to blow from the left.] 
  NATION MAGAZINE COMMENT | April 16, 2001 
  A Time To Be Bold 
  by JON CORZINE 
  In recent months, as a newly elected senator, I have had to decide 
  whether to join the Democratic Leadership Council. I have chosen not 
  to because while I shared its founding purpose, which was to frame a 
  successful response to President Reagan's efforts to portray Democrats 
  as the party of "tax and spend," social engineering and failed 
  personal responsibility, I believe that purpose has been largely 
  accomplished. 
  Today, I believe that it is vital for Democrats to stand up for a 
  sharply defined progressive agenda--one that is committed to fighting 
  for practical and progressive policies for working families and 
  America's middle class--even when that means challenging powerful 
  interests and the status quo. I am absolutely convinced that, standing 
  on the foundation of fiscal stability that Democrats have built and to 
  which the DLC contributed, we now have to fight for our convictions. 
  If we begin to negotiate from the middle, the end result inevitably 
  takes us to the right of where I believe our nation should be. 
  Full article: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010416&s=corzine 

  Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
-- 
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University 
Chico, CA 95929 
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
  

Re: Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Jim Devine]

At 08:25 AM 3/30/01 -0800, you wrote:
>Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
>property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
>personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
>legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many
>centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes
>precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court
>upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum.

paging Phillip K. Dick!

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Nathan Newman]

- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>But since one of the main
>issues facing working people over the past 20 years has been downsizing, it
>seems rather hypocritical for somebody associated with a firm that threw
>out its own loyal employees and brokered deals that downsized millions of
>other workers, mostly less fortunate than computer programmers, to put
>himself forward as some kind of "progressive".

I didn't say there wasn't a political contradiction between what people do
to get money in order to run as self-financed progressives; I just said its
not surprising that it is common.

Although layoffs and bad employment practices better not disqualify anyone
as a progressive, since Nader, ACORN, and every labor union I know has
shitty internal labor practices.  The boss is the boss, no matter what their
external politics.   You'd probably do better citing the economic harm of
Goldman Sachs financial dealings to really heighten the contradictions.

Corzine is hardly the ideal representative of the working class in our
bastions of power, but he is there advocating "health care as a right" and
fighting for a range of other progressive issues.  Since I tend to think the
working class is not stupid and will notice his corporate background.So they
will not be lulled into false consciousness or whatever spiritual hole
voting Democratic apparently sinks one, but will just take him and his
support of issues that benefit them for what it's worth.  I see Corzine
being there in the Senate as much better than the alternative and, as this
article states, a counterbalance within the Senate Dems to the DLC.

Sure we need more. As Jim Devine notes, depending on the kindness of the
eccentric wealthy is not a longterm strategy.  But that's what radical
organizing in the streets and in the workplace is for and why big globs of
soft union money is a wonderful thing in politics.

-- Nathan Newman

Re: Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Justin Schwartz]

Intellectual property is old, too: Patents are in the constitution, and were 
known (I am sure) for centuries before that. Property is a "fiction," but it 
has a social objectivity that makes it quite real. --jks

>
>Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
>property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
>personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
>legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many
>centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes
>precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court
>upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum. Lends a new meaning to mock
>trial. See this map of the world? I drew this map and it is mine. The
>world is a copy of my map, so I own the world! Nyah, ah, ah! Ain't these
>post-modern times great?
>
>Kinda makes you want to hang around for the denouement.
>
>Tom Walker
>(604) 947-2213
>

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property

[Timework Web]

Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many
centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes
precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court
upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum. Lends a new meaning to mock
trial. See this map of the world? I drew this map and it is mine. The
world is a copy of my map, so I own the world! Nyah, ah, ah! Ain't these
post-modern times great?

Kinda makes you want to hang around for the denouement.

Tom Walker
(604) 947-2213

Re: Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Jim Devine]

Michael Perelman wrote:
>>Wierd, but the richest Dems in the Senate are among the most progressive, 
>>within the low standards of that body.

Nathan wrote:
>Why weird?  In a system dominated by outside corporate money, 
>self-financed progressives are the only ones who don't need to compromise 
>with corporate interests in order to fund their campaigns and get elected.

Yes, the independently wealthy have the kind of situation that allows them 
to consider -- and even act on -- the perceived long-term interest of their 
class as a whole, whereas the vast majority of the rest are dominated by 
particularistic and short-term interests (though all will agree on the 
basics, i.e., the protection of capitalist property). In some cases, the 
independently wealthy -- including FDR, no? -- are open to social 
democratic-type ideas. Of course, the limitations of relying on the 
benevolence of these folks are manifest.

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

Re: Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Louis Proyect]

Why weird?  In a system dominated by outside corporate money, self-financed
progressives are the only ones who don't need to compromise with corporate
interests in order to fund their campaigns and get elected.  
  
-- Nathan Newman

I think the problem is in the term "progressive", which is what I was
driving at in my original post. Many years ago this had some kind of
connotation with the New Deal and before that the Progressive Party. These
traditions are obviously those that guide the editorial thinking of the
Nation Magazine, at least in a formal sense. But since one of the main
issues facing working people over the past 20 years has been downsizing, it
seems rather hypocritical for somebody associated with a firm that threw
out its own loyal employees and brokered deals that downsized millions of
other workers, mostly less fortunate than computer programmers, to put
himself forward as some kind of "progressive".

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Economic Notes

[Charles Brown]

ECONOMIC NOTES

NEWS AND ANALYSIS FROM THE LABOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

http://www.LaborResearch.org 

March 29, 2001

UNION TRENDS
>>Number of Major Strikes Doubled in 2000 (Mar. 29, 2001)
Rebounding from a record low in 1999, the number of strikes involving more
than a 1,000 workers doubled last year, according to the U.S. Department
of Labor. In its annual strike activity report, the DOL recorded 39 work
stoppages last year involving at least 1,000 workers, compared with only
17 in 1999. 

http://www.laborresearch.org/dis.shtml?strike00.txt 

WAGE TRENDS
>>Real Wages on the Downswing Again (March 23, 2001) 
One thing the lords of the U.S. economy hate to see is workers getting
bigger paychecks. Because higher wages cut into corporate profits. That's
a major reason why Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan pushed up
interest rates last year to slow the economy and loosen the tight labor
market. Greenspan wanted to make sure that the people who produce the
nation's wealth didn't get the idea that the economic boom should benefit
them too. And as recent wage data from the Labor Department show, workers
are getting what Greenspan orderedóa kick in the face.

http://www.laborresearch.org/dis.shtml?real_wage.txt 

COURTING THE LABOR VOTE
>>Democratic Candidates for New York City Mayor Jockey for Working Families
Party's Support (March 20, 2001) 
What are you going to do for the millions of New York City residents
who've been left behind during the city's lopsided boom? That was among
the questions more than 1,000 supporters of the Working Families Party
(WFP) put before the four Democratic mayoral candidates at a March 15
forum in New York City. 

http://www.laborresearch.org/dis.shtml?wfp.txt 


Copyright © 2001, Labor Research Association
*

Visit the LRA Consulting Web site at  http://www.lraconsulting.com 
or call (212) 714-1677 to find out more about LRA's services.


IF YOUR UNION OR ORGANIZATION HAS ANY NEWS OR INFORMATION YOU WOULD 
LIKE ECONOMIC NOTES TO COVER, LET US KNOW:

http://www.laborresearch.org/contactlra.html 

Re: Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Nathan Newman]

Why weird?  In a system dominated by outside 
corporate money, self-financed progressives are the only ones who don't need to 
compromise with corporate interests in order to fund their campaigns and get 
elected.  
 
-- Nathan Newman
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Michael Perelman 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:02 
  AM
  Subject: [PEN-L:9807] Re: Jon Corzine: 
  Nation Magazine contributor
  Wierd, but the richest Dems in the Senate are among the most 
  progressive, within the low standards of that body. 
  Louis Proyect wrote: 
  [Back in 1988 I was working for Goldman-Sachs. 
Robert Rubin was the vice chairman and Jon Corzine was a senior partner. 
Shortly after receiving a zero percent raise, I got a job as an 
independent consultant. Zero percent raises were the messages delivered 
to highly skilled programmers and other professionals over 40 that they 
were no longer needed. Goldman-Sachs openly stated that they would be 
replacing us with RCG's, or recent college graduates. Since I was 
something of a mercenary to start with, leaving Goldman was no big deal. 
But for the 20 to 30 senior programmers and managers who did not get the 
message, reality smacked them in the face a year later when they came to 
work one morning and discovered that their "Profs" email account--the 
same kind Oliver North used to use when organizing the contras--was 
disabled. They were escorted downstairs by security guards and driven 
home in town cars usually used for late night transportation home when 
they had worked unpaid overtime. Now this piece of shit Jon Corzine, who 
spent 60 million dollars to get elected in New Jersey, has the gall to 
tell the rancid Nation Magazine that he is too refined and liberal for 
the Democratic Leadership Council. Give me a break. I suppose the only 
solace one can take from this is that winds are beginning to blow from 
the left.] 
NATION MAGAZINE COMMENT | April 16, 2001 
A Time To Be Bold 
by JON CORZINE 
In recent months, as a newly elected senator, I have had to decide 
whether to join the Democratic Leadership Council. I have chosen not to 
because while I shared its founding purpose, which was to frame a 
successful response to President Reagan's efforts to portray Democrats 
as the party of "tax and spend," social engineering and failed personal 
responsibility, I believe that purpose has been largely accomplished. 
Today, I believe that it is vital for Democrats to stand up for a sharply 
defined progressive agenda--one that is committed to fighting for 
practical and progressive policies for working families and America's 
middle class--even when that means challenging powerful interests and 
the status quo. I am absolutely convinced that, standing on the 
foundation of fiscal stability that Democrats have built and to which 
the DLC contributed, we now have to fight for our convictions. If we 
begin to negotiate from the middle, the end result inevitably takes us 
to the right of where I believe our nation should be. 
Full article: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010416&s=corzine 

Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
  -- 
  Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University 
  Chico, CA 95929 
  Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]   

Re: Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Michael Perelman]

Wierd, but the richest Dems in the Senate are among the most progressive,
within the low standards of that body.
Louis Proyect wrote:
[Back in 1988 I was working for Goldman-Sachs. Robert
Rubin was the vice
chairman and Jon Corzine was a senior partner. Shortly after receiving
a
zero percent raise, I got a job as an independent consultant. Zero
percent
raises were the messages delivered to highly skilled programmers and
other
professionals over 40 that they were no longer needed. Goldman-Sachs
openly
stated that they would be replacing us with RCG's, or recent college
graduates. Since I was something of a mercenary to start with, leaving
Goldman was no big deal. But for the 20 to 30 senior programmers and
managers who did not get the message, reality smacked them in the face
a
year later when they came to work one morning and discovered that their
"Profs" email account--the same kind Oliver North used to use when
organizing the contras--was disabled. They were escorted downstairs
by
security guards and driven home in town cars usually used for late
night
transportation home when they had worked unpaid overtime. Now this
piece of
shit Jon Corzine, who spent 60 million dollars to get elected in New
Jersey, has the gall to tell the rancid Nation Magazine that he is
too
refined and liberal for the Democratic Leadership Council. Give me
a break.
I suppose the only solace one can take from this is that winds are
beginning to blow from the left.]
NATION MAGAZINE
COMMENT | April 16, 2001
A Time To Be Bold
by JON CORZINE
In recent months, as a newly elected senator, I have had to decide whether
to join the Democratic Leadership Council. I have chosen not to because
while I shared its founding purpose, which was to frame a successful
response to President Reagan's efforts to portray Democrats as the
party of
"tax and spend," social engineering and failed personal responsibility,
I
believe that purpose has been largely accomplished.
Today, I believe that it is vital for Democrats to stand up for a sharply
defined progressive agenda--one that is committed to fighting for practical
and progressive policies for working families and America's middle
class--even when that means challenging powerful interests and the
status
quo. I am absolutely convinced that, standing on the foundation of
fiscal
stability that Democrats have built and to which the DLC contributed,
we
now have to fight for our convictions. If we begin to negotiate from
the
middle, the end result inevitably takes us to the right of where I
believe
our nation should be.
Full article: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010416&s=corzine
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property.

[Michael Perelman]

Charles, it is worse than that.  He has been breeding and collecting his own
seeds for decades, developing his own distinctive strains.   He sued Monsanto
for contaminating his crops with the pollen.

Charles Brown wrote:

> Law as aggressive protector of private property.
>
> Thanks to Les S. for this:
>
>  From slashhdot.org: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing
> genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and
> owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds blew onto his farm from
> passing seed trucks and from neighboring farms. The court held that
> regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found
> them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and
> seedlings or pay royalties. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is
> carrying the article and the Federal Court of Canada has the full text of
> the ruling in PDF form."
>
> full story here:
>
> http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/03/29/monsanto_schmeiser
> 010329

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Law as aggressive protector of private property.

[Charles Brown]

Law as aggressive protector of private property.



Thanks to Les S. for this:

 From slashhdot.org: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing
genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and
owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds blew onto his farm from
passing seed trucks and from neighboring farms. The court held that
regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found
them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and
seedlings or pay royalties. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is
carrying the article and the Federal Court of Canada has the full text of
the ruling in PDF form."

full story here:

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/03/29/monsanto_schmeiser 
010329

RE: Re: RE: Re: A Fair Deal?

[Brown, Martin (NCI)]

Right.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:9801] Re: RE: Re: A Fair Deal?


Martin wrote: >I get some of this from a book I picked up on the remainder
table called
Ticky Dick and the Pink Lady.  It is about the 1948 Nixon Douglas campaign.
The book
could have used an edit,a lot of repetitive material.  But also a lot of
fascinating
information.  A lot of the scum that played major roles in the Nixon white
house and the
Repub Party in general got started in this campaign.  I forget the author
... <

it's Greg Mitchell



-
This message was sent using Panda Mail.  Check your regular email account
away from home
free!  http://bstar.net/panda/

RE: Re: RE: Re: A Fair Deal?

[Brown, Martin (NCI)]

Right.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:9801] Re: RE: Re: A Fair Deal?


Martin wrote: >I get some of this from a book I picked up on the remainder
table called
Ticky Dick and the Pink Lady.  It is about the 1948 Nixon Douglas campaign.
The book
could have used an edit,a lot of repetitive material.  But also a lot of
fascinating
information.  A lot of the scum that played major roles in the Nixon white
house and the
Repub Party in general got started in this campaign.  I forget the author
... <

it's Greg Mitchell



-
This message was sent using Panda Mail.  Check your regular email account
away from home
free!  http://bstar.net/panda/

Re: RE: Re: Re: humor

[Louis Proyect]

>I think it is more general than that.  I have been in situations, some
>dating back 20 years, some a lot more recent, where members of priveleged
>groups (rich whites, male physicians, etc.) Told crude anti-black,
>anti-semetic, anti-women jokes and if you didn't "go along" by laughing, the
>response was "you have no sense of humor."  

Actually, the character who inspired this thread--one Joe Queenan--is a
frequent guest on the Don Imus show, which along with the Howard Stern
show, encapsulates what's wrong with mainstream humor. Unlike the Marx
Brothers, Mark Twain or Jonathan Swift, humor on these shows targets the
weak, the underprivileged and the discriminated against. I once heard
Queenan riffing on the Imus show about the tackiness and bad food at Red
Lobster restaurants, which was in line with a book he was promoting titled
"Red Lobster, White Trash, and the Blue Lagoon: Joe Queenan's America."
It's really a snobbish dig at ordinary working people and how they live.
The irony is that Don Imus started out as a blue collar worker and ended up
as a multimillionaire playing off his blue collar mystique. It is all
bullshit, of course. Imus has the reputation of being a "bad boy" who
insults his ruling class guests, but in actuality he is a modern day court
jester. The social role of a court jester was to mock the King without
getting to close to the social relations that give him his real power. You
can also see contempt for working people in shows like SNL or Mad TV, which
offer up skits about feckless messengers, waiters, or truck drivers when
they are not mocking black people or the retarded. The funny thing, of
course, is that these shows are uniformly unfunny. If I was a writer for
one of these shows, I'd be developing material about rich lawyers,
investment bankers or pretentious show business figures, not the wretched
of the earth. 



Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: RE: Re: A Fair Deal?

[jdevine]

Martin wrote: >I get some of this from a book I picked up on the remainder table called
Ticky Dick and the Pink Lady.  It is about the 1948 Nixon Douglas campaign.  The book
could have used an edit,a lot of repetitive material.  But also a lot of fascinating
information.  A lot of the scum that played major roles in the Nixon white house and 
the
Repub Party in general got started in this campaign.  I forget the author ... <

it's Greg Mitchell



-
This message was sent using Panda Mail.  Check your regular email account away from 
home
free!  http://bstar.net/panda/

RE: Re: A Fair Deal?

[Brown, Martin (NCI)]

One of the main writers for Marx Brothers films was Murray Ryskind, a
notable Hollywood right-winger.  Harpo was a lot more left than Groucho.
Also, I guess it is well known that the Brothers introduced a lot a ad
libbing on top of the scripts they were given. By the way, I get some of
this from a book I picked up on the remainder table called Ticky Dick and
the Pink Lady.  It is about the 1948 Nixon Douglas campaign.  The book could
have used an edit,a lot of repetitive material.  But also a lot of
fascinating information.  A lot of the scum that played major roles in the
Nixon white house and the Repub Party in general got started in this
campaign.  I forget the author but anyone wants to know I can look it up at
home.

-Original Message-
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:9793] Re: A Fair Deal?


>Lefties _are_ humor impaired. However, we have our moments. The Marx 
>Brothers, e.g., may not have been "Marxists," but they were 
>leftists. "You don't want to be wage slaves do you?" Says Groucho to 
>the bellhops who want to paid. "What makes you a wage slave? Wages!" 
>Marx is actually a very funny writer in a bitter sort of way.--jks

Mark Twain was a leftist.  Charles Dickens was a leftist.  Oscar 
Wilde was a leftist.  Charles Chaplin was a leftist.  John Heartfield 
was a leftist.  And so on.  And so forth.

No shortage, I say.  All of them great artists to boot.

Yoshie

RE: Re: Re: humor

[Brown, Martin (NCI)]

I think it is more general than that.  I have been in situations, some
dating back 20 years, some a lot more recent, where members of priveleged
groups (rich whites, male physicians, etc.) Told crude anti-black,
anti-semetic, anti-women jokes and if you didn't "go along" by laughing, the
response was "you have no sense of humor."  The more recent experienced
involved a President Elect of the AMA and a noted Radiologist telling crude
anti-women jokes in public meetings.  In the former case I pointedly
objected to the Executive Director of the American College of Radiology (a
women) and I think they quietly put out the word that these kind of jokes
didn't look so good at meeting, especially those related to breast cancer
screening.

There are still plenty of enclaves that are exclusively or almost
exclusively privileged, white and male.  When they think you are "one of
them" and not on thier guard, you hear some pretty amazing things.

-Original Message-
From: Carrol Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:9792] Re: Re: humor




Carrol Cox wrote:
> 
> If you trace this legend back I suspect you will find its origins in the
> failure of British feminists to acknowledge how funny forced feeding
> was. Many feminists have also been lamentably incapable of seeing how
> funny wife beating is.

An offlist communication suggests that I was a bit too elliptic here,
and some expansion seems worthwhile.


I meant the legend of left humorlessness. I was partly being sarcastic
and partly implying a historical hypothesis: that the charge of lacking
humor has always been the first line of defense against "uppity women,"
and that its use against women predates its use against the left in
general. And while I can't come up with anexample right now, I'm pretty
sure that there has been over the centuries up to & including the
present a good deal of humor based on wife-beating.

This charge is a variant, I believe, of the charge of political
correctness -- which *began* as a self=criticism within some women's
groups, taking off from references to  left debates over correct line,
and then was commandeered by the right. (There are several suggested
lineages other than this. In the late '60s there were many jokes within
the left abour "correct lineism," as well as many earnest arguments as
to correcg line.)

I think the charge has a material base -- it is amazingly easy to defend
*what is* without getting emphatic. It is amazingly difficult to attack
*what is* without appearing -- well, too emphatic. Samuel Johnson,
commenting on female preachers, compared them to a dog walking on its
hind legs: they didn't do it very well but it was amazing that they did
it at all. It's easier to make jokes about how bad Joe Hill's metrics
are than it would have been for his friends to joke about his being
shot. I do remember (long before my own radicalization) people making
jokes about the  Rosenberg executions. Probably their comrades did not
find those jokes funny.

Carrol

in the news

[jdevine]

from the news summary of SLATE, Microsoft's on-line magazine:> The [Wall Street 
JOURNAL]
reports that Europe's hoof-and-mouth and mad-cow troubles have invigorated America's
horsemeat market.  Europeans have apparently always had a taste for filly mignon, most 
of
which comes from the U.S., and now horsemeat prices are booming. The Journal reports on
one horse auction where animals were bought for slaughter at prices sometimes 50% 
higher
than just six months ago. And where the bidding is so fierce that even horses intended 
for
sale as working animals or pets for children went to the abattoir instead. 

>Ok, so President Bush isn't supporting the Kyoto protocols, nor limits on carbon 
>dioxide
emissions, or negotiating with North Korea. He is, however, reports the WSJ, planning 
to
launch an extended campaign to "revitalize baseball as the national pastime." The 
effort
will include stops at major league and minor league and Little League games and a 
series
of T-ball contests at the White House involving eight year olds and Cabinet members. <



-
This message was sent using Panda Mail.  Check your regular email account away from 
home
free!  http://bstar.net/panda/

Jon Corzine: Nation Magazine contributor

[Louis Proyect]

[Back in 1988 I was working for Goldman-Sachs. Robert Rubin was the vice
chairman and Jon Corzine was a senior partner. Shortly after receiving a
zero percent raise, I got a job as an independent consultant. Zero percent
raises were the messages delivered to highly skilled programmers and other
professionals over 40 that they were no longer needed. Goldman-Sachs openly
stated that they would be replacing us with RCG's, or recent college
graduates. Since I was something of a mercenary to start with, leaving
Goldman was no big deal. But for the 20 to 30 senior programmers and
managers who did not get the message, reality smacked them in the face a
year later when they came to work one morning and discovered that their
"Profs" email account--the same kind Oliver North used to use when
organizing the contras--was disabled. They were escorted downstairs by
security guards and driven home in town cars usually used for late night
transportation home when they had worked unpaid overtime. Now this piece of
shit Jon Corzine, who spent 60 million dollars to get elected in New
Jersey, has the gall to tell the rancid Nation Magazine that he is too
refined and liberal for the Democratic Leadership Council. Give me a break.
I suppose the only solace one can take from this is that winds are
beginning to blow from the left.]

NATION MAGAZINE
COMMENT | April 16, 2001 

A Time To Be Bold

by JON CORZINE  

In recent months, as a newly elected senator, I have had to decide whether
to join the Democratic Leadership Council. I have chosen not to because
while I shared its founding purpose, which was to frame a successful
response to President Reagan's efforts to portray Democrats as the party of
"tax and spend," social engineering and failed personal responsibility, I
believe that purpose has been largely accomplished. 

Today, I believe that it is vital for Democrats to stand up for a sharply
defined progressive agenda--one that is committed to fighting for practical
and progressive policies for working families and America's middle
class--even when that means challenging powerful interests and the status
quo. I am absolutely convinced that, standing on the foundation of fiscal
stability that Democrats have built and to which the DLC contributed, we
now have to fight for our convictions. If we begin to negotiate from the
middle, the end result inevitably takes us to the right of where I believe
our nation should be. 

Full article: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010416&s=corzine


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Marriage Penalty- Child Tax Credit Bill Passes- Where's Max to Analyze?

[Nathan Newman]

Well,

The House passed the Marriage Penalty-Child Tax Credit portion of Bush's tax
plan.  However, they made one major modification which was to allow parents
who pay no income taxes to qualify for the child tax credit up to the point
they pay social security taxes.  It also applied some of the marriage
penalty rhetoric to decreasing the burden on poor families who marry and
lose EITC benefits I don't know how this interacts with the overall EITC and
whether it resembles at all some of the proposals Max has made for merging
the EITC into the child tax credit, but it is a significant improvement over
Bush's proposals.

It's actually the one part of the tax plan that, while not ideal, has some
positive aspects.  It will take a large number of families off the tax roles
completely, thereby further weakening future support for "tax cut" politics.
As a number of conservatives have noted, we are reaching the point where a
majority of families will be paying no income taxes at all.   This is
actually quite positive, since any appeals to cut all taxes "X percent" will
have no even propaganda appeal to such families, since X% of zero is still
zero.

Strategically, there is a good case to let this part of the tax plan pass as
the most favorable to promoting progressive politics in the future.  It is
actually better in some ways than the $300 rebate plan, which might help
poorer families more in the short-term, but would not shift the political
terrain against future tax cut politics quite as much.

-- Nathan Newman

March 30, 2001
House Passes 2 More Pieces of Bush's Tax Cut
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
ASHINGTON, March 29 - Forging ahead despite uncertain prospects in the
Senate, the House of Representatives today approved two more elements of
President Bush's tax-cut plan and took the first tentative step toward
eventual repeal of the estate tax.

By a vote of 282 to 144, the House passed a bill that would lower income
taxes for married couples and double the tax credit available to families
with children. The measure is somewhat more favorable than the Mr. Bush's
proposal to low-income families and less beneficial to the wealthy.

The bill, which would give all couples who pay income taxes a break, has
these four parts:

. It would raise the standard deduction, starting next year, to make it
twice that for single people. This year, the standard deduction for couples
is $7,600 and that for single people is $4,500.

. For couples who itemize deductions, the bill would gradually raise the
amount of income covered by the 15 percent tax bracket so that it is twice
that for single people.

. For low-income working couples, the bill would raise the amount of income
on which they would be entitled to the earned-income tax credit.

. It would adjust the alternative minimum tax, a special tax on those with
unusually large deductions, to ensure that married couples would not be
treated less favorably than individuals.

The House's plan would be more generous than Mr. Bush's proposal for
low-income couples and those couples with only one wage earner.

The other part of the bill the House approved would double the tax credit
for families with children to $1,000 a child, from $500; it would also make
$100 of that increase retroactive and applicable to 2001 income taxes.

Workers with one or two children who do not owe enough in income taxes to be
entitled to the full credit would be allowed a rebate up to the amount they
paid in Social Security and Medicare taxes. Currently, only taxpayers with
three or more children are entitled to that refund.

Families with incomes up to $130,000 are now entitled to the child tax
credit, and the bill retains that income limit. Mr. Bush proposed raising it
to $200,000 a family and did not suggest expanding the refund.