RE: the state
Charles writes: >Here's my take on private property. I would define it likes Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ . It is not defined by it being alienable, or saleable as you put it. That is the definition of bourgeois, or capitalist private property- that it is alienable, alienable in the market. In feudalism, some forms of private property were "inalienable" ... The lord's and church's lands were inalienable , as you say, but that does not mean they were not private property in the general sense that Engels uses it in the Origin. Private property means having some enforceable powers and control over the property, regardless of whether you can alienate it from yourself for cash. Of course, market sales were a much smaller part of the feudal mode of production in general, than the bourgeois mode. The control and power the feudal lords and bishops had was, of course, the right to a portion of the products from the land. ...< I see no point of arguing about definitions. My point was that the property rights of the feudal period were qualitatively different from those under capitalism. That's all I really care about in this context. It should be pointed out that almost no significant "private property" is _truly_ private, even under capitalism. Almost all private property ownership had an impact on others (with the exception being consumer goods). For example, an individual's ownership of a significant amount of the means of production makes him or her eligible to grab a piece of the aggregate surplus-value, which comes from social labor. Besides such "pecuniary externalities," the use of so-called private property often has technical externalities (pollution, etc.) Instead of private property, strictly speaking we should use the phrase "private ownership." This fits with Engels' notion that there's a contradiction between socialized production (with societal impacts, externalities) and individualized appropriation (from private ownership rights). JD
oh the contradictions of free trade
[trade protection for democratic deliberation via logrolling and you getprotection ] A Free-Trade Gamble by the U.S. By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 29, 2002; Page E01 For a bunch of people who proudly proclaim themselves free traders, the top policymakers of the Bush administration have been acting peculiarly of late. Early this month, the White House announced President Bush's decision to impose stiff tariffs on imported steel. Then came the Commerce Department's announcement last week of plans to slap duties on Canadian lumber. The moves evoked howls from commentators both at home and abroad that the president was betraying his free-trade principles to protect some of America's most inefficient industries, and prompted counter-moves by trading partners, including a decision by the European Union this week to impose its own tariffs on steel imports. The reaction highlights the dangers of the gamble the administration is taking: A little protectionism may beget a lot more, and the president may lose the moral high ground he needs to prod other countries to open their markets. But it's a gamble that has been carefully calculated. If all goes according to the administration's plan, the moves on steel and lumber will be seen eventually as shrewd compromises with politically powerful interests that helped pave the way for sweeping international deals to lower barriers on a broad range of goods and services. Without demonstrating their willingness to raise steel and lumber tariffs, administration officials contend, the White House wouldn't stand a chance of winning congressional passage of "trade promotion authority," the legislation needed to launch regional and global trade negotiations. (The legislation ensures that when trade deals come to Congress for approval, they won't be subject to killer amendments.) And while trading partners may be screaming bloody murder now, administration officials believe they'll come around because otherwise they risk being excluded from potentially lucrative trade accords with Washington. "The United States starts out with a big piece of leverage -- the biggest, most dynamic market in the world," said Robert B. Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative. Accordingly, Zoellick dismissed complaints that Bush has undermined his authority to lead the world toward more open trade, asserting that his hand has grown even stronger in inducing other countries to negotiate pacts such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the proposed free-trade zone for the Western hemisphere. Nations such as Brazil, a big critic of the steel tariffs,have always known that if the hemisphere-wide talks fail, the United States will cut separate deals with Central America, Chile or other nations, giving them preferential access to the U.S. market; and now, Washington has made such pacts a bit more attractive by granting special tariff exemptions on steel from countries with which it has free-trade arrangements, such as Canada and Mexico. "If you want to negotiate with the U.S. to open markets, we'll negotiate," Zoellick said, describing the stance he is taking with foreign capitals. "Some countries may use [the U.S. tariffs on steel] as an excuse for inaction on trade, but they would have found other excuses, and ultimately they will only hurt themselves if they stay on the sidelines. . . . There's no shortage of potential free-trade partners knocking on America's door." That view, critics retort, overlooks the difficulties that free-trade advocates around the world now face in making their case in light of Bush's decisions. And it ignores the outrage abroad over what many consider to be the president's real motive -- to boost Republican electoral fortunes in steel states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Prospects of a serious trade war, while remote, have risen at least to some extent. The European Union has let it be known that it is drawing up a list of U.S. goods for possible retaliatory tariffs, with the items deliberately chosen to inflict maximum political pain on the White House (Harley-Davidson motorcycles, for example, which are manufactured in the battleground state of Wisconsin). Many trade experts doubt that Brussels will strike back at Washington anytime soon, since doing so would be highly questionable under World Trade Organization rules. But the Europeans are definitely moving ahead with tariffs on steel, which they say is necessary to prevent their markets from being swamped with the steel that is now being blocked from the United States. Other countries, including Canada, appear likely to follow suit. "In steel, it's looking like the 1930s. Every major market will be closed off in some form or other," said Gary Horlick, a trade lawyer with O'Melveny & Myers. "This is scary." Still, Bush's gamble may start looking smart if Congress approves trade promotion authority (TPA), also known as
RE: Re: Conference announcement
there is no symposium. there are only individuals. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > The Lady is Not for Turning: The Margaret Thatcher Symposium > 30 April 2002 to 3 May 2002, Orange, California, United States > > Chapman is sponsoring a four-day symposium on the > premiership of Margaret Thatcher. The Thatcher > Symposium is free and open to the public. Sessions > will be held in the evening from 7 to 9 pm from Tuesday, > April 30, until Friday, May 3, in Bush Conference Center, > Beckman Hall.
Re: Re: FW: Krugman
- Original Message - From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 2:25 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24467] Re: FW: Krugman > Well this has obvious problems. Right wingers could identify themselves as leftists >and then rant on > all the things they hate about the IPE that PK lists. > > Ian === BTW I should mention that a few years ago at lunch with a now deceased UW economics prof., when the homogenization issue came up his stance was 'what's so great about diversity, it's led to too much violence.' Ian
Re: Conference announcement
Nonsesnse. We don't need that kind of conference. Here is where you should go The Lady is Not for Turning: The Margaret Thatcher Symposium 30 April 2002 to 3 May 2002, Orange, California, United States Chapman is sponsoring a four-day symposium on the premiership of Margaret Thatcher. The Thatcher Symposium is free and open to the public. Sessions will be held in the evening from 7 to 9 pm from Tuesday, April 30, until Friday, May 3, in Bush Conference Center, Beckman Hall. Ian Murray wrote: > Second Announcement11th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION > FOR THE ECONOMICS OF PARTICIPATION > 'PARTICIPATION WORLD-WIDE' > > Catholic University of Brussels > (Katholieke Universiteit Brussel - K.U.B.) > Belgium > 4-6 July 2002 > > Conference themes > The bi-annual IAFEP conferences provide an international forum for the presentation >and debate of > current research and scholarship on the economics of participation. The major themes >of the 2002 > conference will be: > Development and combination of forms of workers' participation around the world > Theoretical and empirical studies on the economic and social effects of participation > Workers' participation across borders, in a transnational and global context > Employee participation and EU enlargement > Employee ownership in transition economies > Workers' participation and the social economy in developing countries > Workers' participation, social dialogue and civil society Presentations in the >following areas are > welcome: > Co-determination, works councils, European works councils > Other forms of workers' participation in decision-making > Employee ownership > Self-management, labour-managed firms > Cooperatives > Profit-sharing > Economic and industrial democracy > Social enterprises in welfare services > > Outline > Forms of workers' participation are expanding all over the world, and thus seem to >have a role in > the highly competitive global economy. > In the United States, thousands of companies have promoted forms of employee >share-ownership and > profit-sharing as part of a competitive management policy. In the European Union, >workers' > participation has become a basic element of the European Social Model, with the >promotion of various > participatory forms - such as information and consultation, financial participation, >and workers' > involvement in decision-making - that are developing also in a transnational manner, >as witnessed by > the recent promotion of European Works Councils. Forms of self-management have been >promoted in a > number of countries, especially after having been encouraged in the privatisation >process carried > out by transition economies, in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and >elsewhere. Workers' > participation has also been experienced by enterprises in several countries in Asia >and South > America, and different forms of it are also emerging in many African countries. > The aim of the Conference is to provide some assessment of workers' participation as >a world > phenomenon, and to present new aspects, both theoretical and empirical, of its >economic effects, > economic performance, and new role in a global economy. > Specific emphasis will also be given to the combination of different forms of >workers' participation > and their effectiveness, from both the economic and the social standpoints. > The Conference is also intended to identify how forms of workers' participation can >develop and > evolve within a context of massive capital movements and internationalisation of >economies. > While the first plenary session will be dedicated to workers' participation in the >European Union, > and its prospects in an enlarged EU, the presentation of studies on workers' >participation > experiences in other areas and countries of the world would be most welcome. We >therefore issue a > particular call to academics and practitioners working on countries for which as yet >no significant > research has been done in this area.Call for papers > Submissions are invited from all relevant fields of study, including labour >economics, comparative > economic systems, industrial economics, organisational studies, management studies, >economic > sociology, institutional economics, evolutionary economics, development economics, >and studies of > economies in transition.Abstract submission deadline > Proposals for papers to be presented at the conference should be sent electronically >in the form of > an abstract of up to 300 words. The deadline for receipt of the abstracts is 28 >February 2002. They > should include full details of institutional affiliation and a mailing address. >Final papers plus > extended abstracts should be submitted to the organisers by 15 May 2002. Authors >will then be > notified of the acceptance of their papers as soon as possible. Each paper should be >no more than > 8,000 words in length. The conference organisers will arrange for the reprod
Re: FW: Krugman
Well this has obvious problems. Right wingers could identify themselves as leftists and then rant on all the things they hate about the IPE that PK lists. Ian - Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pen-l (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:48 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24465] FW: Krugman > I received the following from an anonymous friend who works at the NY TIMES > as a columnist. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > > > Jim > > I sometimes have to use short phrases to convey longer concepts. 730 words > is > all I have. > > There's definitely a segment that really hates globalization broadly defined > - > increased trade, increased cultural interchange, movement of people and > capital. > They even have a point, by the way: homogenization has its downside. > > In any case, the only serious hate mail - with threats and insults - that I > get > from the left comes from that segment. The fact that my Times email gets > screened and my Times smail mail gets steamed (honest) is a response to the > hate > mail from the right, of course. >
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Krugman
- Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24463] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Krugman > who? > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > == I think it was Chomsky's buddy Richard Falk, but Keynesian-type Alzheimer's is hitting my neurons today..:-> Ian
FW: Krugman
I received the following from an anonymous friend who works at the NY TIMES as a columnist. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Jim I sometimes have to use short phrases to convey longer concepts. 730 words is all I have. There's definitely a segment that really hates globalization broadly defined - increased trade, increased cultural interchange, movement of people and capital. They even have a point, by the way: homogenization has its downside. In any case, the only serious hate mail - with threats and insults - that I get from the left comes from that segment. The fact that my Times email gets screened and my Times smail mail gets steamed (honest) is a response to the hate mail from the right, of course.
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2002: RELEASED TODAY: Reflecting the economic downturn that began early in 2001, the proportion of families containing an unemployed member rose by nearly a percentage point to 6.6 percent between 2000 and 2001, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Of the nation's 72 million families, the share with at least one employed member fell by 0.3 percentage point to 82.9 percent in 2001. These data on employment, unemployment, and family relationships are collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households. Families include married-couple families, as well as families maintained by a man or a woman with no spouse present. Mass layoff events totaled 1,383 in February, resulting in job losses for 138,984 workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of mass layoff events declined from January, when 2,146 events resulted in 263,821 initial claimants for unemployment insurance -- the highest amount of January claimants since the series began in April 1995 (Daily Labor Report, page D-15). New claims for unemployment insurance benefits filed during the week ending March 23 totaled 394,000, an increase of 18,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 376,000, according to the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor. The less volatile, more closely watched 4-week moving average increased 3,250 to 383,500 for the period ended March 23, from the previous week's revised average of 380,250, ETA said. The proportion of the workforce receiving unemployment benefits was 2.7 percent, unchanged from the previous week's unrevised figure for the week ending March 16 (Daily Labor Report, page D-12; The New York Times, page C11). The Help-Wanted Advertising index increased four points to 51 in February, but remains down from a year ago, according to the Conference Board. In the last 3 months, help-wanted advertising increased in seven out of nine U.S. regions. The largest increase, 46.9 percent, occurred in the East North Central region, which includes newspapers in Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit. In the Mountain region of Denver, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City, the rate increased 33.9 percent (Daily Labor Report, page A-3). Consumers spent heavily in February, as their incomes increased solidly -- more signs that the U.S. economy is gaining strength after a brief recession. The Commerce Department reports that spending by consumers, which accounts for two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States, increased 0.6 percent last month after jumping 0.5 percent in January. At the same time, Americans' incomes, which include wages, interest, and government benefits, also increased by 0.6 percent, the largest expansion since October 2000. Incomes rose 0.5 percent in January. The data reinforces economists' view that the recession, which began last March, has ended and probably will turn out to be the country's mildest downturn ever (Leigh Strope, Associated Press, http:www.nypost.com/apstories/business/VO702.htm). U.S. consumer spending grew briskly in February as incomes rose at the fastest pace since December 2000, the government said today, as the nascent economic recovery picked up speed. U.S. consumer spending increased 0.6 percent last month to $7.25 billion after a 0.5 percent gain in January. Meanwhile, personal income also grew 0.6 percent in February to total $8.88 billion after a 0.5 percent rise in January. Both figures surpassed the expectations of private analysts (Caren Bohan, Reuters, http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/2960424.htm). For the fourth straight year, prescription drug spending rose more than 17 percent in 2001, driven in large measure by a few heavily advertised, high-priced medications, a nonpartisan study released yesterday found. Sales of prescription medication at retail stores and through mail-order companies totaled $175.2 billion last year, an increase of $27 billion over 2000, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management. The institute is a private, nonprofit research organization led by physicians, insurance executives, and policymakers from both parties (The Washington Post, page A1; The New York Times, page A18; The Wall Street Journal, page A3; Theresa Agovino, The Associated Press, http://www.nypost.com/apstories/business/V0025.htm). The gap in homeownership rates between native-born Americans and immigrants grew in the 1980s and 1990s to 20 percentage points, according to a survey by the Research Institute for Housing America, an independent arm of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America. But the study also found that the longer immigrants stay in the United States, the more likely they are to become homeowners. While 67 percent of native-born households owned their own homes in 2000, 47 percent of all immigrant households were homeowners. That difference
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Krugman
who? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24462] Re: RE: Re: RE: Krugman > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:46 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:24461] RE: Re: RE: Krugman > > > > also, fitting with your initial point, I doubt that PK can > imagine such an > > animal as democratic globalization... > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > === > > As do a lot of people. If I remember right someone just did a > piece on that topic in a recent issue > of Review of International Political Economy. > > Ian >
Re: RE: Re: RE: Krugman
- Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:46 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24461] RE: Re: RE: Krugman > also, fitting with your initial point, I doubt that PK can imagine such an > animal as democratic globalization... > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine === As do a lot of people. If I remember right someone just did a piece on that topic in a recent issue of Review of International Political Economy. Ian
RE: Re: RE: Krugman
also, fitting with your initial point, I doubt that PK can imagine such an animal as democratic globalization... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24459] Re: RE: Krugman > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't think he listens to me, but I'll try. > > > > It's not just a lack of imagination: posing the question as > "globalization > > vs. anti-globalization" -- as opposed to "capitalist > globalization vs. > > democratic globalization" -- biases the answer in favor of > the former. > > > === > > I know that. I was just pointing out the lack of imagination > in creating the binary in the first > place so that the bias of it is tilted. Blast the politics of > vocabularies! :-> > > Ian > > "Consent falls apart in the battle of descriptions." [Kim Scheppele] >
Conference announcement
Second Announcement11th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ECONOMICS OF PARTICIPATION 'PARTICIPATION WORLD-WIDE' Catholic University of Brussels (Katholieke Universiteit Brussel - K.U.B.) Belgium 4-6 July 2002 Conference themes The bi-annual IAFEP conferences provide an international forum for the presentation and debate of current research and scholarship on the economics of participation. The major themes of the 2002 conference will be: Development and combination of forms of workers' participation around the world Theoretical and empirical studies on the economic and social effects of participation Workers' participation across borders, in a transnational and global context Employee participation and EU enlargement Employee ownership in transition economies Workers' participation and the social economy in developing countries Workers' participation, social dialogue and civil society Presentations in the following areas are welcome: Co-determination, works councils, European works councils Other forms of workers' participation in decision-making Employee ownership Self-management, labour-managed firms Cooperatives Profit-sharing Economic and industrial democracy Social enterprises in welfare services Outline Forms of workers' participation are expanding all over the world, and thus seem to have a role in the highly competitive global economy. In the United States, thousands of companies have promoted forms of employee share-ownership and profit-sharing as part of a competitive management policy. In the European Union, workers' participation has become a basic element of the European Social Model, with the promotion of various participatory forms - such as information and consultation, financial participation, and workers' involvement in decision-making - that are developing also in a transnational manner, as witnessed by the recent promotion of European Works Councils. Forms of self-management have been promoted in a number of countries, especially after having been encouraged in the privatisation process carried out by transition economies, in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and elsewhere. Workers' participation has also been experienced by enterprises in several countries in Asia and South America, and different forms of it are also emerging in many African countries. The aim of the Conference is to provide some assessment of workers' participation as a world phenomenon, and to present new aspects, both theoretical and empirical, of its economic effects, economic performance, and new role in a global economy. Specific emphasis will also be given to the combination of different forms of workers' participation and their effectiveness, from both the economic and the social standpoints. The Conference is also intended to identify how forms of workers' participation can develop and evolve within a context of massive capital movements and internationalisation of economies. While the first plenary session will be dedicated to workers' participation in the European Union, and its prospects in an enlarged EU, the presentation of studies on workers' participation experiences in other areas and countries of the world would be most welcome. We therefore issue a particular call to academics and practitioners working on countries for which as yet no significant research has been done in this area.Call for papers Submissions are invited from all relevant fields of study, including labour economics, comparative economic systems, industrial economics, organisational studies, management studies, economic sociology, institutional economics, evolutionary economics, development economics, and studies of economies in transition.Abstract submission deadline Proposals for papers to be presented at the conference should be sent electronically in the form of an abstract of up to 300 words. The deadline for receipt of the abstracts is 28 February 2002. They should include full details of institutional affiliation and a mailing address. Final papers plus extended abstracts should be submitted to the organisers by 15 May 2002. Authors will then be notified of the acceptance of their papers as soon as possible. Each paper should be no more than 8,000 words in length. The conference organisers will arrange for the reproduction and distribution of each paper before the conference. Abstracts should be sent to the following e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] They may also be sent to: Daniel Vaughan-Whitehead, Avenue du Pesage, 127, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium. Papers for the Conference have so far been proposed by: Anne Androuais (University Paris X, CNRS/FORUM Research Centre, France) Jan Erik Askildsen (University of Bergen, Department of Economics, Norway) Will Bartlett (University of Bristol, School for Policy Studies, UK) Joseph R. Blasi (Rutgers University, School of Management and Labor Relations, New Brunswick, USA) Bozidar Cerovic (University of Belgrade, Department o
Re: RE: Krugman
- Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't think he listens to me, but I'll try. > > It's not just a lack of imagination: posing the question as "globalization > vs. anti-globalization" -- as opposed to "capitalist globalization vs. > democratic globalization" -- biases the answer in favor of the former. > === I know that. I was just pointing out the lack of imagination in creating the binary in the first place so that the bias of it is tilted. Blast the politics of vocabularies! :-> Ian "Consent falls apart in the battle of descriptions." [Kim Scheppele]
RE: Krugman
Ian writes: > Jim D., can you please tell PK that 'the anti-globalization left' is a figment of his and other self-anointed pundits pathetic lack of imagination.< I don't think he listens to me, but I'll try. It's not just a lack of imagination: posing the question as "globalization vs. anti-globalization" -- as opposed to "capitalist globalization vs. democratic globalization" -- biases the answer in favor of the former. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
FW: Palestine report 3/29/02
-Original Message- From: Kristen Schurr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:43 AM To: Recipient list suppressed Subject: Palestine report 3/29/02 Bethlehem, Palestine Friday, 29 March 02 Troops are surrounding Bethelem where the International Solidarity Movement of 100 is currently stationed. There is no way in or out. The area and all checkpoints are completely closed. A suicide bomber detonated inside a West Jerusalem supermarket at noon today. The ensuing Israeli attack depended on where the suicide bomber was from. She is from Dehesha refugee camp in Bethlehem. Her video-taped statement was released on Fatah TV around 2pm. Israeli tanks are rolling into Beit Jala, a town connected to Bethlehem. Thirty-five Italians are inside Dehesha refugee camp as observers and human shields. They have been staying at Ibdaa Cultural Center nearby for the past week. The sound of F-16s is in the air, as is an unseasonable hail and wind storm, which is making conditions even more chaotic. The ISM will spend the night as human shields at Beit Jala, or in Ad doha guarding would-be bulldozed homes, or as shields and observers inside Dehesha. Ramallah is under seige. Two buildings inside Arafat's compound have been taken over. There are bodies strewn about the compound. There are 60 internationals inside Ramallah. All power has been cut off, but their hotel runs on a generator so they may be able to get information out. Some internationals are riding inside of ambulances, which are being fired upon. There are 10 dead (eight Palestinians and two international journalists) at Al aqsa in Jerusalem, the scene of now-Prime Minister Sharon's arrogant visit to the muslim holy site which marked the beginning of the second Intifada. Kristen Schurr Bethlehem, Palestine cel: 011 972 56 622017
Kissinger hunted
What is interesting about this NY Times piece, aside from Kissinger's house arrest, is that the NYT now matter-of-factly acknowledges that Kissinger, Nixon, State Dept., CIA, supported coups to overthrow Allende. Thirty years on, "that was then." Meanwhile stand by for the NY Times report on today's operations against Venezuela, scheduled for 2032. Gene Coyle For Chilean Coup, Kissinger Is Numbered Among the Hunted March 28, 2002 By LARRY ROHTER NY Times SANTIAGO, Chile - With a trial of Gen. Augusto Pinochet increasingly unlikely here, victims of the Chilean military's 17-year dictatorship are now pressing legal actions in both Chilean and American courts against Henry A. Kissinger and other Nixon administration officials who supported plots to overthrow Salvador Allende Gossens, the Socialist president, in the early 1970's. In perhaps the most prominent of the cases, an investigating judge here has formally asked Mr. Kissinger, a former national security adviser and secretary of state, and Nathaniel Davis, the American ambassador to Chile at the time, to respond to questions about the killing of an American citizen, Charles Horman, after the deadly military coup that brought General Pinochet to power on Sept. 11, 1973. General Pinochet, now 85, ruled Chile until 1990. He was arrested in London in 1998 on a Spanish warrant charging him with human rights violations. After 16 months in custody, General Pinochet was released by Britain because of his declining health. Although he was arrested in Santiago in 2000, he was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial. The death of Mr. Horman, a filmmaker and journalist, was the subject of the 1982 movie "Missing." A civil suit that his widow, Joyce Horman, filed in the United States was withdrawn after she could not obtain access to relevant American government documents. But the initiation of legal action here against General Pinochet and the declassification of some American documents led her to file a new suit here 15 months ago. Last fall, after gaining approval from Chile's Supreme Court, Judge Juan Guzmán, who is also handling the Pinochet case, submitted 17 questions in the Horman case to American authorities. An American Embassy official here confirmed that the document, known as a letter rogatory, has been received in Washington, but said it has not yet been answered and that he did not know if or when there would be a response. "We're pressing the case in Chile because this is the first opportunity we have had to see if there is still some real evidence there," Mrs. Horman said by telephone from New York. "But the letters rogatory seem to be in a paralyzed state." William Rogers, Mr. Kissinger's lawyer, said in a letter that because the investigations in Chile and elsewhere related to Mr. Kissinger "in his capacity as secretary of state," the Department of State should respond to the issues that have been raised. He added that Mr. Kissinger is willing to "contribute what he can from his memory of those distant events," but did not say how or where that would occur. Relatives of Gen. René Schneider, commander of the Chilean Armed Forces when he was assassinated in Oct. 1970 by other military officers, have taken a different approach than Mrs. Horman. Alleging summary execution, assault and civil rights violations, they filed a $3 million civil suit in Washington last fall against Mr. Kissinger, Richard M. Helms, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and other Nixon-era officials who, according to declassified United States documents, were involved in plotting a military coup to keep Mr. Allende from power. In his books, Mr. Kissinger has acknowledged that he initially followed Mr. Nixon's orders in Sept. 1970 to organize a coup, but he also says that he ordered the effort shut down a month later. The government documents, however, indicate that the C.I.A. continued to encourage a coup here and also provided money to military officers who had been jailed for General Schneider's death. "My father was neither for or against Allende, but a constitutionalist who believed that the winner of the election should take office," René Schneider Jr. said. "That made him an obstacle to Mr. Kissinger and the Nixon government, and so they conspired with generals here to carry out the attack on my father and to plot a coup attempt." In another action, human rights lawyers here have filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Kissinger and other American officials, accusing them of helping organize the covert regional program of political repression called Operation Condor. As part of that plan, right-wing military dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay coordinated efforts throughout the 1970's to kidnap and kill hundreds of their exiled political opponents. Argentina has also begun an investigation into American support for and involvement in Operation Condor. A judge there, Rodolfo Cancioba Corral, ha
Kenan Evren Chair in Turkish Studies
Friends, I became aware of this through a column by Aydin Engin in today's Turkish daily Cumhuriyet newspaper. For those of you who don't know who Kenan Evren is, he is our Augusto Pinochet. He was the leader of September 12, 1980 military coup in Turkey and ruled the country with four of his generals with unremitting savagery. He was the "elected" President (what an election it was!) of the country from 1983 to 1989. As Aydin Engin mentions in his column, there is no difference between Kenan Evren Eminent Scholar Chair in Turkish Studies and Augusto Pinochet Eminent Scholar Chair in Chilean Studies or Leopoldo Galtieri Eminent Scholar Chair in Arginetine Studies. In disgust, Sabri +++ FAU unveils Turkish studies program By Kellie Patrick Sun-Sentinel Staff writer March 27, 2002 BOCA RATON -- Florida Atlantic University on Tuesday unveiled a new international business program aiming to strengthen economic, cultural and political ties between Turkey and the United States. Kenan Evren, former president of Turkey and the program's namesake, Gen. Alexander Haig, former U.S. Secretary of State, and other dignitaries joined FAU President Anthony Catanese in announcing the Kenan Evren Eminent Scholar Chair in Turkish Studies. Through a $1 million endowment, FAU will sponsor economic research and hold conferences for those interested in economic relations between Turkey and the United States, and particularly relations with Florida. But it was clear that those who spoke want to strengthen more than business ties between the countries. "This is a nation that is playing an increasingly important role on the world stage, as demonstrated most recently by Vice President Cheney's pledge of $228 million to enable Turkey to assume command of the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan," said Catanese. Haig said a lack of knowledge about Turkey has resulted in bad U.S. decisions regarding the country, such as a 1970s embargo. The U.S. relationship with Turkey has never been as important as it is now, Haig said. "It is the anchor of stability in Central Asia and the Middle East, in a world of confusion," he said. Speaking through a translator, Evren joked that his nation's strategic geography comes with a price. "I sometimes feel jealous of countries like the U.S. and Great Britain that have two neighbors," he said. "When you have two neighbors, you have two problems. When you have eight neighbors, you have eight problems." Evren soon became serious. "I don't want to name any names right now, but we have neighbors who would love to export their religious beliefs," Evren said. Turkey's citizens are mostly Muslims, but the democratic government is secular. Evren stressed differences between the religious beliefs of the majority of Turkey's citizens and the followers of Osama bin Laden. Evren's hopes Turkish students who study at FAU will "show that we are not like those fundamentalists." Suheyla Gencsoy, president of Fort Lauderdale's Turkish American Business, Education and Cultural Development Committee, said bin Laden and others like him try to influence poor Turkish young people by paying for an education that stresses extremist beliefs. That is why her organization hopes to establish a scholarship program to send poor Turkish students to FAU. If more Americans learn about Turkey, she said she will consider the new FAU program a success. The Kenan Evren Eminent Scholar Chair was established with $600,000 in private donations and an anticipated $400,000 state grant. Evren, president of Turkey from 1983 to 1989, is credited with strengthening political and economic ties between Turkey and the United States. Kellie Patrick can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 561-243-6629. Full article at: http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/palm_beach_news/article/0,1651,TCP_1020 _1053155,00.html
Re: the state
- Original Message - From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CB: Hello Jim. Here's my take on private property. I would define it likes Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ . It is not defined by it being alienable, or saleable as you put it. That is the definition of bourgeois, or capitalist private property- that it is alienable, alienable in the market. In feudalism, some forms of private property were "inalienable" ( "Inalienable rights" used this analogy in the bourgeois revolution). The lord's and church's lands were inalienable , as you say, but that does not mean they were not private property in the general sense that Engels uses it in the Origin. Private property means having some enforceable powers and control over the property, regardless of whether you can alienate it from yourself for cash. Of course, market sales were a much smaller part of the feudal mode of production in general, than the bourgeois mode. The control and power the feudal lords and bishops had was, of course, the right ! > to a portion of the products from the land. < http://www.openicon.com/retreat/property1.html > Property and Sovereignty[1] By Morris R. Cohen >From the Book Law and Social Order (Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1933) [snip] The distinction between property and sovereignty is generally identified with the Roman discrimination between dominium, the rule over things by the individual, and imperium, the rule over all individuals by the prince. Like other Roman distinctions, this has been regarded as absolutely fixed in the nature of things. But early Teutonic law-the law of the Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Visigoths, Lombards, and other tribes-makes no such distinction; and the state long continued to be the prince's estate, so that even in the eighteenth century the Prince of Hesse could sell his subjects as soldiers to the King of England. The essence of feudal law-a system not confined to medieval Europe-is the inseparable connection between land tenure and personal homage involving often rather menial services on the part of the tenant and always genuine sovereignty over the tenant by the landlord. [snip] Well, right before our eyes the Law of Property Act of 1925 is sweeping away substantial remains of the complicated feudal land laws of England, by abolishing the difference between the descent of real and that of personal property, and by abolishing all legal (though not equitable) estates intermediate between leaseholds and fees simple absolute. These remains of feudalism have not been mere vestiges. They have played an important part in the national life of England. Their absurdities and indefensible abuses were pilloried with characteristic wit and learning by the peerless Maitland. The same thing had been done most judiciously by Joshua Williams, the teacher of several generations of English lawyers brought up on the seventeen editions of his great text-book on real property law. Yet these and similar efforts made no impression on the actual law. What these great men did not see with sufficient clearness was that back of the complicated law of settlement, fee-tail, copyhold estates, of the heir-at-law, of the postponement of women, and other feudal incidents, there was a great and well-founded fear that by simplifying and modernizing the real property law of England the land might become more marketable. Once land becomes fully marketable it can no longer be counted on to remain in the hands of the landed aristocratic families; and this means the passing of their political power and the end of their control over the destinies of the British Empire. For if American experience has demonstrated anything, it is that the continued leadership by great families cannot be as well founded on a money as on a land economy. The same kind of talent that enables Jay Gould to acquire dominion over certain railroads enables Mr. Harriman to take it away from his sons. >From the point of view of an established land economy, a money economy thus seems a state of perpetual war instead of a social order where son succeeds father. The motto that a career should be open to talent thus seems a justification of anarchy, just as the election of rulers (kings or priests) seems an anarchic procedure to those used to the regular succession of father by son. [snip] As the terms "medievalism" and "feudalism" have become with us terms of opprobrium, we are apt to think that only unenlightened selfishness has until recently prevented English land law from cutting its medieval moorings and embarking on the sea of purely money or commercial economy. This light-hearted judgment, however, may be somewhat sobered by reflection on a second recent event-the Supreme Court decision On the Minimum Wage Law.[5] Without passing judgment at this point on the soundness of the reasoning whereby the majority reached its decision, the result may still fairly be ch
the state
the state by Ian Murray 28 March 2002 18:11 They say, in so many words, what you wrote: More and more, I think of state bureaucrats and politicians under > > capitalism > > > as a fraction of capital, similar to banking capital. Ian ^^^ CB: Sounds like the latest development in the following process: "Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune [4]: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"
Krugman
[Jim D., can you please tell PK that 'the anti-globalization left' is a
figment of his and other self-anointed pundits pathetic lack of
imagination.]
March 29, 2002
The Smoke Machine
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In a way, it's a shame that so much of David Brock's "Blinded by the
Right: The conscience of an ex-conservative" is about the private lives
of our self-appointed moral guardians. Those tales will sell books, but
they may obscure the important message: that the "vast right-wing
conspiracy" is not an overheated metaphor but a straightforward
reality, and that it works a lot like a special-interest lobby.
Modern political economy teaches us that small, well-organized groups
often prevail over the broader public interest. The steel industry got
the tariff it wanted, even though the losses to consumers will greatly
exceed the gains of producers, because the typical steel consumer
doesn't understand what's happening.
"Blinded by the Right" shows that the same logic applies to
non-economic issues. The scandal machine that employed Mr. Brock was,
in effect, a special-interest group financed by a handful of wealthy
fanatics - men like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose cultlike Unification
Church owns The Washington Times, and Richard Mellon Scaife, who
bankrolled the scandal-mongering American Spectator and many other
right-wing enterprises. It was effective because the typical news
consumer didn't realize what was going on.
The group's efforts managed to turn Whitewater - a $200,000
money-losing investment - into a byword for scandal, even though an
eight-year, $73 million investigation never did find any evidence of
wrongdoing by the Clintons. Just imagine what the scandal machine could
have done with more promising raw material - such as the decidedly
unusual business transactions of the young George W. Bush.
But there is, of course, no comparable scandal machine on the left. Why
not?
One answer is that for some reason there is a level of anger and hatred
on the right that has at best a faint echo in the anti-globalization
left, and none at all in mainstream liberalism. Indeed, the liberals I
know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of
contemporary politics.
It's also true that in the nature of things, billionaires are more
likely to be right-wing than left-wing fanatics. When billionaires do
support more or less liberal causes, they usually try to help the
world, not take over the U.S. political system. Not to put too fine a
point on it: While George Soros was spending lavishly to promote
democracy abroad, Mr. Scaife was spending lavishly to undermine it at
home.
And his achievement is impressive; key figures from the Scaife empire
are now senior officials in the Bush administration. (And Mr. Moon's
newspaper is now in effect the administration's house organ.) Clearly,
scandalmongering works: the public and, less excusably, the legitimate
media all too readily assume that where there's smoke there must be
fire - when in reality it's just some angry rich guys who have bought
themselves a smoke machine.
And the media are still amazingly easy to sucker. Just look at the way
the press fell for the fraudulent tale of vandalism by departing
Clinton staffers, or the more recent spread of the bogus story that Ken
Lay stayed at the Clinton White House.
Regular readers of this column know that not long ago I found myself
the target of a minor-league smear campaign. The pattern was typical:
right-wing sources insisting that a normal business transaction (in my
case consulting for Enron, back when I was a college professor, not an
Op-Ed columnist, and in no position to do the company any favors) was
somehow corrupt; then legitimate media picking up on the story,
assuming that given all the fuss there must be something to the
allegations; and no doubt a lingering impression, even though no favors
were given or received, that the target must have done something wrong
("Isn't it hypocritical for him to criticize crony capitalism when he
himself was on the take?"). Now that I've read Mr. Brock's book I
understand what happened.
Slate's Tim Noah, whom I normally agree with, says that Mr. Brock tells
us nothing new: "We know . . . that an appallingly well-financed hard
right was obsessed with smearing Clinton." But who are "we"? Most
people don't know that - and anyway, he shouldn't speak in the past
tense; an appallingly well-financed hard right is still in the business
of smearing anyone who disagrees with its agenda, and too many
journalists still allow themselves to be used.
I found "Blinded by the Right" distasteful, but revelatory. So, I
suspect, will many others.
the state
the state by Devine, James 28 March 2002 17:42 UT Jim D.: Under high feudalism, there wasn't "private property of the ruling class" in that they couldn't sell their fiefs (just like the Queen of England can't sell her country). I guess you could say it was collective property of the self-styled "lords," but it wasn't "private" property. Private property rights involve not only keeping other people from using your possession, but also the ability to sell it. CB: Hello Jim. Here's my take on private property. I would define it likes Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ . It is not defined by it being alienable, or saleable as you put it. That is the definition of bourgeois, or capitalist private property- that it is alienable, alienable in the market. In feudalism, some forms of private property were "inalienable" ( "Inalienable rights" used this analogy in the bourgeois revolution). The lord's and church's lands were inalienable , as you say, but that does not mean they were not private property in the general sense that Engels uses it in the Origin. Private property means having some enforceable powers and control over the property, regardless of whether you can alienate it from yourself for cash. Of course, market sales were a much smaller part of the feudal mode of production in general, than the bourgeois mode. The control and power the feudal lords and bishops had was, of course, the right ! to a portion of the products from the land. My basic point of respectful disagreement is with the idea that private property is defined as being alienable or saleable in a market. Private property , as Marx and Engels use it, is a broader term, extended to the beginning of class exploitative society when said property, especially in land, was not alienable in a market. Markets were peripheral, around the margins, of the economies until capitalism. ^ The fact that the knighly class was "something of this" goes with what I said: these "worthies" -- I think of them as thugs -- were not specialized in soldiering or policing but most also had their own fiefs (sub-fiefs of their masters). ^^^ CB: Somebody had to be specialized at soldiering or else the masses could not have been forced to give up a portion of the fruits of their labor. I think we have "all agreed here" :>) that capitalism is different from feudalism and slavery in that the latter two used more direct coercion in extracting surplus labor from the exploited working classes , whereas capitalism uses the famous free , wage-labor- "Free" meaning that they are not directly coerced as much as serfs or slaves were. Well, this implies that somebody had to do the coercing. This was the standing bodies of armed personnel, specialized in repression. These standing bodies were small minorities relative to the whole population, so they had to have fighting skills adn weapons that were "specialized", better than the vast majority of the population. I don't see any other candidates for this beside the knights. I don't think every lord or bishop was a knight too, so the two classes or strata were not identical. ^^^ The feudal era lacked a _centralized_ state apparatus. Its rise -- coinciding with the Absolutist period -- was the flip-side of the decline of feudalism as a social formation. ^^^ CB: I agree that the state was not centralized in feudalism, relative to the nation state which arose with capitalism, or the Roman imperial state. But it still consisted of special bodies of armed personnel - people whose fighting skills and weaponry were far superior to the average population such that they could inflict terror and control larger numbers of people than themselves. Each feudal manor needed a few thugs- knights, sherrifs, bailiffs - and that was the state repressive apparatus. ^ >Maybe here it is said that the "separation" of the state from the bourgeoisie is in part a bourgeois self-congratulatory myth of laissez-faire and libertarianism. The bourgeoisie, as a exploiting ruling class cannot get on without monopoly of the special repressive apparatus. This is a sine qua non of a ruling class. The primitive accumulation of capitalism could not have been carried out without enormous state repression in Europe, and repression by sailor-soldiers from boats and colonial settlements all around the world.< Right. it's only "business as usual" capitalism which allows individual capitalists to focus on non-violent activities. During the establishment of capitalism -- primitive accumulation -- the state vs. economy (violent means vs. trading & producing) distinction was still pretty weak. It also becomes weak when lawnorder breaks down. The "bourgeois self-congratulatory myth" has a material basis, i.e., the existence of a centralized state which allows the capitalists to focus on non-violent activities (exchange, production). But in a larger p
Japan, China Sign $3-Bn Yen-yuan Swap Deal To Avert Future Crises
The Financial Express March 29, 2002 MONEY & BANKING Japan, China Sign $3-Bn Yen-yuan Swap Deal To Avert Future Crises Tokyo, March 28: Japan and China on Thursday signed a yen-yuan swap agreement as part of an Asian-wide currency safety net designed to boost regional cooperation and ward off future financial crises. The Japan-China scheme, however, will be primarily symbolic because neither Japan nor China are likely to face liquidity or balance of payment crises in short term. The scheme, worth $3 billion, is the sixth such pact under the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI), which aims to forge closer monetary ties by creating a network of central bank currency swaps among the 10-strong Association of South East Asian Nations plus Japan, China and South Korea (Asean+3). The idea of the swaps is to make foreign-exchange reserves available at short notice to a member of the group whose currency comes under sudden speculative attack, as happened to Thailand in 1997 when the baht came under severe selling pressure. Chinese central bank governor Dai Xianglong, speaking to a small group of journalists through a Japanese interpreter, said it was hard to imagine a situation in which China and Japan would need to use the swap scheme. Japan and China are the world's two biggest holders of external reserves. Japan's foreign reserves, the world's biggest, stood at $403.5 billion at the end of February, while China's has more than $200 billion in foreign reserves. Moreover, the yuan is not convertible on the capital account, largely reducing China's vulnerability to the sort of speculative attacks for which the CMI is designed. But Japanese officials consider China's participation in the CMI important for promoting regional cooperation after Beijing relaxed its opposition to a Japanese call in 1997 for an Asian Monetary Fund, an idea fiercely opposed by the United States. Hayami said earlier this week that the deal would enhance cooperation between the two central banks in the year that also marks the 30th anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic ties between Tokyo and Beijing. Japan is involved in four of the five bilateral CMI swaps signed so far - with South Korea ($2 billion), Thailand ($3 billion), the Philippines ($3 billion) and Malaysia ($1 billion). The fifth, worth $2 billion, was signed in December between China and Thailand, and Dai said China would also set up a pact with South Korea. Unlike other bilateral swap deals, the China-Japan scheme will be denominated in yen rather than dollars. Japanese officials have said that was China's choice because Beijing already has enough dollar-denominated foreign reserves. Japan has only one other yen-denominated currency swap line, with the European Central Bank, but that facility is mainly for currency intervention purposes and was used in September 2000 when the ECB and the BoJ intervened to prop up the euro. Japanese officials visited Singapore several weeks ago to negotiate a currency swap deal under the CMI umbrella. Tokyo, a driving force for the network, has also expressed interest in negotiating a deal with Indonesia in the future. - Reuters © 2002: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world.
the state
On 2002/03/28 11:55 PM, "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the state > by Carrol Cox > 27 March 2002 23:02 UTC < < < > > > > This would fit in with Wood's argument (in _Democracy against > Capitalism_) that capitalism artificially divided the political into the > two separate realms of "the political" and "the economy." If one takes > "politics" to be concerned with the allocation of human activity, then > "economics" is the guise that this political activity takes on under > capitalism. And in the latest stages of capitalism the line has become > thinner and thinner. > > Carrol > > > > CB: Economics is politics , and politics is concentrated economics. > $B#C(Jomrade Carrol If economnic is politics, for example, buyer of commodity and seller exchage commodity politically. Principle of politics is human's will. But in this situation, commodity exchange is not deternmined by political will of both.As Marx said, juditical(i.e.political) relation is but the reflux of the real economic relation. Below is from Capital "In order that these objects may enter into relation with each other as commodities, their guardians must place themselves in relation to one another, as persons whose will resides in those object, and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate the commodity of the other, and part with his own, except by means of an act done by mutual consent. They must therefore, mutually recognise in each other the rights of private proprietors. This juridical relation, which thus expresses itself in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economic relation between the two. It is this economic relation that determines the subject-matter comprised in each such juridical act. [2] The persons exist for one another merely as representatives of, and, therefore. as owners of, commodities. In the course of our investigation we shall find, in general, that the characters who appear on the economic stage are but the personifications of the economic relations that exist between them. " > Marx begins with criticism of religion,(The German Ideology) then criticism of state(Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right,,) and finally criticism of civil society. So,later marx's work include criticism of state, which is defined that"The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis ""However, it is evident that tradition must play a dominant role in the primitive and undeveloped circumstances on which these social production relations and the corresponding mode of production are based. It is furthermore clear that here as always it is in the interest of the ruling section of society to sanction the existing order as law and to legally establish its limits given through usage and tradition. Apart from all else, this, by the way, comes about of itself as soon as the constant reproduction of the basis of the existing order and its fundamental relations assumes a regulated and orderly form in the course of time. And such regulation and order are themselves indispensable elements of any mode of production, if it is to assume social stability and independence from mere chance and arbitrariness. These are precisely the form of its social stability and therefore its relative freedom from mere arbitrariness and mere chance. Under backward conditions of the production process as well as the corresponding social relations, it achieves this form by mere repetition of their very reproduction. If this has continued on for some time, it entrenches itself as custom and tradition and is finally sanctioned as an explicit law." So Marx seeks rather integration of the economical and political than traditional marxist considers the two as separaeted domain. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
