Re: the curse
Anders Aslund's take on this, predictably, is that resources are only a curse when not privatized. He put forward this thesis as the Khordokovsky affair got underway: the linkage transparent to all! A counter-example would be Chile, whose state sector possesses significant portions of its copper mining. Moreover, in the past has covered something like 15% of govt. budget, thus giving lie that Chile's economy is purely market driven Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor Department of History North Georgia College State University Dahlonega, GA 30597 Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903 Fax: 706-864-1873 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Associate, World History Center Northeastern University, Boston Url: www.whc.neu.edu Research Associate Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow http://www.iprog.ru/en/ -- on 2/19/04 21:46, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: an interesting article on the curse (and I don't mean the one that haunts the Red Sox) -- February 19, 2004/New York TIMES ECONOMIC SCENE Resources Form the Basis for Economic Growth By JEFF MADRICK POPULAR notion in economics today is that an abundance of natural resources is a curse for developing nations. Such an endowment, it is argued, encourages corruption, undermines institutional development, pushes the value of a currency uncompetitively high and cannot support long-term growth because the reserves eventually run out. Small wonder, then, that oil-rich nations like Iraq and Venezuela are poor or in decline. Gavin Wright will have none of this. Mr. Wright, an economic historian at Stanford and long a specialist in the role that natural resources play in economic growth, agrees that overdependence on a single resource can lead to poor policies, but it is by no means inevitable. To the contrary, many developed and developing nations have used their mineral resources as springboards to wealth and broader-based development - not least the United States itself. Mr. Wright and a colleague, Jesse Czelusta, have written a fascinating study (at www-econ.stanford.edu) on the subject that should be required reading. The lessons to be drawn are especially pertinent for countries like Iraq. The economists start their analysis by looking at the evidence compiled by advocates of the resource curse. The seminal study was done by Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew M. Warner in 1995 and showed a strong statistical relationship between resource abundance and slow growth. Many follow-up studies using the same method draw remarkably sweeping conclusions about the inevitable disadvantages of resource abundance. One recent study explicitly concludes that poor institutional development, including weak governance and property laws, is intrinsic to nations with oil and other minerals. Mr. Sachs and Mr. Warner have recently concluded that the curse is a reasonably solid fact. But Mr. Wright and Mr. Czelusta point out that almost every one of these studies uses the proportion of exports of the particular natural resource as a proxy for a nation's mineral abundance. Among other obvious problems with this measure, a high proportion of resource exports may simply reflect a lack of other kinds of exports, which is almost a definition of underdevelopment in the first place. A better measure of abundance would be resources per capita or per worker. New studies using such measures, including one by the World Bank economist William F. Maloney, published in Economia, can find no telling relationship between abundance of reserves and slow growth. Some nations do well with their endowments, others do not. Why is that? Historical and contemporary case studies provide some guidance. America's own rise to economic supremacy in the late 1800's occurred just as it was becoming the leading producer of almost every major natural resource of the industrial age, including iron ore, lead, coal, copper, zinc, timber, zinc and nickel. Such leadership did not hold America back, nor did it hold back other nations like Australia and Canada. Britain, where the industrial revolution started, was notably rich in coal reserves, not to mention wool for its critical textile industry. But what is most relevant to policy, America did not become a leader simply because it had been endowed by nature with this bounty of resources, as we are typically taught in our high school textbooks. Nor was it because it enjoyed enlightened governance in the 1800's, like open and free markets and clear-cut rules about property ownership. In fact, millions of acres of coal mines in the 1800's were secretly bought as farmland. Enormous tracts of iron-rich land were bought cheaply through fraudulent claims under the Homestead Act. Rather, as Mr. Wright and another Stanford economic historian, Paul A. David, convincingly summarize in a 1997 paper, the nation invested heavily in mineral exploration, new techniques and mining education. Other
Anti-Nader shock troops
Salon.com, Feb. 22, 2004 From tragedy to farce He's running for president as an independent, not as a Green. He has no organization. He's starting late. Does Ralph Nader's narcissism have no bounds? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By Todd Gitlin Ralph Nader's narcissism has metastasized to such proportions that he came forward to announce his candidacy without being able to brandish a single one of the celebrities who surrounded him in 2000 -- not Michael Moore, not Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon, not Patti Smith. In fact, more important, he cannot offer the Green Party, whose nomination he disdains to seek -- so much for his claim that he is the principled champion of third parties and their indispensability in American history. To the struggle against corporate-occupied territory, Nader offers only himself. La troisième partie, c'est moi. He has gone way over into flying saucer territory. He occupies an Area 51 of his own. Will he make the headquarters of his campaign in Roswell, N. M.? full: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/02/22/nader_candidacy/index_np.html === Todd Gitlin, former leader of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and now a sociology professor at New York University, says the backlash helped elect Richard Nixon. Gitlin believes Hubert Humphrey, as president, would have been under far more pressure within his party to end American involvement quickly. Gitlin: Among those who bear the blame for that turn of events, the 68 default, are those militants in the anti-war movement who didnt vote for Humphrey. I dont exempt myself. Most people I know, including myself, didnt vote for president that year. That was a big mistake. full: http://www.americanradioworks.org/features/vietnam/us/waragainstwar.html === NY Times, February 23, 2004 Nader, Gadfly to the Democrats, Will Again Run for President By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JIM RUTENBERG Brushing aside urgent appeals from his own friends and Democratic leaders, Ralph Nader announced yesterday that he would run again for president this year, sending shudders through the camps of Democratic presidential candidates just as they had grown hopeful about unseating President Bush. Mr. Nader said in an interview that he would seek to get his name as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. He rejected the notion that he was the spoiler who helped Mr. Bush win in 2000 and would do the same in 2004. (clip) The Rev. Al Sharpton, a Democratic presidential candidate this year, provided Mr. Nader a platform at his headquarters in Harlem in 2000. But Mr. Sharpton said in a telephone interview yesterday that he would campaign across the nation urging Democrats to reject Mr. Nader. The only reason he's running is either he's an egomaniac or as a Bush contract, Mr. Sharpton said. What's the point? This is not 2000 when progressives were locked out. I'm going on a national crusade to stop Nader. This is only going to help Bush. === Village Voice, February 5th, 2004 8:20 AM A Bush Covert Operative Takes Over Al Sharpton's Campaign by Wayne Barrett with special reporting by Adam Hutton and Christine Lagorio Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton. Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections. Stone played a pivotal role in putting together Sharpton's pending application for federal matching funds, getting dollars in critical states from family members and political allies at odds with everything Sharpton represents. He's also helped stack the campaign with a half-dozen incongruous top aides who've worked for him in prior campaigns. He's even boasted about engineering six-figure loans to Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN) and allowing Sharpton to use his credit card to cover thousands in NAN costsneither of which he could legally do for the campaign. In a wide-ranging Voice interview Sunday, Stone confirmed his matching-fund and staffing roles, but refused to comment on the NAN subsidies. full: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0405/barrett.php Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: dems, etc
The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Johansen Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc What of the contradiction here: if the right really wants to get behind a draft, why is it that the sponsors in the House are Conyers and Rangel, who would be in favor because 1) selective service this time would, in the bill drafted, not allow loopholes for the privileged, and 2) the absence of a 'patriotic' rationale for this blighted war in the minds of more and more people could very well spell disaster for the sitting administration? Ralph - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:20 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc snip * For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Contact: Andy Davis (202) 224-6654 Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need for shared sacrifice WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end, the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation. . . . http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html * snip
Re: dems, etc
Peter is correct here. Today we have an economic draft, so the middle class is much less to complain about. In addition, the outsourcing of military jobs obscures the human costs of war. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 11:30:43AM -0500, Peter Hollings wrote: The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
a miracle?
from Today's Papers (from MS SLATE): An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security barrier: What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline in the paper. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
demo fervor
Too bad the Democrats don't go after Bush, Halliburton and Enron with the same fervor they go after Nader -- or Matt Gonzales in San Francisco, for that matter. Dan Scanlan
Re: demo fervor
Too bad the Democrats don't go after Bush, Halliburton and Enron with the same fervor they go after Nader -- or Matt Gonzales in San Francisco, for that matter. Dan Scanlan That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites. The Democrats are supposed to rest on enlightened ruling class figures like in Hollywood and certain financial wheeler-dealers, but they hold their ostensible mass base at arm's length. As Ted Glick pointed out in the article forwarded by Michael Hoover, Jimmy Carter spoke of ethnic purity in neighborhoods, an obvious bid for the average Republican Party voter. Meanwhile, Clinton attacked Sister Souljah and threw mothers off of welfare. Despite Kerry's rhetoric about Benedict Arnold corporations sending jobs overseas, he has voted for every free trade agreement. As Nader pointed out, this party loses elections because it refuses to fight. And the Nation Magazine urges us to tie our fate to this bunch of losers rather than to fight for what we believe in. Give me a fuckin' break. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
new radio product
Just added to my radio archive http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html: February 19, 2004 Sara Roy, senior research scholar at the Harvard Center for Middle Eastern Studies, on the social crisis among Palestinians in the occupied territories and Israel's intentions behind building the wall * George Soros, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, on the Bush administration and the Bubble of American Supremacy * Christian Parenti on his January in Iraq, spent with the 82nd airborne and members of the resistance, which he wrote up in The Nation it joins February 12, 2004 Keith Bradsher, author of High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV, on the ravages of that vehicle and the mindset of its buyers * Michael Mann, author of Incoherent Empire, on the Bush administration's lust for domination January 22, 2004 MARATHON SPECIAL Noam Chomsky on Bush, empire, and the facts * Barbara Ehrenreich on Global Woman * Naomi Klein on market fundamentalism in Iraq * Alexandra Robbins on John Kerry and Skull Bones January 15, 2004 Archi Piyati of Human Rights First (formerly LCHR) on the barbaric U.S. treatment of refugees * Satya Gabriel on the Chinese economy January 8, 2004 Anthony D'Costa on the Indian economy * Anatol Lieven on Afghanistan's new constitution * Joan Roelofs, author of Foundations and Public Policy, on foundations' influence on politics and culture along with -- * Nina Revoyr on the history of Los Angeles, real and fictional * Bill Fletcher on war and peace * Slavoj Zizek on war, imperialism, and fantasy * Susie Bright on sex and politics * Anatol Lieven on Iraq * Lisa Jervis on feminism pop culture * Faye Wattleton on a poll of American women * Joseph Stiglitz on the IMF and the Wall St-Treasury axis * Joel Schalit, author of Jerusalem Calling, on the Counterpunch collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism * Naomi Klein on Argentina and the arrested political development of the global justice movement * Ursula Huws on the new world of work and why capitalism has avoided crisis * Simon Head, author of The New Ruthless Economy, on working in the era of surveillance, restructuring, and speedup* Michael Albert on participatory economics (parecon) * Michael Hudson, author of a report on the sleazy world of subprime finance * Hamid Dabashi on Iran * Marta Russell on the UN conference on disability * William Pepper on the state-sponsored assassination of Martin Luther King * Sara Roy on the Palestinian economy * Christian Parenti on his visit to Baghdad, and on his book The Soft Cage (about surveillance in America from slavery to the Patriot Act) * Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, and Cynthia Enloe on the then-impending war with Iraq * Michael Hardt on Empire * Judith Levine on kids sex * Richard Burkholder of Gallup on polling Baghdad * Walden Bello on the World Social Forum and alternative development models * Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations * Ghada Karmi on her search for her Palestinian roots * Jonathan Nitzan on the Israeli economy -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 38 Greene St - 4th fl. New York NY 10013-2505 USA voice +1-212-219-0010 fax+1-212-219-0098 cell +1-917-865-2813 email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] webhttp://www.leftbusinessobserver.com
Re: demo fervor
Is that so? The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class people to vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the mainstream. Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems. do a pretty good job of serving the corporations as well. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: a miracle?
An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security barrier: What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline in the paper. The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole American Left could be even in its wildest dreams. Shane Mage (Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)
Re: dems, etc
- Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. dms
Re: demo fervor
Really? What working class people? African-American working class people? Hispanic working class people? Undocumented workers? Retired, white, former workers? No doubt. But the notion of a reactionary mass of workers is a convenient fallacy. But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the airline industry, surprise, surprise. Followed by. more surprise, pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc. Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal. Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are going into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one. Republican workers? Sure. But that's a historical condition based on the lack of a specific class alternative. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor Is that so? The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class people to vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the mainstream. Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems. do a pretty good job of serving the corporations as well. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: a miracle?
Wait a minute-- this wasn't the NYT taking an editorial and reporting position. This was an op-ed piece by Chomsky which does not express the view of the editors. So why make more of it than it is? It's an op-ed piece, that's all. NYT supported and supports the assault on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine, etc. dms - Original Message - From: Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle? An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security barrier: What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline in the paper. The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole American Left could be even in its wildest dreams. Shane Mage (Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)
Re: dems, etc
dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. No. It is true that the draft will make our work easier. Nevertheless part of our work is resisting the draft. That is not particularly contradictory either. The purpose of the draft is to enable efficient imperial war. We can't support that just because it will give us good slogans. If you want to you can secretly hope that despite our resistance the draft will be implemented. Just as you can secretly hope that wherever u.s. troops are sent there will be heavy u.s. casualties. But that really doesn't make very good agitational material. And objectively [that horrid word] what you are doing if you support reinstatement of the draft is supporting the death of draftees. The draft won't make our work easy unless it really hurts those who are drafted and their friends, relatives, neighbors, and only heavy casualties among draftees will do that. Mere experience of military service by everyone will have no effect on our work. Carrol dms
more cheap Government Surplus!
[Federal Register: February 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 35)] [Notices] [Page 8183] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe04-57] --- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning Method for the Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of Spider Silks and Other Structural Proteins AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice. --- SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR Part 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. US 6,620,917 B1 entitled ``Method for the Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of Spider Silks and Other Structural Proteins'' issued September 16, 2003. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Rosenkrans at U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760, Phone: (508) 233-4928 or E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. Luz D. Ortiz, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 04-3825 Filed 2-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......
Paige: Teachers Union Is 'Terrorist Organization' Education Secretary's Comments Made at Private Meeting With Governors By Robert Tanner The Associated Press Monday, February 23, 2004; 5:52 PM Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a terrorist organization Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year. Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right to say so. The education secretary's words were pathetic and they are not a laughing matter, said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush administration over lack of funding for demands included in the No Child Left Behind schools law. Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words. President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark. As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better, said Paige, the first black education secretary. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, The NEA is a terrorist organization. Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents. Weaver responded, We are the teachers, there is no distinction. Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long supported Democratic presidential candidates. Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah. In a statement released to the media, Paige said he chose the wrong words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics of NEA lobbyists. Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: The comment was inappropriate and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized. Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists. Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more flexibility from the administration on Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to move their children from poorly performing schools. Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be changed. Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet officials. He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the president is doing, Holden said. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, Somebody asked him about the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it. Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were made in the context of we can't be supportive of the status quo and they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate -- I know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists -- but to ever suggest that the organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for. Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation. But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three groups that are hard nosed, highly financed and well organized. Asked to name the groups other than the NEA, Paige declined, saying: I've already got into deep water with that one, haven't I? The governors were in Washington for four days of discussions at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association, though the usual effort to build consensus was marked by partisan politics that Democrats said couldn't be avoided. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said that during the private meeting, Bush took only two questions, leaving little time for a full exploration of issues. It would have been helpful for him to have heard the discussions about 'No Child Left Behind' because there may be a disconnect between what he thinks and what we know, Vilsack said. In brief public comments, Bush told the governors that rising political tensions of an election year won't stop him from working closely with them. I fully understand it's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue, Bush said. But
Re: dems, etc
Disagree. Our work is not resisting the draft, it is carrying the class struggle into the very heart of capital's military machine. That cannot be done by resisting the draft. The failure of the new left, in particular SDS, to move from anti-Vietnam war, anti-draft, to anti-deferment, isolated it from larger class struggle inside the military. Draft to enable efficient imperialist war? Not any longer. Vietnam proved that. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War 2 have proved it again. We don't support the death of draftees, no more than we support the death of workers who are compelled to work in unsafe conditions. What we don't support is the false privilege that isolates the military from the actual social conflicts precipitating and precipitated by their deployment. dms o- Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. No. It is true that the draft will make our work easier. Nevertheless part of our work is resisting the draft. That is not particularly contradictory either. The purpose of the draft is to enable efficient imperial war. We can't support that just because it will give us good slogans. If you want to you can secretly hope that despite our resistance the draft will be implemented. Just as you can secretly hope that wherever u.s. troops are sent there will be heavy u.s. casualties. But that really doesn't make very good agitational material. And objectively [that horrid word] what you are doing if you support reinstatement of the draft is supporting the death of draftees. The draft won't make our work easy unless it really hurts those who are drafted and their friends, relatives, neighbors, and only heavy casualties among draftees will do that. Mere experience of military service by everyone will have no effect on our work. Carrol dms
Re: more cheap Government Surplus!
To be used in forthcoming generations of body armor. You can look it up. - Original Message - From: Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:50 PM Subject: [PEN-L] more cheap Government Surplus! [Federal Register: February 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 35)] [Notices] [Page 8183] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe04-57] --- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning Method for the Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of Spider Silks and Other Structural Proteins AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice. --- SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR Part 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. US 6,620,917 B1 entitled ``Method for the Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of Spider Silks and Other Structural Proteins'' issued September 16, 2003. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Rosenkrans at U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760, Phone: (508) 233-4928 or E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. Luz D. Ortiz, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 04-3825 Filed 2-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Re: more cheap Government Surplus!
- Original Message - From: dmschanoes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To be used in forthcoming generations of body armor. You can look it up. The potential applications are enormous and will be worth *big* bucks. Buy goat farms... Ian
Re: a miracle?
That's eminently sane of them. Joanna Shane Mage wrote: An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security barrier: What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline in the paper. The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole American Left could be even in its wildest dreams. Shane Mage (Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)
Re: a miracle?
No, it's significant even though it's only op-ed. This is an intra-bourgeois sign. Joanna dmschanoes wrote: Wait a minute-- this wasn't the NYT taking an editorial and reporting position. This was an op-ed piece by Chomsky which does not express the view of the editors. So why make more of it than it is? It's an op-ed piece, that's all. NYT supported and supports the assault on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine, etc. dms - Original Message - From: Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle? An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security barrier: What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline in the paper. The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole American Left could be even in its wildest dreams. Shane Mage (Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)
Re: if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......
This is a Spartacus moment. I am a terrorist! Jim Devine -Original Message- From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 5:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist.. Paige: Teachers Union Is 'Terrorist Organization' Education Secretary's Comments Made at Private Meeting With Governors By Robert Tanner The Associated Press Monday, February 23, 2004; 5:52 PM Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a terrorist organization Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year. Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right to say so. The education secretary's words were pathetic and they are not a laughing matter, said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush administration over lack of funding for demands included in the No Child Left Behind schools law. Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words. President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark. As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better, said Paige, the first black education secretary. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, The NEA is a terrorist organization. Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents. Weaver responded, We are the teachers, there is no distinction. Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long supported Democratic presidential candidates. Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah. In a statement released to the media, Paige said he chose the wrong words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics of NEA lobbyists. Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: The comment was inappropriate and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized. Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists. Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more flexibility from the administration on Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to move their children from poorly performing schools. Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be changed. Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet officials. He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the president is doing, Holden said. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, Somebody asked him about the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it. Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were made in the context of we can't be supportive of the status quo and they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate -- I know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists -- but to ever suggest that the organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for. Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation. But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three groups that are hard nosed,
Re: if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......
Yeah, absolutely. This would be the party who cried wolf...just too many goddamn times. McCarthy made the same mistake. Joanna Devine, James wrote: This is a Spartacus moment. I am a terrorist! Jim Devine -Original Message- From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 5:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist.. Paige: Teachers Union Is 'Terrorist Organization' Education Secretary's Comments Made at Private Meeting With Governors By Robert Tanner The Associated Press Monday, February 23, 2004; 5:52 PM Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a terrorist organization Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year. Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right to say so. The education secretary's words were pathetic and they are not a laughing matter, said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush administration over lack of funding for demands included in the No Child Left Behind schools law. Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words. President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark. As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better, said Paige, the first black education secretary. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, The NEA is a terrorist organization. Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents. Weaver responded, We are the teachers, there is no distinction. Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long supported Democratic presidential candidates. Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah. In a statement released to the media, Paige said he chose the wrong words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics of NEA lobbyists. Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: The comment was inappropriate and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized. Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists. Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more flexibility from the administration on Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to move their children from poorly performing schools. Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be changed. Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet officials. He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the president is doing, Holden said. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, Somebody asked him about the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it. Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were made in the context of we can't be supportive of the status quo and they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate -- I know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists -- but to ever suggest that the organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for. Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation. But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three groups that are hard nosed, highly financed and well organized. Asked to name the groups other than the NEA, Paige declined, saying: I've already got into deep water with that one, haven't I? The governors were in Washington
Re: demo fervor
Maybe I was not clear. If the Repubs. were clear about what they were, no working class people would vote for them. In fact, many do, including union workers. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:37:37PM -0500, dmschanoes wrote: Really? What working class people? African-American working class people? Hispanic working class people? Undocumented workers? Retired, white, former workers? No doubt. But the notion of a reactionary mass of workers is a convenient fallacy. But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the airline industry, surprise, surprise. Followed by. more surprise, pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc. Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal. Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are going into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one. Republican workers? Sure. But that's a historical condition based on the lack of a specific class alternative. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor Is that so? The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class people to vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the mainstream. Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems. do a pretty good job of serving the corporations as well. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: demo fervor
It is hard to imagine the Republicans being any more clear about what they are and who they represent. They are for private property, big private property, unrestrained private property. They say it they act it they live it. The fact that some workers support that is a fact of historical circumstance, i.e. a condition-- not the result of obfuscation. Does anyone think the fact that certain African-American elements support the Republicans is the result of Republican deception about their true agenda regarding social equality? - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor Maybe I was not clear. If the Repubs. were clear about what they were, no working class people would vote for them. In fact, many do, including union workers. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:37:37PM -0500, dmschanoes wrote: Really? What working class people? African-American working class people? Hispanic working class people? Undocumented workers? Retired, white, former workers? No doubt. But the notion of a reactionary mass of workers is a convenient fallacy. But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the airline industry, surprise, surprise. Followed by. more surprise, pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc. Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal. Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are going into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one. Republican workers? Sure. But that's a historical condition based on the lack of a specific class alternative. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor Is that so? The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class people to vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the mainstream. Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems. do a pretty good job of serving the corporations as well. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: a miracle?
So? So what's so significant about an intra-bourgeois sign? History, the same history littered with corpses, is page after page of intra-bourgeois signs. There were intra-bourgeois signs everyday when Clinton was president. Lula is an intra-bourgeois sign, so is Kirchner-- and their significance is manifested precisely in the insignifcant change proposed and manifested in their regimes. It's an Op-Ed piece, nothing less and nothing more, one more manifestation of spectacle and recuperation. dms - Original Message - From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle? No, it's significant even though it's only op-ed. This is an intra-bourgeois sign. Joanna dmschanoes wrote: Wait a minute-- this wasn't the NYT taking an editorial and reporting position. This was an op-ed piece by Chomsky which does not express the view of the editors. So why make more of it than it is? It's an op-ed piece, that's all. NYT supported and supports the assault on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine, etc. dms - Original Message - From: Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle? An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security barrier: What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline in the paper. The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole American Left could be even in its wildest dreams. Shane Mage (Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)
Re: if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a Spartacus moment. I am a terrorist! Jim Devine Hand out the vines! Ian
Re: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger
Anybody ever read Marc Linder? -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen Subject: Fwd: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger
Re: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger
yes. he does wonderful stuff. I especially like Linder, Marc and Ingrid Nygaard. 1998. .Void Where Prohibited: Rest Breaks and the Right to Urinate on Company Time. (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press). On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 11:34:55PM -0500, Max B. Sawicky wrote: Anybody ever read Marc Linder? -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen Subject: Fwd: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: demo fervor
I have often wondered if the difference between a Republican politician and a Democratic politician wasn't something like this: The Republican says under his breath, Screw you, and the Democrat says, Sorry fella as they pass by the hitch-hiker in the desert. Glee versus guilt at someone else's misfortune. Dan Scanlan
Right wing populism
Tom Frank has an essay in Le Monde Diplomatique addressing the right wing populism that confuses and attracts many. I'll paste the first paragraphs here: A WAR AGAINST ELITES The America will vote for Bush The US is currently going through the peculiar process of deciding which Democratic presidential candidate will stand against George Bush in November. The aversion to Bush, at home and abroad, makes us forget how many people support this spokesman for another America sure of its superiority and its values. By TOM FRANK * THERE was a commercial that aired on Iowa television in which the-then front-runner for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination, Howard Dean, was blasted for being the choice of the cultural elites: a "tax hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left- wing freak show" who had no business trying to talk to the plain folk of Iowa. The commercial was sponsored by the Club for Growth, a Washington-based organisation dedicated to hooking up pro-business rich people with pro-business politicians. The organisation is made up of anti-government economists, prominent men of means, and big thinkers of the late New Economy, celebrated geniuses of the sort that spent the past 10 years describing the low-tax, deregulated economy as though it were the second coming of Christ. In other words, the people who thought they saw Jesus in the ever-ascending Nasdaq, the pundits who worked himself into a lather singing the praises of new billionaires, the economists who made a living by publicly insisting that privatisation and deregulation were the mandates of history itself, are now running television commercials denouncing the "elite". Thats the mystery of the United States, circa 2004. Thanks to the rightward political shift of the past 30 years, wealth is today concentrated in fewer hands than it has been since the 1920s; workers have less power over the conditions under which they toil than ever before in our lifetimes; and the corporation has become the most powerful actor in our world. Yet that rightward shift - still going strong to this day - sells itself as a war against elites, a righteous uprising of the little guy against an obnoxious upper class. http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/04usa Subject: Date: From: To:
World money, countertrade and exchange relations - additional comment on services
I quoted Marx on services as follows: Thus, because the specific relation of labour and capital is not contained at all in this purchase of services; because it has either been completely extinguished or was never present, it is naturally the favourite form used by Say, Bastiat and their associates to express the relation of capital and labour. As an aside, I think it is worth mentioning that Marx was thinking here mainly about personal services, and that he modified his idea somewhat when he prepared Capital Vol. 1 for publication. Thus, his analysis of the paid work process provided there provides a much more sophisticated analysis of the real subsumption of human work by capital, and subsequently, in discussing value-augmentation through production, Marx writes e.g. that Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The worker produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce a surplus-value. That worker is productive only, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and therefore works for the valorisation of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive worker when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his schholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not change the relation. Hence the concept of productive work doesn't simply imply a relationship between work and useful effect (a service being defined as the useful effect of a use-value - JB), between the worker and the output of work, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation which has sprung up historically and stamps the worker as the direct means of creating a surplus-value. The specific investigation of services was never advanced very much in Marxian scholarship beyond generalities, verities and platitudes, in particular because most authors do not grasp that the problem is about the specifically capitalist modification of the division of human work, the restructuring of inputs and outputs to conform to the requirements of capitalistic value-accretion, and to the pattern of the real subsumption of human work by Capital. Ernest Mandel correctly noted that many activities which are called or statistically classified as production of services are really production of tangible goods, or part of the production of goods (Le troisieme age du capitalisme). That is really because in the foundational categorisation of the occupational division of work, statisticians lack a theoretical basis or scientific analysis of social relations, and hence, the categorisation made is descriptive, it is based just on the actual occupational divisions which there actually are, and which of course are modified over time, so that, over time, some additional divisions are added to the classification etc. and at some point the classification has to be drastically revised. But Ernest Mandel also likes to use the concept of veralgemeinte warenproduktion (generalised commodity production) to describe the capitalist mode of production. While this formula is useful to describe the universalisation of market relations, it does not however do real justice to Marx's contention, stated in the quote I mentioned, that Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is ESSENTIALLY the production of the Mehwert. What is essential for Marx, to be precise, is the transformation of human work into a value-accretion process, under conditions where the increment can be privately appropriated by someone else. So it is not really Marx who has a labour theory of value, it is rather capitalism itself, which transforms human work into a commercial value, as Diane Elson pointed out once. This qualification by Marx which I just stated is also the basis for Tony Cliff's idea that the USSR must have been state capitalist (a bureaucratic elite extracting a surplus from production) giving rise to a whole sectarian or apologetic dispute about the social nature of the USSR which doesn't really contribute very much to solving the problem of socialist transition and the emancipation of the working classes, i.e. the transformation of production and exchange relations to create more freedom and efficiency for all, on an egalitarian basis (and not just for some). The real problem was, that the bolsheviks came to power without having a clear understanding about the socialist transformation of Russian society, and therefore, in many ways, ended up running roughshod over the workers and peasants. Because of their sentimental attachment to an ideological doctrine, many Marxists refuse to understand this, and then you get only apologetics presenting failures as successes, rather than the development of effective
Re: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger
Yep I have (though not all). He's great. Didn't he do that book Anti-Samuelson ? J. - Original Message - From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger Anybody ever read Marc Linder? -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen Subject: Fwd: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger
Re: Import-led development as a source of economic growth ?
Nay it's a far richer vein of problems than that as far as feminists are concerned: Basically how I personally evaluate feminists is on whether they wish to strengthen the toiling classes, the direct producers, the proletarians and peasants, or whether they seek to weaken them. Are they a help or a hindrance ? Hence, it is not possible to have a general position pro or contra feminism in the manner of the liberals. Implicitly or explicitly this is admitted in feminist circles anyway, since it is almost always the case that feminism is combined with at least one other political or moral ideology. In general what you can say is that what I call the social crisis of capitalism (resulting from the breakdown of traditional institutions and intensified competition within and between social classes) generates fragmentation, and that is reflected also in the feminist movement with splits between all sorts of different feminisms, black feminism versus white, lesbian/gay versus hetero, socialist versus green, conservative, liberal etc. etc. in which there are continual conflicts between the need for political unity and the need for adhering to principles. In specific countries and specific temporal-spatial contexts feminisms are progressive, contributing to emancipatory struggles, whereas in others they represent reactionary confusion retarding the movement, and one gets nowhere at all without a specific investigation of a specific situation. Ultimately, theoretically, I consider prostitution as the core problem of the whole feminist problematic, and I cannot very well get along with feminist moralists who spout drivel about this, and vent all sorts of confusing abstractions, rather than making a specific, critical and self-critical investigation. In these things, one has to go to the core of the matter, the heart of the matter, and not skirt around the issue with a lot of claptrap and moralisms. Jurriaan
Re: Import-led development as a source of economic growth ?
Jurriaan Bendien wrote: Ultimately, theoretically, I consider prostitution as the core problem of the whole feminist problematic, and I cannot very well get along with feminist moralists who spout drivel about this, and vent all sorts of confusing abstractions, rather than making a specific, critical and self-critical investigation. In these things, one has to go to the core of the matter, the heart of the matter, and not skirt around the issue with a lot of claptrap and moralisms. The heart of the matter for me is that if men stopped paying women for sex, the entire problem of prostitution would disappear. What would it take for men to do that? I don't know; taking themselves and their passions seriously? That would be a good start. Joanna
