[PEN-L:12879] Re: Re: Women and the Taliban
b. wrote: In the U.S. and similar places, I would propose the following bashing hierarchy: Christianity Neoclassical Economics Judaism New Age Astrology Wiccan Islam With all religions associated with non-white and indigenous peoples coming last in the bash-line. So, how do you deal with African-American churches? Frances
[PEN-L:12769] Re: The Origins of Environmentalism
Michael Perelman. wrote: Is it fair to say that prior to the 1850s that virtually no writings existed concerning environmental problems, other than what was found in literary sources? -- Your subject line and question are asking different questions, I think. Are you interested in environmentalism or environmental problems? I'm not sure the former requires the latter. Depending on how you're defining "environmentalism", you could turn to writers such as Vico, St. Francis, Linnaeus, Gilbert White, Plato... At any rate, you might find interesting chapters one and two of Donald Worster's *Nature's Economy*. Robert Pogue Harrison's *Forests: The Shadow of Civilization* is also very food--his book is a cultural history of forests and absolutely a wonderful read. My short answer to your question is, "No." Frances
[PEN-L:12308] Re: Feedback on Schoenberg post
Lou, Davies and Nick seem to be very generous souls. Clearly you find such feedback quite gratifying. Now, why are you posting it here? Frances -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:19 PM Subject: [PEN-L:12307] Feedback on Schoenberg post Dear Mr Proyect, What a stunning article! Thank you. And on rmo. Amazing. While not leftwing myself I always admire the way a true Marxist gets to grips with a work of art, encountering it like a wild animal, devouring it, digesting it, and encompassing it. You shed a bright light on a murky work. Thanks again, and please, more of the same. Richard Davies -- A great post - thank you. I have been to four productions of MA, seven performances in all, and I never fail to emerge believing it to be one of the great masterpieces of the century. Cheers NICK/London Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:12269] Re: Schoenberg vindicated
Lou, I've read a number of these cultural piece that you've written, and I've never finished one without finding something deeply troubling in it (the sexual politics of the Hellman/Hammett piece comes to mind). So I thought that, since I have a bit of time to spare, I might go through this one in a bit of detail, and bring up some points which were either unclear or troubling to me. At the outset, let me say that I am not going to comment on your own comments on conducting, the score, the set, and so on. I assume you know that your comments read like they came from someone who doesn't really know about opera, but I also assume that you mean for them to sound that way. (SNIP) Most people are probably familiar with the basic outline of the opera's plot from the film "Ten Commandments" which starred right-winger Charlton Heston as Moses and ex-blacklistee Edward G. Robinson as his brother Aaron. I wasn't sure--this *is* a joke, right? (SNIP) The first two acts were completed in 1932, a year before Schoenberg returned to Judaism, prompted by the rise of Nazism. Like many wealthy and educated Jews in Germany and Austria, including Marx himself, Schoenberg's family had embraced Christianity. As early as 1921, Schoenberg recognized that anti-Semitism was a fact of European life. This realization seems to come to Schoenberg rather *late*, I would say. Ought we be applauding him for a belated realization? (SNIP) "Throughout the nineteenth century, the resistance of the general public to new artistic movements had grown steadily. A fear of what is original and difficult to comprehend is no doubt a constant in history, but the accelerated rate of stylistic change after 1800 and the rapid expansion of the mass public interested in consuming art combined to make the normally difficult relation between artist and public a pathological one. The artist and his public each conceived the other as a threat. The artists answer to ideological pressure was one of deliberate provocation, while the public came to believe that a violent response to such provocation was a citizens right and even a patriotic duty. A conservative taste in art seemed to many the last defense against anarchy. By the end of the century, the works of poets as different as Mallarmé, Jarry, and George express a powerful contempt for the public, and this contempt veils an even more profound hatred. "Nowhere was this hatred more open than in Vienna: if the pastime of shocking the bourgeois took on at times a playful aspect in Paris and London, in Vienna it was carried on with a bitter seriousness only occasionally masked by wit. Adolf Loos (with Peter Behrens the greatest of central Europes architects of the first decade of the twentieth century) founded a review with the characteristically insulting title 'The Other, a Paper for the Introduction of Western Culture into Austria.'" Adolf Loos was part of a circle that included his close friend Schoenberg and painter Oscar Kokoschka, a seminal figure in German Expressionist art. In addition, the circle included the left-wing writer Karl Kraus. Kraus was the major theoretical influence on the circle. Walter Benjamin considers Kraus a key 20th century cultural figure, whose technique of "juxtaposition" attempted to express more than the literal meaning of a given text. Kraus deployed this technique to express a general sense of hopelessness that preceded the outbreak of WWI. His journal often reprinted newspaper stories and advertisements from bourgeois sources with little or no comment, their very appearance in that context being itself a statement. What characterized Schoenberg's circle more than anything else was a thoroughgoing rejection of bourgeois cultural values. While this in itself does not coincide with a socialist agenda, it certainly can play a generally subversive role in bourgeois society. Now, we've got a problem here. You begin with a quotation which talks about elitist attitudes in Vienna, particularly those of the circle which included Schoenberg. Actually, the words you quote are "contempt and profound hatred for the public." You move from this profound hatred to a mild comment about bourgeois cultural values, which is not what the above quotation suggests. You say that this "rejection of bourgeois cultural values" which is in fact a profound hatred for thr public as such, is not necessarily coincidental with a socialist agenda. It seems like you might want to make a stronger claim, that it is not commensureable with a socialist agenda. You go on to say that this rejection of bourgeois cultural values can play a generally subversive role in bourgeois society. Well, it might, but it is just as likely that bourgeois society will find a way of co-opting that rejection. I think you'd find Tom Frank's *The Conquest of Cool* instructive on this point. (SNIP) Attending "Moses und Aron" reminds me of the importance of difficult, experimental art. Adorno was right. In many ways,
[PEN-L:9762] Re: Re: Technology critics (Re: Bill McKibben)
Michael writes: On second thought, Max's point does seem to undercut the "artifacts have politics" idea if what is meant by that is that politically inscribed artifacts might impose politics on people that didn't share them by themselves. Because the bridges didn't accomplish their purpose alone -- they only worked in a larger political context, where their creator controlled the distribution of LIRR stations, of bus permits, of life-guard hirings, etc. Moses thought he was carving his intentions in stone, and that his intentions would outlive him. But in fact he was wrong. The bridges were a maginot line, and it was a piece of cake to circumvent them once his hand could be pried off the political levers. And now, thanks to the route Max describes, the beaches that Moses built are being happily enjoyed by all the people he despised. Yes, Winner credits Caro with the argument about the bridges, and as far as I know, the Wantaugh Expressway, with its 9 foot clearances, is still offlimits to public transport. Winner's argument has two parts: 1. the particular design or invention of a particular technology becomes a way of settling an issue (bridges of Long Island) 2. some technologies are inherently political--they're strongly compatible with certain kinds of political relationships. I don't think the fact that there happened to be a way to fix this particular project undercuts Winner's argument(since you've read Caro's biography of Moses you can think of any number of his projects that aren't reversible). Winner's point is not the irreversibilitity of the technologies, Winner's point is that there were values attached to the project that went beyond getting people from point A to point B. Or, look at the example of Cyrus McCormick's plant modernization in the 1880's. At great expense, he installed pneumatic molding machines, a new and untested technology. The standard response would be to suggest that he did so because he wanted the greater efficiencies that come along with modernization. In fact, as Orzanne shows, he did so in order to get rid of the skilled workers who had organized the local union. the new machines were expensive as hell, and produced an inferior product, but he got to hire all new unskilled laborers who weren't unionized. After three years, the machines were abandoned, by then the union was destroyed. That can't be understood except within the context of what was going on in US labor during that time. More on technology and it's link to particular forms of institutional power later... Frances
[PEN-L:9731] Re: Re: Re: Mumford
Peter wrote: Mumford gives technology an extraordinarily political reading; he thinks through the implications of technical choices for human liberation and healthy lifeways (which he sees as linked). Enjoyed your comments on Mumford, Peter. Whenever I start thinking about this stuff, I begin to wonder if "technology" is a meaningful term, or if we're just talking about material culture, or a particular intersection of political economy and material culture. I suspect it's the latter. A rather harsh acquaintance of mine refers to Mumford's work as "handwaving." (SNIP) Unfortunately, lurking behind his analysis is an uninterrogated reliance on the notion of objective human needs, a sort of human flourishing perspective. There is much to be said for this approach (Sen and Nussbaum have been saying a lot of it), but its great flaw is that it is fundamentally paternalistic, and therefore politically sterile. (SNIP) I'm curious as to where you see the paternalism in Nussbaum Sen. When I read her development stuff, I get nervous about all the universal claims, but then I look at that list of things which comprise human flourishing** for her, and it's hard for me to argue with them. Are they paternalistic simply because Nussbaum is the one who formulated this list of universal goods? I wonder if c. and h. might be enough to protect against the inevitability, if not the possibility, of political sterility. Actually, maybe you could say some more about what you mean by political sterility. Frances **for those who haven't read her, here's (an edited version) of her list: a. living a life of normal length, b. avoiding unnecessary and nonbeneficial pain, c. using the senses, thinking, imagining, reasoning, d. being able to have attachments to things and persons outside oneself, e. being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in the planning of one's own life, f. being able to show concern for other persons, being able to laugh and play, g. being able to live one's life and nobody else's, h. being able to live one's life in one's own context and surroundings, i. being able to live with concern for and in relation to the world of nature.
[PEN-L:9730] Technology critics (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill McKibben)
Rod writes: I don't know what "do artifacts have politics" means. Is this the old neutrality of technology debate dressed up in new clothes? The way you refer to the debate gives it an air of fustiness that I don't think it deserves, but in answer to your question, yes. WDK writes: Who do you suggest is a good critic of technology I should read, rather than Manders? You're right about him, by the time I got through reading his diatribe against TV, bad as I hate TV, I was almost ready to plug in my own TV set again. Michael P. writes: Who do you have in mind? I'd read Langdon Winner's *The Whale and the Reactor*--it's got the famous "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" piece. His analysis of the bridges Robert Moses built on Long island was pretty damn convincing. For those who haven't read the piece--Moses was built Jones Beach and some other state parks out on LI and was building roads to go out to them. He designed the overpasses so they'd be too low to allow buses to go under them. That was his way of keeping poor people, who relied on public transport, off his beaches. You could only go if you could afford a car. I'd also read Mumford, Neil Postman's *Technopoly*, maybe. Andrew Feenberg, Heidegger's *Question Concerning Technology*, Judy Wajcman has a book on feminism and technology--the title escapes me at the moment. I'd read some David Noble, but not that last thing he published on the priesthood of technology or whatever it was. I think Lenin's short piece "On Authority" is crucial. SOme of the classics are so worth reading--McLuhan's *Understanding Media*, Ellul's *The Technological Society*, Leo Marx's *The Machine in the Garden*. Manuel DeLanda's *War in the Age of Intelligent Machines*, Roseanne Alluquere Stone's *The Wart of Desire and Technology*, Anne Balsamo's *Technologies of the Gendered Body*, *Zone 6: Incorporations*, oh, and JG Ballard's *Crash*. That's too long of a list. I'd start with the essay by Winner and the thing by Lenin and *Crash* because dammit we're not reading enough novels anymore. Frances
[PEN-L:9704] Mumford (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill McKibben)
Rob wrote: I still rate Lewis Mumford (*Technics Civilisation* comes to mind). The list'll tell us quickly enough if he's gone way out of fashion, I s'pose. Mumford's undeservedly out of fashion. Off-hand (to be sure, it is quite early, and I've not yet had my coffee) I can't think of anyone who uses him. Langdon Winner looks at his work in *Autonomous Technics*, but that's a lit review rather than the development of a theory. Some years ago I was having dinner with Ramachandra Guha, a social historian/environmental thinker from Bangalore, and he said that he thought Mumford is the most important environmental thinker/technology critic that came out of the US. I would certainly agree that if he, rather than someone like John Muir, was the patron saint of US environmentalism (and env. thinking) things would probably be different. Frances
[PEN-L:9699] Re: Re: Re: Bill McKibben
Rod Hay wrote: Other than calling each other idiots, I can't figure out what this debate is about. Lou writes: It is about the relevance of Marxism to precapitalist societies There is also the question of whether, as Langdon Winner put it, artifacts have politics. Unfortunately Lou was unwilling to have that conversation. Too bad, it's something we've fruitfully discussed in the past. I thought then, and I continue to think, that Lou would benefit from reading some critics of technology who are more sophisticated than the poppish Mr. Mander. Frances
[PEN-L:9687] Re: Re: Re: Bill McKibben
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Louis Proyect wrote: It's people supporting indigenous people who are using the computers in this case. Sure, they might benefit from things that are posted on the Internet, but to say that they are using it is wrong. Computers exist within a very specific politico-economic framework, and to decontextualize them, as you seem to do, is both dangerous and naive. The Daily Yomiuri, June 7, 1997 Nunavut The Land of the 21st Century Internet helps keep scattered Inuit in touch (SNIP) I'm missing something here. I responded to a comment you made about the Zapatistas, and I wrote the above comments as a response to your comments about the Zapatistas. In response, you've posted this thing about a community of Inuit which in no way responds to my concerns about your comments about the Zapatistas. Surely you're not making a universal claim about Native peoples, that would be really sloppy. frances
[PEN-L:9681] Re: Bill McKibben
Lou writes: As far as my "preindustrial Marxist fantasia" is concerned, I haven't heard this kind of idiotic garbage Hey, it's your idiotic garbage that I was responding to. To the contrary, it is "dangerous nonsense" for indigenous peoples to avoid using computers in this manner. Anybody who has been following the Zapatista struggle for the past few years understands how crucial the Internet has been. Not only has it served to educate people all around the world about what these Mayan peoples are fighting for, it has also provided an emergency response mechanism when the Mexican government has attempted to repress the movement. Immediately after the massacre in Chiapas last month that took the lives of 44 people, the Internet became a beehive of activity as word circulated. Demonstrations, picket-lines and other forms of protest forced the Mexican government to open up an investigation and public awareness will surely make it more difficult to repress the movement in the future. Well, of course it's not the Zapatistas themselves who are designing those web pages and writing those articles. They don't speak (or write) Spanish, they don't have electricity, much less computers or modems or telephone lines. If they did, they'd be in great shape and there'd be no reason for the uprisings, right? It's people supporting indigenous people who are using the computers in this case. Sure, they might benefit from things that are posted on the Internet, but to say that they are using it is wrong. Computers exist within a very specific politico-economic framework, and to decontextualize them, as you seem to do, is both dangerous and naive. Frances
[PEN-L:9665] Bill McKibben
Lou, I was surprised to see you uncritically post a piece by Bill McKibben. His bourgeois antiurban romanticism seems deeply at odds with Marxism, even your own somewhat peculiar romanticized preindustrial Marxist fantasia. Were I feeling less kind, I'd say your style of Marxism has a face that only a NYC cubicle dwelling computer geek could love. Frances
[PEN-L:9495] Re: subsidies to cars?
Doug-- Here's the URL for the article from the Chronicle. Hope it helps. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/1999/07/21/MN77987.DTL Frances -Original Message- From: DOUG ORR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, July 22, 1999 12:45 AM Subject: [PEN-L:9493] subsidies to cars? Just when I start deleting msgs instead of saving most of them, I need something I deleted! There is someone who is organizing a protest in SF claiming that cars and drivers are being slighted, while bikes and pedestrians get all the resources. I want to write a letter to the Chronicle and would like to use some of the stats that peopel were discussing a onth ago about how much car drivers are subsidized, and how much urban space is allocated to cars. Anybody got those lying around on your harddrive? Thanks, Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8053] Re: gay pride month
Hi Jim, Well, he is one of "those Hormels" (old canned pork money, heh.) I don't know if Hormel is owned by the family anymore, though. he's mostly a philanthropist, funded a very lovely g/l/b/t reading research room at the new San Fran library and is very active in Democratic Party fundraising (obviously--are there any other qualifications for being ambassador to a country like Luxembourg?) In today's St. Pete Times I read that the Southern Baptists have called upon Clinton to recall Hormel. BTW, there was/is a flap about Clinton's appointment of James Hormel, an open gay, as US ambassador to Luxemburg (or is it Liechetenstein?) I ask: does he have any connection with the Hormel corporation? frances
[PEN-L:108] Re: The Hasidim
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Louis Proyect wrote: The aftermath led to introspective discussions about blacks and jews, such as the kind found in book co-edited by Paul Berman and Cornel West. By any chance do you mean *Blacks and Jews* by West and the loathesome Michael Lerner? frances
[PEN-L:1448] Sexual politics of Yiddish and Hebrew (Re: RE: Thefull dimensions of the Holocaust)
Max, I'm going to look into this later, but I definitely recall older, religious Jews going to the gas chambers and young Zionists going to Palestine. At least part of the thing about creating a Jewish state ws creating a New Jew. The kibbibutzim were founded on socialist principles, and more importantly, Hebrew, rather than Yiddidish, was adopted as the official language. Yiddish was the mamaloshen, associated with the shetl and the weak Jew who lived at the mercy of the goyim. It's a language, as Leo Rosten puts it, of insults and complaints. Hebrew was the language of the warrior Jew, the Bible, the sign of Jews chosen-ness. Way more butch. For people interested in the sexual politics of Hebrew and Yiddish, check out Naomi Seidman's scholarship. Unfortunately, I don't have any titles, she told me this stuff. Frances On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Max Sawicky wrote: . . . that there are some references--e.g. certain Zionist leaders collaborating with Nazis to get young and religious Jews to Palestine and leave older and more secular Jews to the gas chambers . . . Although I've read some about nazi-zionist transactions, this is the first I've heard of age/religiousness dimensions. I'd appreciate any references you might be aware of. The age thing is consistent with an interest in nation-building, but the religion aspect seems less so. My understanding is that the zionist movement was founded and largely led by secularists, and mostly opposed before WWII by orthodox Jews. MBS
[PEN-L:1450] Briefly followup to Frances' post
Just wanted to comment on my use of the word "goyim." I was speaking within the context of the young Jewish wish to create a new Jew. Hope no one was insulted. fb On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote: Max, I'm going to look into this later, but I definitely recall older, religious Jews going to the gas chambers and young Zionists going to Palestine. At least part of the thing about creating a Jewish state ws creating a New Jew. The kibbibutzim were founded on socialist principles, and more importantly, Hebrew, rather than Yiddidish, was adopted as the official language. Yiddish was the mamaloshen, associated with the shetl and the weak Jew who lived at the mercy of the goyim. It's a language, as Leo Rosten puts it, of insults and complaints. Hebrew was the language of the warrior Jew, the Bible, the sign of Jews chosen-ness. Way more butch. For people interested in the sexual politics of Hebrew and Yiddish, check out Naomi Seidman's scholarship. Unfortunately, I don't have any titles, she told me this stuff. Frances On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Max Sawicky wrote: . . . that there are some references--e.g. certain Zionist leaders collaborating with Nazis to get young and religious Jews to Palestine and leave older and more secular Jews to the gas chambers . . . Although I've read some about nazi-zionist transactions, this is the first I've heard of age/religiousness dimensions. I'd appreciate any references you might be aware of. The age thing is consistent with an interest in nation-building, but the religion aspect seems less so. My understanding is that the zionist movement was founded and largely led by secularists, and mostly opposed before WWII by orthodox Jews. MBS
[PEN-L:1463] Re: Re: Nazi link with medical exper... II
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, valis wrote: ((SNIP)) Each generation of hapless Jewish children is in turn sandbagged with stories implying that a) every Jew is/was a blameless soul who only react(s)(ed) to the malevolent thoughts and actions of others, and b) there is a gene for Jew-hatred in the global gene pool that flares into active dominance every 2 or 3 generations, independently of what anyone Jewish thinks or does. These children grow up and give the wheel one more turn. Won't someone take the issue from this level if it has to be argued at all? valis is right about the education of Jewish kids. I just want to add to it: c) the State of Israel is the only protection Jews have against another Holocaust. Its existence means that there will always be a homeland Jews. I went to Hebrew school for years, and got one of those educations. Looking back 16 or so years later, it seems that all we did was look at pictures of Jews in concentration camps and collect money to plant trees in Israel. It was really an impressive model of Zionist indoctrination. It works because young kids really like looking at pictures of things like starvation victims. They showed us some really explicit photos. Then you learn about all these butch Jewish guerillas, making Palestine safe for the Chosen People. Powerful stuff. Great stories. Few escaped being brainwashed by this... Frances
[PEN-L:1495] Re: Sexual politics of Yiddish and Hebrew (Re: RE:The full dimensions of the Holocaust)
Oh, sure. One couldn't say hamburger and french fries in ancient hebrew. But you can say it in modern (hamboorgeria ee cheeps is the transliteration.) frances, who just displayed half of her hebrew. I can also say "I drink coffee" in Hebrew, but I'll save that for another day. On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: But then the Hebrew of Israel is a synthetic language that is not that of the ancients. One of its more striking features is a significant Slavic influence grammatically and in other ways. Of course there is a Hebrew influence on Russian, most notably in the presence of certain letters in the alphabet. The history and nature of Yiddish is yet another ball game entirely. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:21:19 -0400 (EDT) "Frances Bolton (PHI)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Max, I'm going to look into this later, but I definitely recall older, religious Jews going to the gas chambers and young Zionists going to Palestine. At least part of the thing about creating a Jewish state ws creating a New Jew. The kibbibutzim were founded on socialist principles, and more importantly, Hebrew, rather than Yiddidish, was adopted as the official language. Yiddish was the mamaloshen, associated with the shetl and the weak Jew who lived at the mercy of the goyim. It's a language, as Leo Rosten puts it, of insults and complaints. Hebrew was the language of the warrior Jew, the Bible, the sign of Jews chosen-ness. Way more butch. For people interested in the sexual politics of Hebrew and Yiddish, check out Naomi Seidman's scholarship. Unfortunately, I don't have any titles, she told me this stuff. Frances On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Max Sawicky wrote: . . . that there are some references--e.g. certain Zionist leaders collaborating with Nazis to get young and religious Jews to Palestine and leave older and more secular Jews to the gas chambers . . . Although I've read some about nazi-zionist transactions, this is the first I've heard of age/religiousness dimensions. I'd appreciate any references you might be aware of. The age thing is consistent with an interest in nation-building, but the religion aspect seems less so. My understanding is that the zionist movement was founded and largely led by secularists, and mostly opposed before WWII by orthodox Jews. MBS -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1388] Re: Black militancy
You're reading NY Magazine, Louis? That said, I'm hoping you can elaborate on a couple of things here. First, how is NOI accomodationist? And, we've all heard the story that KM was kicked out of NOI for his strong anti-semitic stance. Is that in the article? I'm pretty sure, although not entirely sure, that his anti-semitic comments were not simply invented by the ADL, although maybe you know otherwise. Assuming KM's vocal antisemitism, can we consider him a leftist, as you label him? (Note: I'm *not* equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism, which *is*, in my estimation, consistent with leftist politics) Actually, You said he's "to the left of thr NOI" which is pretty meaningless, as I think even Al Gore is to the left of the NOI. Some of these demands I find curious. In particular, I find curious his call for repatriation and dual citizenship. Repatriation is, of course, precisely what white supremecist extremists would like to see. And the dual citizenship is sort of odd, too. It assumes that US citizens, who are considered "white" in Africa regardless of skin color, have the right to citizenship anywhere. Isn't that sort of presumptuous in a typical"First World" sort of way? And maybe you simply didn't put in all the demands, but I notice a complete lack of gender and g/l/b/t awareness. That's deeply troubling. And I've looked over it several times, and I don't see any critique of capitalism, or any indiation that KM has taken seriously the connection between capital and race stratification in the US. Those are some pretty disturbing absences. The BRC explicitly addressed gender, sexual orientation, and capitalism. On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Louis Proyect wrote: ((BIG SNIP)) The theme of the march is not about black people looking for forgiveness, as was the case in the Million Man March. This is are some of the demands: --The release of all Political prisoners. --Full and complete reparations for the descendants of slaves. --Black Power, Black Nationalism and Pan Africanism --Jobs for Black Youth (organizing skills, technology transfers). --Adequate resources for the programs that can improve the condition of Black Youth. --Financial aid to Black Students. --Black studies and African centered learning. --Environmental Justice --Repatriation and Dual citizenship. --Unity between Black, Hispanic-Latino, Arab, Native American, and "Asian" youth. --Establish Black Brain Banks and Think Tanks worldwide. --The establishment of Black power conscience cadres and study groups to meet the needs of our people nationally and internationally. --The establishment of Black Liberation/ Self-defense and security units to patrol and control Black communities. --The Holding of a Plebiscite
[PEN-L:1393] Re: Re: All Blacks
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Doug Henwood wrote: That founding date reminded me of Keynes's argumnent in the Treatise that profit inflations are good for culture; he claimed Shakespeare as an example, and the 1920s were pretty good too. But we've been living through a great profit inflation since the early 1980s, and what do we have to show for it? we have the Spice Girls and Tama Janowitz. What else do you want?? Frances
[PEN-L:1186] Re: Corporate crime
Michael, In his book *The Rodrigo Chronicles*, Critical Race theorist Richard Delgado has a useful bit. The book is not about corporate crime, but he's got this lovely little appendix in which he looks at the costs of corporate crime vs. the costs of individual crimes (robberies and so on). He then looks at the sentencing disparities between the two. The book is a few years old, so the stats are out of date, butit's worth cheking out for the differences alone. Frances On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, michael perelman wrote: Does anybody know of a good, quick overview of the costs and consequences of corporate crime? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1170] Apology to Jim Devine
On Sunday, Jim posted something about a new Harley Davidson (TM) doll being marketed by the Franklin Mint (TM). After being unable to locate this ad in my own copy of Parade Magazine (TM), I cruelly, unjustly, and inappropriately accused Jim of lying about the existence of said doll. Jim faxed me a copy of the ad. I am sorry for any emotional pain I might have caused Jim Devine. I am not worthy so much as to gather the crumbs from under thy table, oh merciful Jim. Praise Jim from whom all Harley Davidson (TM) doll ads flow. Praise him all creatures here below, praise Him. Praise Harley (TM) and the Franklin Mint, and praise Jim! I hope that you can find it in your heart to accept this humble apology. I am not worthy, Frances ** S. Frances Bolton Department of Philosophy, CPR 107 phone: 813.974.2447 University of South Florida fax: 813.974.5914 Tampa, FL 33605 [EMAIL PROTECTED] **
[PEN-L:1154] Re: marketing marches onward!
I just looked in my Parade magazine and ther's no fully posable Harley Doll. I think you're making this up. In my issue, the Franklin mint has a Harley pocketwatch, with "Black pouch, chain, and custom designed stand." frances On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, James Devine wrote: From today's PARADE magazine: "Bobby": The Little Biker Baby. Hand-painted fully poseable porcelain doll. Complete with leather vest, bandana, and keys. Available only from The Franklin Mint. Officially Licensed by Harley Davidson. He's Mommy and Daddy's little daredevil in diapers. Born with spirit of the open road -- the spirit of the Harley-Davison (R) rider! ... Crafted in hand-painted porcelain with an impish grin on his face, he's rarin' to go, dressed in his own Harley-Davidson-(R) style leather vest and bandana. He's grabbed the keys, and won't let go -- because it's never too early to imagine yourself on a Harley-Davidson (R) motorcycle. Bring this newest Harley (R) "model" into your home today. Just $110, payable in convenient monthly installments [of $22 each month over 5 months -- what's the implied interest rate?] [ I can't see any tatoos on the picture of the doll. ] Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1123] Re: radical speakers wanted
You're in econ, right? There's some intersting Marxist geographers at UCB. Michael Watts does economic geography, and is a charming and witty speaker. He's fantastic--sat in on his seminar a few years ago and learned alot. Also, check out Iain Boal, who's a lecture in the same dept. He's an anarcho-luddite vego social historian of technology. I moved into science tech studies as a result of the work I did with him. Dick Walker is there, too. I think he works on California, mostly. Or Barbara Epstein is doing stuff (or she was) on new social movements. She's in Santa Cruz at the History of Consciousness Board. Awful person but doe interesting work. She's another one of those academic marxists who abuses the student workers at the library. Frances former student library worker On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be able to finagle a few leftish speakers to come up to Chico. We don't have much money, so the person would have to be travelling through or residing in the Bay Area. Any good suggestions? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1120] Re: Re: radical speakers wanted
On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, valis wrote: Theodore Kaszynski, who lives relatively nearby and has 0 money problems. No, I'm serious. Recently I was reading through his manifesto for the first time in 2 years; once past his peculiar "leftism" constructs (obviously derived from vicarious observations during the '60s) one finds perceptions for which the left may legitimately, if conditionally, claim him I'm not sure why you'd want to claim someone as a leftist who hates the left. This is sort of like those postie marxists who all celebrated the work of nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt. Frances
[PEN-L:1072] Query: The Political Economy of the Beeper
Hoping someone might have feedback/thoughts/possible resources for something I'm working on these days. I'm working on a paper exploring the various ways beepers work in US capitalist economies. I'm using a few examples. (1) beepers as surveillance devices within a workplace--thinking here of a factory floor where workers can always be reached by bosses. This can be characterized as the Panoptic beeper. (2) Beepers in the 24/7 office--thinking here of those poor souls who can always be reached by co-workers, clients, and supervisors via cell phones, beepers and email. I'm lumping these together because they are both examples of employees being surveilled and controlled. I think I can do a straightforwad Foucauldian analysis of these. Now, example (3) is turning out to be tricky for me. This is the beeper and the gangsta. I'm looking at the role of beepers in the drug trade. Unfortunately, this is the main focus of the paper. Now, I think I can do a bit on beepers (and underground economies) and flexible accumulation. I can do a bit on employment opportunities in inner cities leading to involvment in the drug trade. I can do a bit on beepers as surveillance--police perhaps looking more closely (i think this might be more of an historical point) at young black men with beepers than without. If anyone could recommend any good *articles* on postfordism that would be really helpful. Also, does anyone know anything about the political economy of the US urban drug trade? I haven't been able to locate anything on drug-dealing and wireless technologies--don't think it exists so i'm probably going to have to qualify that section with "popular perception..." Does this even make sense? At the very least, I have a good title. Thanks in advance. Frances
[PEN-L:971] Re: Re: Re: 3 Articles on Russia
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Rob Schaap wrote: But there's something else with which markets may have to reckon in this. Unsurprisingly, the fact, as I understand it, that the Commies took 47% of the vote in the last Russian elections, and that *with no access to mass media channels throughout the election campaign*, got little emphasis in Western media at the time. Someone who works on Russia told me that the last election was actually stolen by Yeltsin. Seems that the percentages at the beginning were exactly the same as the percentages at the end, which never happens. Frances
[PEN-L:894] Re: Grad programs in econ
Check out UMass-Amherst, American U., and UC Davis. Frances On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, david dorkin wrote: Hi. I'm considering enrolling in a doctoral program in econ in one of the heterodox departments. I was wondering if anyone has any advice about heterodox departments as well as the idea of a doctorate in econ, as opposed to to sociology or pol.sc. given the state of the discipline and future job prospects (for non neo-classicals). All info is appreciated. Thanks in advance David Dorkin
[PEN-L:817] Upham ( was: Re: Cleaning up after Ryan)
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, valis wrote: I want to focus on one Upham-event. During the battle to hold the bridge, in an upstairs room a desperate seesaw drama of hand-to-hand combat ends with a German soldier slowly plunging a bayonet into one of the Ryan detachment. Upham, who has been militarily dysfunctional for about ten minutes, is squatting halfway up the stairs in some state of immobility. Descending the stairs, the German casts Upham a quick appraising glance and passes him as he might pass a palsied beggar on a city street, although Upham is holding a carbine and is swathed in ammo belts. Why did he do this? Had he gotten his fill of killing just before, in that struggle? And he had been saying something to his opponent, in frenetic German, over and over: was it standard Nazi invective or "Stop, just go limp; I don't really want to kill you"? In "statement" movies, a whole suite of ideas must sometimes be conveyed symbolically, in the actions of individuals. Was this such a case? Valis, The german who looked disgustedly at Upham was the same soldier who was digging the grave earlier in the film. Upham talked with him and insisted that it "wouldn't be right" to kill him when he was a prisoner of war. I think that was the reason for the scene you recounted. Frances
[PEN-L:610] Neem trees Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrights and the new world order
The branches of neem trees are used to clean teeth--neem trees are also exploiting to make expensive toothpaste for export. It's one of those indigenous practices that's been stolen for the pleasure of middle class white folks like myself, who uses a neem toothpaste. Guiltily, Frances On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Louis Proyect wrote: Michael Perelman: Louis Proyect has written about V. Shiva and the commercialization of the Neem tree. What's a Neem tree? Well, no matter. Any chance I have to work on a book with Michael Perelman, I don't care what it's about. Copyrights or motorcycle history or Madonna. You name it. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:611] Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrights and the new world order
Richard Grove's *Green Imperialism*, perhaps?? He's awfully good on those sorts of things... Frances On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Thomas Kruse wrote: And Michael: There was a faboulous book come years about the role of Kew Gardens and British colonial expansion; control of knowledge; etc. They traced the rubber tree seds taken frfom Brazil to Indonesia, etc. Anyone remember the citation? Tom Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:478] Re: copyright
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, James Devine wrote: So could someone explain copyright law, please. And, if it's more than what I said above, why we should obey it (beyond fear of the state). Spontaneity is part of the law. You are limited to a certain number of words if you are planning to copy something. But if you are reading and, in the joy of intellectual discovery, you decide to copy the article or the book to share, then it's fine. There is something rather sweet about that, I think. I studied under a Jesuit who was aware of the copyright law, yet a profligate photocopier. He was always telling us that he sponTANEously copied an article for us... So, I think it's OK to be posting the articles. I must say I enjoy getting them, and would never get around to checking the article itself if just the URL was posted. Frances
[PEN-L:480] Re: Re: Re: copyright
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Louis Proyect wrote: love. Now that I have a scanner, I like to crosspost a few pages of a book that I am excited about. I just picked up Mike Davis's latest "The Ecology of Fear" and will scan in a few pages. This is not about copyright infringement, it is about crossfertilization of ideas. Louis, I've been waiting for this book to come out--I'll go order it now--thnaks for the info. If you have a chance, perhaps you can post your impressions of it? Thanks, Frances
[PEN-L:434] Re: sociobiology and right-wing politics
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, valis wrote: Considering the power of the basic thesis of sociobiology, and in particular the astounding output and persuasiveness of EO Wilson, a determination of this science's political locus would not be a capricious undertaking. A comment by Wilson and Bert Holldobler, his main collaborator, to the effect that socialism may work for ants but not for humans, caused me to hit the roof of this list about 2 years ago. I'm not ready to discount the writer's generous assessment of sociobiology on the basis of that event alone, but the issue in general deserves exploration when the field's top practitioners can gratuitously spout such a stupid and damaging remark. Hey Valis, A critique of the ideology of sociobiology has been done by a number of people. Check out two books wdited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, *The Political Economy of Science* and *The Radicalisation of Science*. Both came out in the 70s. 74 and 76, I think. Check out Kamin et al, *Not in Our Genes.* I suggest that your acquaintance whose writing the Marxist defense of sociobiology (the mind reels!...) also check out Levns and Lewontins *The Dialectical Biologist* for an account of biological theory much more in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of Marxist dialectics. it's not *as* Marxist as, say, Engels *Dialectics of Nature*, but its much more plausible. Lastly, I commend to your friend (and anyone, actually. Steven Rose's new book *Lifelines: Biology Against Determinism*. it has been persuasively argued, I think, that sociobiology serves to naturalize competition, and therefore market capitalism, heterosexuality, and the patriarchal nuclear family, as well as other gender roles. Sociobiology is the craniometry of the future. It seems like a quixotic task your acquaintance is setting out to do, and I wish the person luck, but it seems impossible and ridiculous. Then again, there was a time that the Left supported eugenics, also. Frances
[PEN-L:344] Re: Re: Saving Private Ryan
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read Valis' "review" of Saving Private Ryan. Can someone please send me Valis' review? I prematurely deleted it. I saw "Saving Private Benjamin" yesterday. Technically, it was really impressive. It was, I think, the first war movie I've ever seen, so I have nothing to compare it to. Louis had posted some comments on the film, which included a vet calling "Full metal Jacket" a recruiting movie. During Ryan, I kept asking myself if it could be seen as such, and I think it can be. I went to see the film with a friend and I inadvertantly pissed her off during the climatic scene. Tom Hanks was running, and gunfire and what have you exploding all around him. I leaned over to her and whispered "Run, Forrest, run!!" She elbowed me, hard. People have been relating the war experiences of their fathers, and how they were affected by them. My father enlisted during Korea. He spent the three years at Guantanamo and Jamaica, drinking and whoring and running a black market candy store. I don't think he fired a gun after basic training. He was also a guard in the stockade--the favorite guard of the prisoners as he tells the story, and I believe him--he's pretty affable in a butch NJ blue collar sort of way. He came out of that war deeply, deeply, opposed to the military, and told me, when I ws 18, that the one thing that I could do anything, and he would support me, but if I joined the military, he would disown me. Frances
[PEN-L:325] Re: Re: Re: Re: Inuit and ecology
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Mark Jones wrote: I'm sorry I've copped out of this debate: you and Lou and others don't need my help anyway, but my two penn'orth is that I support what you are doing down the line; and (not that they need my support anyway) I also believe that the Inuit right to hunt is clear, unarguable and cannot be qualified by talk about 'waste', which is simply racist nonsense, in context. Mark, Since I made a comment about the whale not being used, I'm going to ask ou to expand on this comment a bit. The account I read in today's paper said that some of the whale was eaten, and the rest was fed to sled dogs. The article also stated that whales had not been hunted for 50 years, mostly because the whale was sold and there was no market for whale products anymore. How is that "racist nonsense"? Frances
[PEN-L:302] Re: Inuit and ecology
I read an account of the whale hunt in today's morning paper. I don't know how accurate the account was, but it sounded like the hunt was a cultural experience, as opposed to hunting for food or to make oil (or whatever whales have been used for.) The article said that the Inuits each ate some of the meat, and then fed the rest to their dogs. That makes the hunt seem like sport. It also said that they had stopped hunting over fifty years ago, not because they were prevented from it, but rather because there was no longer any need to do it, and the market for whale products had dried up. Assuming this account is true, it would be difficult for me to support the hunt. While I do support the right to self-determination, and appreciate the importance of cultural integrity, I don't think I accept the argument that whale hunts are to the lives of the people of Baffin Island. The fact that they voluntarily gave up hunting seems to suggest otherwise. If someone on the list knows that the hunts are indeed necessarily, and the whale carcass was actually used, I'd appreciate hearing that. Frances On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: Am wondering what folks think about the recent Inuit bowhead whale hunt up by Baffin Island. I find myself having very mixed feelings, sympathetic with the sovereignty and cultural claims of the Inuit, but also concerned that this is the opening wedge in ending restrictions on whaling worldwide. In northern Wisconsin opposition to tribal fishing rights has clearly been very racist. But then the fishing of muskies and other fish by the Chippewa/Ojibwe and Potawotami has not been of any endangered species. It is white-owned commercial tourist interests who are affected. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:152] Re: Re: Fw: Nazi gold, Burma and US waffling
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, michael wrote: By the way, no one took notice of my note about the next wedge issue on campus of fighting ethnic and women's studies. Has no one else heard of this? I took note of it, Michael, and asked how Connerly was justifying this latest battle. Still hoping that someone (maybe you?) on the list will enlighten me. I don't live in CA anymore. I live in FL and news of this action is not in the daily papers, but hasn't been in the NAtion, ITT, Z, or the Progressive, either. Cheers, Frances
[PEN-L:113] Re: the next wave
I was in Ca. to see him in action during the anti-affirmative action disaster. On what grounds is he justifyig his attack on women's/ethnic studies? Frances Bolton On Sat, 4 Jul 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ward Connerly, California's right wing hero of the attack on affirmative action, has now announced that his next target will be ethnic and women's studies. What next? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
