subject:"Correction\:"

Correction

2004-08-03 Thread Louis Proyect

The other interesting thing going on is the trivialization of the
campaign, with major statements being made about Kerry's donning of a
clean suit at NASA, debunking his mouth-to-mouth resuscitation of a
hamster, etc. I strongly suspect that the corporate media will be going
gung-ho for BUSH in the next few months.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Query: Ford/General Motors - correction

2004-07-24 Thread Waistline2





In a message dated 7/23/2004 6:35:11 PM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  A per unit drop of labor input of 40% in 30 years is running 
  at an annual improvement factor of more than 10% and what is built into the 
  union contract is an annual improvement factor of 3% increase in wages. The 3% 
  annual improvement factor (AIF) was actually lost during years of 
  concessionary contracts - 1980-1993,  and "re-won" in the mid 1990s. 
  

Correction 
 
10% should be one percent. Contract negotiations took place 
every three years until changed in the late 1990s to a five year contract.

Correction

2004-07-11 Thread Marvin Gandall

Sorry. Michael Ignatieff. George was his dad, a Canadian diplomat.

Re: Correction

2004-07-01 Thread Carl Remick

From: Michael Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[See comment at end]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/pageoneplus/corrections.html
The New York Times
July 1, 2004
Corrections
... As Eric Umansky of Todays Papers points out, this correction fails to
mention the tiny bit of context that his purported desertion was what that
article was about -- the only thing it was about.
They should create a new section entitled "Retractions."
Michael
Yes, and the NYT needs another new section called "Recalls."  E.g., both the
paper's Thomas L. Friedman and, it would seem, Judith Miller have been
pulled out of production for retooling.
Carl
_
MSN Movies - Trailers, showtimes, DVD's, and the latest news from Hollywood!
http://movies.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200509ave/direct/01/

Re: Correction

2004-07-01 Thread Michael Perelman

Maybe they could save space by having a small section of the paper reprinting the 
material that did not need
to be retracted.

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 12:54:46PM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> They should create a new section entitled "Retractions."
>
> Michael

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

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Correction

2004-07-01 Thread Michael Pollak

[See comment at end]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/pageoneplus/corrections.html
The New York Times
July 1, 2004
Corrections
   A n article yesterday about Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, the American
   marine held by kidnappers in Iraq, quoted incompletely from a comment
   by a cousin of his in Salt Lake City about speculation that the
   corporal might have deserted. The cousin, Tarek Hassoun, said of a
   conversation two months ago with Corporal Hassoun: "He said a lot of
   soldiers, they don't want to die, especially when they see someone
   dying in front of them." When the report from Salt Lake City was added
   to the Baghdad article, this further comment from Tarek Hassoun was
   omitted: "But I'm sure he didn't run away."

As Eric Umansky of Todays Papers points out, this correction fails to
mention the tiny bit of context that his purported desertion was what that
article was about -- the only thing it was about.
They should create a new section entitled "Retractions."
Michael

Re: Chechen relations -- final for today - correction

2004-06-27 Thread Waistline2





In a message dated 6/27/2004 4:50:22 PM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In other words when the genocidal wars of extermination was 
  launched against the Indians and after their brutal conquest there did not 
  exist a petty bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie or a proletariat as fundamental class 
  - economic units amongst the various Indian nations. 
   
  Thus the various Indian people are "old nations" or advance 
  national groups or historically evolved people who have not entered the 
  economic development that characterizes modern nations - bourgeois property 
  relations. Lenin is very . . . very clear about this distinction and speak 
  repeatedly of it in his assessment of the national question. 
  

Correction 
 

In other words when the genocidal wars of extermination was 
launched against the Indians and after their brutal conquest there did not exist 
a petty bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie or a proletariat as fundamental class - 
economic units amongst the various Indian nations. Actually there were no serfs 
to run off into the cities under the impact of industrialization and  . . . 
WAS THERE EVEN A PEASANTRY . . . and did not this clan type society resemble 
much of "Chechnya" - which wasn't really "Chechnya" in 1850? The Indians in 
the main did not even have a sense and conception of property as a bourgeois 
relations. Owning land was like trying to own air . . . it made no social or 
economic sense. Yet these are historically evolved peoples several steps behind 
the economic phenomena called the modern nation. 
 
None of this is stated in a derogatory sense. We are talking 
about an economic curve of development. 
 
Historically evolved people are historically evolved with 
their unique social and cultural attributes but Lenin mean a specific thing when 
he says nation. Lenin is describing economics and Pen-L focus is on economics 
and we need to get with the program. 
 
What is the economic logic of the so-called national movement 
in Chechnya in year 2004? 
 
I'm just aksing a question. 
 
Thus the various Indian people are "old nations" or advance 
national groups or historically evolved people who HAD not entered the 
economic development that characterizes modern nations - bourgeois property 
relations. There are groups of people on earth who had not got to the later 
stages of development of serfdom or feudalism. Lenin is very . . . very clear 
about this economic distinction and speak repeatedly of it in his assessment of 
the national question. That is why he basically said "let us be careful and more 
sensitive." 
 
The Stalin period is there for all to study.  Was not the 
question self determination and the economic logic of the national movements and 
supporting self determination in 2004? 
 
 
Thanks my brother for the correction. 
 
Melvin P.

Re: Mark Jones Still Among the living (was titled Wrong) - Correction

2004-06-22 Thread Waistline2





In a message dated 6/22/2004 4:41:39 PM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It gets deeper because Comrade Marx - an unyielding champion 
  against tyrants, advanced a specific proposition concerning what he called the 
  bureaucracy.  After over thirty years engaging the industrial bureaucracy 
  in the flesh - as a way of life, I took exception and called the industrial 
  bureaucracy  . . . the industrial bureaucracy. Mark J did not define the 
  bureaucracy as the industrial bureaucracy proper and this was my disagreement. 
  

Comment
 
The first sentence should read 
 
"It gets deeper because Comrade MARK - an unyielding champion 
against tyrants, advanced a specific proposition concerning what he called the 
bureaucracy. "
 
One concept of democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the 
Marxist presentation of the origin of "needs" and these needs appear as very 
real commodities that serve as the basis of reproduction. 
 
What exactly is being reproduced that serve as the sphere of 
activity in which labor power is sold and purchased? In the realm of theoretical 
Marxism this is called "mediation" - a word I personally hate, because it 
explains nothing. 
 
Everything is wrong in Comrade Mark J presentation of the 
question of the underlying energy grid of a mode of production. Of course no one 
can prove we are hitting the thermo dynamic barrier today because it is not 
provable. On the other hand, anyone can on any given day prove that "something" 
is going to happen tomorrow. 
 
The underlying components of an energy grid that sustains a 
mode of production is extremely important. How an energy infrastructure is 
deployed in the production of material wherewithal deserves critical attention. 

 
Here is where Mark J ran a foul. Consumption ideology and 
"theory" runs rampant in the imperial centers and is no more than an effort to 
protect the way of life of the more prosperous segments of classes in American 
society. We do not have to trade in cars for bicycles. 
 
Is not the question "where are you going in the first place?" 

 
Or NEED. 
 
If you need a car as individual transportation to go to work 
to reproduce the infrastructure that produce cars as individual transportation, 
then this is a property relations. Or what is the same  . . . the 
reproduction of a unique need created as the result of bourgeois property and 
sitting at the basis of reproduction, as the basis of the bourgeois property 
relations that proceed the unique need. 
 
Well . . . actually the automobile is a produce of techology 
and human invention. We are not talking about an abstract car in the real world 
but a commodity who production  . . . reproduces its own effect. 

 
Yes, this is mediation in the Marxist sense but unless one 
specifically defines what they are talking about . . . we are not talking about 
anything. 
 
It is not that society should ride bikes but rather  . . 
. where are you going if you are not going to work to produce commodities that 
reproduce a host of social consequences. 
 
We have arrived at a point in the material power of production 
where a heck of a lot of people do not have to work as we have conceived work. 
Technology has rendered their labor superfluous and we are still struck in old 
categories and rotten bourgeois ideology. 
 
The configuration of our society and earth itself is subject 
to radcial change. 
 
What we face is more intense than in the days of Marx. 

 
It is not that the philosopher's have only conceived the world 
and our task is to change it. We face another question.
 
In what direction do we change the world? 
 
Everyone agree we need change because we are in a brewing 
revolutionary crisis. The reactionaries know the purpose is to change the world. 

 
Finding our place in history is more than a notion. 

 
 
Melvin P.

Correction

2004-06-20 Thread sartesian




Wrong URL, sorry
 
http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com
 
It's the simple things that give us the most 
trouble

Title correction: Game Theory (Instead of Islam and Democracy: The Lesson from Turkey)

2004-05-17 Thread Sabri Oncu

Game Theory should have been the title of my previous post.

By the way, that I do not like Game Theory has nothing to do with that I am
a Leftist.

But it has a lot to do with that I am an Easterner.

Best,

Sabri

Re: correction

2004-04-11 Thread MICHAEL YATES





I should have written "might not decades of support for imperialism  . . 
by organized labor..."
 
Michael Yates

  - Original Message - 
  From: MICHAEL YATES 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:55 
PM
  Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Third World 
  Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
  
  
  I think that millions of working people in the US are deeply troubled 
  about the war in Iraq.  But they lack any kind of progressive mindset to 
  give this unease meaning and to guide them to action. Might note decades of 
  support for imperialism (and its attendant racism and belief in the 
  superiority and goodness of the US) have a lot to do with this.  I wish 
  that Petras as well as those who criticize him would begin the engage 
  workers.  Labor education is a good place to start.
   
  Michael Yates
  
- Original Message - 
From: Doug Henwood 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:39 
PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Third World 
Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
Sabri Oncu wrote:>Max:>>>  
This sort of drivel reminds me why the U.S. left>>  is so 
insulated from political power.  
mbs>>As an outsider who has the chance to observe 
from>within, I don't think this is the reason.>>The 
American left doesn't have anything to offer to>the American people, 
most of whom are working-class.Are you two necessarily contradicting 
each other? Pieces like Petras'don't resonate at all with the U.S. 
working class, whether we like itor not. Neither do sermons about 
overconsumption. But I don't know ifthe leftists who say these sorts of 
things really care about theirlack of an 
  audience.Doug

Re: Mark Jones Was Right/correction

2004-04-11 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated 4/10/2004 7:23:03 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The world sewage system - even in the most modern countries, is configured on the basis of man existing in a pathological condition (embedded with ancient and modern forms of property expressed in our current form and reality of the sum total of our "needs.") If obesity is the number one cause of death in America - and it most is, then we are talking about the people of America having exceeded a "certain limit," even if our present society is not conscious of what this "certain limit" consists.
Gluttony and obesity is not simply wrong diet or more accurately wrong consumption, but embodies the society process called production, consumption and distribution. Each aspect of production, consumption and distibution presupposes each other. In real life this social process is sustained on the basis of an energy infrastructure. The energy infrastructure took shape on the basis of the bourgeois property relations as it creates "needs" including the need that is the energy infrastructure.
The only possible cure for gluttony and obesity is to stop eating - consuming that, which is causing the mass deaths. The question presents itself in its appearance form as a lack of exercise, fatty foods and lazy Americans with too many cars. The appearance form are in fact created "needs."
Marx "Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844" actually discuss these questions in their theoretical dimensions under the concept of alienation, or the externalization and objectification of social activity - laboring and the evolution of property relations.
Marx does not directly speak to eating and obesity because consumption did not exits as a social question in this form. The form of the social question - consumption in the general sense, was scarcity, which the bourgeoisie controls, or the control of scarcity (the class impulse of bourgeois production) as opposed to the abolition of scarcity.
The question deepens because scarcity is not an abstraction and has for thousands of years been understood on the basis of the "needs" created by a given mode of production. We have entered an era of communist revolution, but not as an abstraction. What faces us in the imperial centers is the contradiction between the mode of production and the social relations that - unbelievably, manifest the control of scarcity as gluttony and "to much of everything" called obesity.
From this point of view the barrier to sustainability (a bad concept in the first place) is the property relations and not the laws of thermodynamics, which operates outside the subjective will of man. Sustainability is a bad concept because it embody the property relations that created much of the needs one is to sustain. A projection based on the needs created on the basis of property means one is within bourgeois ideology and consumption theory.
Not a refusal to acknowledge the inherently finite dimensions of earth or the computations of the geologists, but rather a more sober positioning of all questions in their property form.
The manner in which we think things out embodies the property relations and its various ideological forms, as well as tradition, cultural specificity and force of habit, which in turn embodies property relations.
The issue of the environment is not a question of abstract survival of the species but a property question. The destruction of vast tracts of forest and plant life is not a question of science gone mad, but science under the direction of property - the bourgeoisie as a class.
It seems reasonable to charge various environmentalists with Malthus concepts, in as much as they position the question outside the bounds of property. Henry Ford as personified capital and the automobile in the flesh, is to be charged with criminal concept for humanity and an environmental degradation unprecedented in human history. Our entire transportation infrastructure embodies property relations and not abstract road, streets and highways.
Comrade Mark Jones mentions the environmental destruction within the Soviet Union and states that no one is immune to the laws of thermodynamics. "Socialism is not the answer to sustainability as it is expressed on the basis of thermodynamics" is the basic assertion. What is needed is a different kind of socialism more conscious of nature or more understanding of the law of unknown result.
Absent from Mark Jones assessment is acknowledgment that socialism is a value producing society and a property relations with all its consequences. Further, public property relations in the industrial infrastructure, as it evolves as a transition from agricultural society to industry proper, recreates many of the same needs as an industrial bourgeois society. Industrial society no matter what its property relations is a historically specific mode of production with the property relations within.
That is to say what wa

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 144 matches

Mail list logo