welcome back Peter Dorman
Peter, I found this on the web, but the people in Washington said that they knew of no international comparisons. Is this information correct?: According to the latest available figures from the National Census of Fatal Occupational injuries, 6,218 workers were killed in 1997, up from 6,112 the year before. The largest portion of deaths (22 percent) involved workers killed in job-related highway crashes, including truck drivers and others who operate motor vehicles. Deaths from on-the-job falls, railway crashes, and being caught in running equipment, such as manufacturing and agricultural machinery, all reached a six-year high in 1997. The US ranks worst in workplace injuries compared with 15 other industrialized countries. It has the highest occupational injury rate and trails 10 other nations with a fatality rate of 5.9 deaths for every 100,000 workers. Great Britain and the Netherlands reported job death rates of 1.1 for every 100,000 workers. Norway invests the most money on job safety and health activities -- about $11.36 for every citizen. By contrast, the US spends only about $1 per citizen on worker safety programs. Only two countries surveyed spend less. Great Britain reports having more workplace health and safety inspectors than any of the 15 nations studied. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: welcome back Peter Dorman
Michael wrote, According to the latest available figures from the National Census of Fatal Occupational injuries, 6,218 workers were killed in 1997, up from 6,112 the year before. More recent data (for 1999) now at http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.toc.htm LA Times recently (within last 2 weeks) had an article on California occupational injuries, likely based on state data found at site above. LA Times reported that injuries in construction industry have grown in recent years whereas most other industries have experienced declines. The reason for the construction increase was, in part, the lack of enforcement of existing rules/laws. Eric
Re: welcome back Peter Dorman
Yes and no. The CFOI (Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries) is a more credible source of data than we had previously, but it still undercounts by at least 10%. The real problem, however, is that approximately 9 in 10 occupationally-caused deaths in the US are caused by disease, not injury -- and these aren't included in the numbers. So talk about 60,000 deaths, 6,000 of them due to injury. The time trend is a return to normality, after a period of falling fatal injury rates. Basically, fatal injuries are procyclical (for a variety of reasons), so it should not make sense to have falling numbers across the boom. The international comparison is essentially correct, but don't believe the numbers for England. They claim to have the lowest rates in Europe, and I don't believe it -- or have they really deindustrialized so completely? This is an issue I'm trying to learn more about. Oh, and the cause of death data are most likely right, bearing in mind that they pertain to injuries only. Peter Michael Perelman wrote: Peter, I found this on the web, but the people in Washington said that they knew of no international comparisons. Is this information correct?: According to the latest available figures from the National Census of Fatal Occupational injuries, 6,218 workers were killed in 1997, up from 6,112 the year before. The largest portion of deaths (22 percent) involved workers killed in job-related highway crashes, including truck drivers and others who operate motor vehicles. Deaths from on-the-job falls, railway crashes, and being caught in running equipment, such as manufacturing and agricultural machinery, all reached a six-year high in 1997. The US ranks worst in workplace injuries compared with 15 other industrialized countries. It has the highest occupational injury rate and trails 10 other nations with a fatality rate of 5.9 deaths for every 100,000 workers. Great Britain and the Netherlands reported job death rates of 1.1 for every 100,000 workers. Norway invests the most money on job safety and health activities -- about $11.36 for every citizen. By contrast, the US spends only about $1 per citizen on worker safety programs. Only two countries surveyed spend less. Great Britain reports having more workplace health and safety inspectors than any of the 15 nations studied. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: welcome back Peter Dorman
A radical change is taking place in construction. You may remember (or think you remember) it as an exclusive, aristocracy-of-labor operation, staffed by unionized ethnics out to beat up blacks and hippies. Today it is largely nonunion, poorly trained (the breakdown of the apprenticeship system), increasingly nonwhite, often abysmally paid, and therefore more dangerous. Peter Eric Nilsson wrote: Michael wrote, According to the latest available figures from the National Census of Fatal Occupational injuries, 6,218 workers were killed in 1997, up from 6,112 the year before. More recent data (for 1999) now at http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.toc.htm LA Times recently (within last 2 weeks) had an article on California occupational injuries, likely based on state data found at site above. LA Times reported that injuries in construction industry have grown in recent years whereas most other industries have experienced declines. The reason for the construction increase was, in part, the lack of enforcement of existing rules/laws. Eric
Re: Re: welcome back Peter Dorman
Peter Dorman wrote: fatal injuries are procyclical So is productivity - because, among other reasons, workers are worked harder as growth accelerates. This is what "working harder" means, I guess. Doug
Re: Re: RE: welcome back Peter Dorman
Peter Dorman wrote: A radical change is taking place in construction. You may remember (or think you remember) it as an exclusive, aristocracy-of-labor operation, staffed by unionized ethnics out to beat up blacks and hippies. Today it is largely nonunion, poorly trained (the breakdown of the apprenticeship system), increasingly nonwhite, often abysmally paid, and therefore more dangerous. Hmm, here productivity trends run against the morbidity/mortality trend. Productivity in construction is in a mysterious decline. Doug
Re: Re: Re: RE: welcome back Peter Dorman
I recall that Robert Gordon wrote about this mystery back in the 1970s. He made the case that the decline did not seem to be grounded in the realities of the industry. Peter Dorman wrote: A radical change is taking place in construction. You may remember (or think you remember) it as an exclusive, aristocracy-of-labor operation, staffed by unionized ethnics out to beat up blacks and hippies. Today it is largely nonunion, poorly trained (the breakdown of the apprenticeship system), increasingly nonwhite, often abysmally paid, and therefore more dangerous. Hmm, here productivity trends run against the morbidity/mortality trend. Productivity in construction is in a mysterious decline. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: RE: welcome back Peter Dorman
Not so mysterious, I think. This is not a cyclical question, but a product of the transformation of the industry. Deunionization and deskilling should lead to both lower productivity and more human misery. Peter Doug Henwood wrote: Peter Dorman wrote: A radical change is taking place in construction. You may remember (or think you remember) it as an exclusive, aristocracy-of-labor operation, staffed by unionized ethnics out to beat up blacks and hippies. Today it is largely nonunion, poorly trained (the breakdown of the apprenticeship system), increasingly nonwhite, often abysmally paid, and therefore more dangerous. Hmm, here productivity trends run against the morbidity/mortality trend. Productivity in construction is in a mysterious decline. Doug
Re: welcome back Peter Dorman
Peter wrote, Not so mysterious, I think. This is not a cyclical question, but a product of the transformation of the industry. Deunionization and deskilling should lead to both lower productivity and more human misery. But hasn't deunionization/deskilling been happening in construction since the early 1970s? This long-term trend can't explain worsening productivity in the last few years. In any case, the decline of unions and real wages in the construction industry over the last 25 years was started off by an apparent conscious attack by the federal government designed to tame construction workers. This undercutting of construction workers starting in the 1970s might have played an important part, possibly via spillovers to other industries, in setting the stage for the eventual good profits of the 1990s. I think this process is worthly of more investigation that it has so far received. This attack occurred, of course, in the name of reducing 'inflationary forces' with the wage controls over 1971-74. The construction industry was singled out in the early 1970s for special wage controls that were very effective. Construction workers had been very successful in getting wage increases in the late 1960s and were by 1970 one of the highest paid (if not the highest paid of all) worker groups. The expansion of non-union contruction -- particularly in residential construction -- in the early 1970s helped this attack along with increased use of prefab contruction techniques. Eric
Re: Enjoying Orthodoxy (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel)
In a message dated 6/22/00 1:06:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I get to play an "Orthodox Marxist" perhaps only in the minds of posters on LBO-talk PEN-L. :) Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I couldn't have been called "Orthodox" even a decade ago. If I have really become "Orthodox," perhaps the Marxist tradition has made more progress on what used to be quaintly called the "Woman Question" than I have been aware. Fair enough. I stand corrected. But I meant that you were millenarian, not that you were orthodox. --jks BTW, within the history of Christianity, millenarianism has been considered heretical subversive, not orthodox: * MILLENNIALISM (MILLENARIANISM, CHILIASM) Draft of article for the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of World Religions, 1999 Literally, millennialism refers to the belief, expressed in the book of Revelation, that Christ will establish a one-thousand year reign of the saints on earth before the Last Judgment. More broadly defined, millennialists expect a time of supernatural peace and abundance here on earth. At its origins, millennialism offers a concrete version of the fundamental eschatological belief that at the "end of time" God will judge the living and the [resurrected] dead. This belief in an ultimate divine justice, has provided the solution to the problem of theodicy for countless generations of believers -- Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists -- suffering hardship and oppression, and has, therefore, had immense appeal for commoners in every age. Whereas the name comes from the 1000-year period, in fact the key factor concerns the earthly nature of the coming "new world": whether it is of a duration of forty years or four thousand, the radical transformation necessarily means an end to the current institutions of power and, therefore, gives all millennial beliefs a revolutionary quality that has made them unwelcome to those in positions of authority ...From its earliest manifestations, millennial beliefs bifurcated between imperial, hierarchical visions of the world to come, a kingdom ruled over by a just if authoritarian imperial figure who would conquer the forces of chaos and establish the true order of society (Cohn, 1993) and a demotic vision of a world of holy anarchy, where dominion of man over man ceased from the world. Many world conquerors used millennial "savior" imagery to bolster their rule (Cyrus, Alexander, Augustus, Constantine), and especially in the Muslim and Christian Middle Ages these imperial uses of millennial imagery proliferated. The contrary millennial tendency, however, was marked by a profoundly anti-imperial, even anti-authoritarian thrust. Indeed, one of the major strains of Hebrew messianic imagery foresaw a time when men shall beat the instruments of war and domination into instruments of peace and prosperity; each one sitting under his own tree, enjoying the fruits of honest labor undisturbed (Isaiah 2:1-3, Micah 4:1-4). This millennialism foresees the end of the rapacious aristocracy (lion and wolf will lie down with the lamb) and the peace of the commoner, the manual laborer (lamb gets up the next morning). Perhaps no idea in the ancient world, where the dominion of aristocratic empires spread to almost every area of cultivated land, held more subversive connotations (Baumgarten). Apostolic Christianity demonstrates many of the key traits of apocalyptic millenarian groups of this second, demotic, type: * the rhetoric of the meek overcoming the powerful and arrogant, * the imminence of the Lord's Day of wrath and the coming Kingdom of Heaven, * a leader and a following among common, working people, * rituals of initiation into a group preparing for and awaiting the End, * fervent spirituality and radical restructuring of community bonds, * large, enthusiastic crowds prominence of women visionaries, * the shift from a disappointed messianic hope (Crucifixion) to a revised expectation (Second Coming or Parousia)... ...As Christianity evolved from a charismatic cult on the fringes of the society into a self-perpetuating institution eager to live in harmony with Rome, the hopes of apocalyptic millenarianism embarrassed Church leaders who emphasized to Roman authorities that Jesus' kingdom was "not of this world." Whereas almost every prominent Christian writer from the movement's first century assumed a literal millennialism, by the later second century ecclesiastical writers, striving to eliminate subversive millennialism from Church doctrine, began an assault on millenarian texts (especially Revelation, the only text in the New Testament to explicitly speak of an earthly kingdom). Origen, an early 3rd century theologian, argued the millennium was to be interpreted allegorically, not carnally; others attempted (successfully in the Eastern Church) to eliminate Revelation from the canon
Re: Entertaining Dogma (was Re: Peter Dorman andRobin Hahnel)
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20535] Entertaining Dogma (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel) Greetings Economists, An interesting reply from Yoshie. First I want to somehow convey how much I appreciate your thoughts Yoshie on so many subjects. Especially what you wrote not to me but to jks, Yoshie, Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I couldn't have been called Orthodox even a decade ago. If I have really become Orthodox, perhaps the Marxist tradition has made more progress on what used to be quaintly called the Woman Question than I have been aware. Doyle But I want to reply to this quotation, Yoshie, Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that there are people who are not sceptics. If they all were, they would be wrong. Pascal, _Pensees_ Doyle My brain is fried. But I can appreciate the truth in those words. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
I don't view Marxian dialectical method as a neutral "toolkit," nor did I say I did. Who said anything about "neutral"? Not moi. I assume that if you ask questions about class and exploitation, you do so because you have answered the question in your mind, which side am I on? But my point was just that the toolkit view is not the same as the package of substantive commitments in orthodox Marxism. Hell, my own ransacking of the toolkit doesn't find much place for notions like "dialectical" and "methodology." Of course I am a poor excuse for a Marxist. but I do know which side I am on. The method of looking at the totality (including the totality of the historical process) encourages the asking of all sorts of questions that encourage skepticism about any existing system of power. I dunno. Hegel didn't think so. The substantive commitment is to supporting the oppressed against the oppressors. That's an ethical thing, but hard to separate from a vision that sees the capitalist system as exploitative (in the sense that some get rewarded because they have power over others, not because they contribute to human welfare) and as made by human beings in a historical process rather than being a "gift" of nature. But this is violently opposed to orthodox marxism, on which morality is ideology. Communsim is after all rthe real movement, not an ideal to which we hold reality up in comparison, as Marx and Engels said in the German Ideology. I don't asy _they_ were orthodox Marxists; they were much too smart for that. But the orthodox view rejects ethical analysis, and it also requires a particular conception of the nature of exploitation, one based on the labor theory of value. So far as the view you state goes, for eaxmple, Emma Goldman was a Marxist, and I ams ure she would have demurred. If I had an inspiring message I'd tell you. No-one has inspiring messages these days except people like Fukayama and the IMF types with their Glorious Capitalist Revolution from Above. And those messages only _sound_ inspiring. OK, so you are sane. but the point is that orthodox Marxism, and indeed even Marx's Marxism, draws a lot of its power from the promise of tying together a vision of a better future with real social agency that is observably operating to change it. Take away that connection, you are just an analytical Marxist, in your case, one with a commitment to dialectical method. That is, you are someone who its commited to use a certain set of concepts in your work in the hope that it may somehow indirectly marginally advance the likelihood that someday there will be a social agency that will really change things for the better. I doubt that substantce and method can be prised apart in the way you suggest. It's true: Neoclassical and methodological individualist "tools" almost always are linked to right-wing politics, etc. It's hard to separate method from political commitment. (I'm no positivist.) I don't agree with your examples generally, although the point may hold may be true in economics. I sais: Lukacs would have been horrified by my own substantive views, for example. I don't know if that's good or bad, since I don't know what "substantive views" you have. Sure you do. You know, or would know if you thought about it, that I am a liberal democratic defender of a market socialist economy. Also a pragmatic empiricist in philosophy. Lukacs would think that was a really bad set of ideas. By the way, do you want that article on functional explanation? E-mail me your snail mail address. --jks
Re: Enjoying Orthodoxy (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (...
In a message dated 6/22/00 1:06:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I get to play an "Orthodox Marxist" perhaps only in the minds of posters on LBO-talk PEN-L. :) Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I couldn't have been called "Orthodox" even a decade ago. If I have really become "Orthodox," perhaps the Marxist tradition has made more progress on what used to be quaintly called the "Woman Question" than I have been aware. Fair enough. I stand corrected. But I meant that you were millenarian, not that you were orthodox. --jks
RE: Re: Re: Jerks, was Re: Peter Dorman and RobinHahnel
No foreign epithets allowed. Only domestic. Instead of w*, there is the perfectly good U.S. term of pud-whacker. mbs Fair Trade Coalition Greetings Economists, Doug Henwood asks if I give my permission to use the word "Wanker". I grant Doug Henwood permission to use the word Wanker. He must first follow the conditions put out here. His useage must be run by a committee consisting of Bill Clinton, Max Sawicky, and Alan Greenspan. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
At 11:43 PM 06/20/2000 -0400, you wrote: the price of orthodoxy is political irrelevance, and having the people you purport to support regard you, if they think of you at all, as deluded fanatics. is it political irrelevance the price of theoretical orthodoxy, or is it the price of dogmatic _a priori_ rejection of all other ways of thinking (and of any arguments that go against the preestablished "line"), together with the arrogant use of all sorts of jargon (either of an academic or a sectarian nature) that is unintelligible or off-putting to the vast majority of people? that is, is the problem with the _theory_ or is it with the theory's adherent's style? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
G'day Jim, that is, is the problem with the _theory_ or is it with the theory's adherent's style? I don't think it's the theory, Jim. The way I understand said theory, we find out what we should do now by reflecting on what's happening in light of our past practice. Any advocate of that theory who imposes on the rest of us an assessment of the progressiveness of our politics, or tells us what to do - and does so with the moot legitimation afforded by a particular reading of militants and theorists removed from us by much time and many kliks - is asking for particularly ruthless criticism in terms of their own theory, I submit. I may not quite know what democratic centralism might look like, but I know a bureaucratically centralist position when I see one. Yours, A proud admirer of P. Dorman and R. Hahnel both.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
It's probably both a problem with the theory and the style. The style of orthodox Marxism is of course a guarantee that no one will talk to you who is not already a true believer. But the two are linked. The theory appears to be defective, and retaining a defective millinarian theory in the face of inevitable continued disappointments probably requires an in-group jargon to keep going. --jks In a message dated Wed, 21 Jun 2000 9:57:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 11:43 PM 06/20/2000 -0400, you wrote: the price of orthodoxy is political irrelevance, and having the people you purport to support regard you, if they think of you at all, as deluded fanatics. is it political irrelevance the price of theoretical orthodoxy, or is it the price of dogmatic _a priori_ rejection of all other ways of thinking (and of any arguments that go against the preestablished "line"), together with the arrogant use of all sorts of jargon (either of an academic or a sectarian nature) that is unintelligible or off-putting to the vast majority of people? that is, is the problem with the _theory_ or is it with the theory's adherent's style? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
Re: Re: RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Doug Henwood wrote: . But as Lenin said, better fewer but better. And he said it at a time when membership in the battered Communist Party (B) was very tempting to those whose motives were strictly careerist, when its best cadre had died in the Civil War . . . . Carrol
Re: RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to open a small parenthesis here. I was in fact criticizing Dorman and Hahnel against the claim that they were progressive. Excuse me for jumping in here but I just signed onto the list and didn't have access to this discussion earlier. I just wanted to say a few things regarding Hahnel Albert. While I've not read "Looking Forward" I have participated in ZNet can say that Hahnel Albert's anti-Marxism is more anti-Leninism. Trotsky's warm remarks regarding increasing management power quoted by Louis are precisely the kind of centralized control rejected in participatory economics. Perhaps Louis read about balanced job complexes and suddenly saw a future where he might have to help sweep the shop scrub the john. It should be pointed out that Tariq Ali has recently opened a forum on ZNet. This would seem to indicate that Albert's position is a bit more complex than reflexive anti-Marxism. Regarding utopianism, I thought regaining some semblance of vision was all the rage on the Left these days. I realize there remains a great deal of self-consciousness regarding these speculations. Immanuel Wallerstein actually invented a new word, "Utopistics," to provide cover for such indulgences. cheers, joe By this sort of definition, there must be about 347 "progressives" in the U.S., and 5,132 around the world. But as Lenin said, better fewer but better. Doug
Re: RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Joe wrote:, Regarding utopianism, I thought regaining some semblance of vision was all the rage on the Left these days. I realize there remains a great deal of self-consciousness regarding these speculations. Immanuel Wallerstein actually invented a new word, "Utopistics," to provide cover for such indulgences. cheers, joe "The underdeveloped state of the class struggle,as well as their own surroundings, causes of socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class, nay by preference to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see it in the best possible plan of the best possible state of society? Hence they reject all political especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and the force of example, to pave the way for the new SOCIAL GOSPEL ( Marx, On Utopian Socialism, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Tucker, p.498). good night, Mine Doyran, Phd student, SUNY/Albany, Politics... By this sort of definition, there must be about 347 "progressives" in the U.S., and 5,132 around the world. But as Lenin said, better fewer but better. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
If you view "the theory" as a toolkit that doesn't involve substantive
commitments, it wonm't have the defects of orthodox Marxism, but it also
won't have the inspiring message that gave orthodoxy its power. I doubt that
substantce and method can be prised apart in the way you suggest. Lukacs, for
example, was pretty orthodox in his substantive views. He would have been
horrified by my own substantive views, for example. Anyway, I was attacking
orthodox Marxism of Louis' variety, not a watered-down methodological
Marxism. I regatd Louis, and probably Mine and Yoshie (sorry, Yoshie) as
millenarian Marxists, although not the cultified sort. I am aware that there
are jerks of all political persuasions. Used to be there were more on the
right, maybe still are, if only because the right is so much bigger. --jks
In a message dated 6/21/00 11:12:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The theory
appears to be defective, and retaining a defective millinarian theory in
the face of inevitable continued disappointments probably requires an
in-group jargon to keep going. --jks
That's because some people see Marxism not as a method (a set of questions
for analyzing reality) but as a dogma (a pre-determined set of answers). I
follow Georg Lukacs to go with the former.
Instead of blaming the theory, I'd look at the material (i.e., social)
basis of dogmatism and a dogmatic style. I think the problem is not the
theory that working in isolation (in a small sect, in an academic setting,
etc.) encourages a style where one gets involved in only talking to others
who have extremely similar views, speak a similar jargon, etc. It's similar
to what happens with religious cults.
Nonetheless, I haven't run into very many millenarian Marxists, at least
not recently. Haven't the Sparts gone away?
BTW, a lot of anti-Marxian or non-Marxian types have very obnoxious styles.
Have you ever heard someone from the IMF talk? or a televangelist? A key
difference is that they have the power to impose their will or they are
obnoxious in a way that fits with the dominant social system.
One thing that turns people off from the "left," often encouraging them to
shift to the "right" is the obnoxious style of many on the left, especially
toward perceived apostates ("renegade Kautsky" and all that). But in my
experience, there are jerks randomly distributed across the political
spectrum, while folks who were jerks on the left (e.g., David Horowitz,
former editor of RAMPARTS, whom I used to know) continue to be jerks when
they shift right (as he has done, with a vengeance).
Re: Re: RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
While I've not read "Looking Forward" I have participated in ZNet can say that Hahnel Albert's anti-Marxism is more anti-Leninism. Trotsky's warm remarks regarding increasing management power quoted by Louis are precisely the kind of centralized control rejected in participatory economics. Perhaps Louis read about balanced job complexes and suddenly saw a future where he might have to help sweep the shop scrub the john. There is no difference between Marx and Lenin. Marx never wrote blueprints for the future. Neither did Lenin. They were preoccupied about how to built powerful socialist movements. The problem with Parecon is not that it is "wrong" but irrelevant. The conditions facing revolutionary societies are similar to a room in the hospital where a woman is giving birth during an electrical blackout, not a graduate seminar or a chat room on Z Talk. It should be pointed out that Tariq Ali has recently opened a forum on ZNet. This would seem to indicate that Albert's position is a bit more complex than reflexive anti-Marxism. I'd say that this is the perfect place for Tariq Ali nowadays. Regarding utopianism, I thought regaining some semblance of vision was all the rage on the Left these days. I realize there remains a great deal of self-consciousness regarding these speculations. Immanuel Wallerstein actually invented a new word, "Utopistics," to provide cover for such indulgences. cheers, joe The rage on the left? Just what I needed to hear. I am the Lucifer of the kingdom of recalcitrant millenarian Marxists who want to hurl lightning bolts at all of the trendy intellectuals trying to "fix" Marx. That fits in with my moldy fig tastes in music. Bing Crosby rules. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Mine, Thanks for the Tucker citation. I'm heartened to see everyone has their Marx anthologies close at hand. As I've said before I was loose with the use of the word "utopian." For a moment I forgot how the word makes the true Marxist cringe. joe smith, former PhD student, SUNY-Binghamton Mine Doyran wrote: "The underdeveloped state of the class struggle,as well as their own surroundings, causes of socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class, nay by preference to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see it in the best possible plan of the best possible state of society? Hence they reject all political especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and the force of example, to pave the way for the new SOCIAL GOSPEL ( Marx, On Utopian Socialism, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Tucker, p.498). good night, Mine Doyran, Phd student, SUNY/Albany, Politics...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and RobinHahnel
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20472] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel Greetings Economists, The content about dogmatism in the writings of Jim Devine and jks caught my attention. For example this snippet from jks, jks, The style of orthodox Marxism is of course a guarantee that no one will talk to you who is not already a true believer. Doyle That turn of phrase I recall from the old days of the sixties from the philosopher, Eric Hoffer. Where Hoffer theorized the Marxist left as being true believers. Of course snippets of phrases hardly amount to some sort of theory of anything. Just connecting this theory of the mind from jks to Jim Devine's remarks, Jim Devine, Instead of blaming the theory, I'd look at the material (i.e., social) basis of dogmatism and a dogmatic style. I think the problem is not the theory that working in isolation (in a small sect, in an academic setting, etc.) encourages a style where one gets involved in only talking to others who have extremely similar views, speak a similar jargon, etc. It's similar to what happens with religious cults. Doyle and ... Jim Devine, One thing that turns people off from the left, often encouraging them to shift to the right is the obnoxious style of many on the left, especially toward perceived apostates (renegade Kautsky and all that). But in my experience, there are jerks randomly distributed across the political spectrum, while folks who were jerks on the left (e.g., David Horowitz, former editor of RAMPARTS, whom I used to know) continue to be jerks when they shift right (as he has done, with a vengeance). Doyle What is a Jerk? Is that a term that has something to do with Dogmatism? What is dogmatism? Please give us an account of this cognitive structure. If possible cite where a true believer appears in this cognitive consciousness structure. The reason I ask these questions, is because certainly as Jim says there is a distribution of jerks throughout society. But I think what Jim really is talking about and is really what people refer to as obsessive and compulsive behavior though that is hardly precise either. Therefore a robust theory of what makes these things appear would seem to me to be very scientifically called for if possible. It is also very interesting to put this point out in regard to how mental illness is stigmatized repeatedly this way. The point being, that the word, jerk, is not certainly about a mentally ill person. But that if someone is obsessive, then they belong in the social structure not external to society exactly in the sense that the liberal Democratic law ADA was intended. There is a way in which the sense of these sorts of discussions is that we are healthy functioning people and there are those who aren't and we certainly know the difference don't we. That is the dividing line between us and the dogmatists. I don't think that is so, because if the random sprinkling of individuals tells us anything, group dogmatism is not defined by mental illness, but by a structure which creates a social dynamic. The problem is that the social structure favors kinds of behavior in kinds of settings, but the content of calling something dogmatism is not content nor understanding. That those groups are economically constructed ways of organizing human beings, and that in many cases a dogmatist is more functional than someone who isn't, therefore the idea of dogmatism is the problem is rather strange indeed. In which case that makes the idea of true believers rather hard to justify since the structures that favor kinds of mental behavior are the issue. Within that context one final quote from Jim Devine, Jim Devine, By mistake, I've been sending pen-l my wrong web-page address, the one that refers to the support group for parents of kids with Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism) that my wife and I run. Doyle With regard to this web site, your phrase irony-impaired is offensive. You have a lot of gall to criticize anyone for being irony-impaired. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Jerks, was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel
Doyle Saylor wrote: Doyle What is a Jerk? Is that a term Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term "jerk" (which used to be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp one) is because of the partially successful effort to eliminate sexist, racist, heterosexist, etc. language. "Jerk" is one of the few nasty names left to use. So I would not advise objecting to it. We do need to call each other names at times, and we can't eliminate all the candidates for that sort of usage. Carrol
Re: Jerks, was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel
Carrol Cox wrote: Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term "jerk" (which used to be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp one) is because of the partially successful effort to eliminate sexist, racist, heterosexist, etc. language. "Jerk" is one of the few nasty names left to use. So I would not advise objecting to it. We do need to call each other names at times, and we can't eliminate all the candidates for that sort of usage. Can we still use "wanker," or does that offend Onanists? Doug
Re: Jerks, was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel
At 10:04 PM 06/21/2000 -0500, you wrote: Doyle Saylor wrote: Doyle What is a Jerk? Is that a term Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term "jerk" (which used to be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp one) is because of the partially successful effort to eliminate sexist, racist, heterosexist, etc. language. "Jerk" is one of the few nasty names left to use. So I would not advise objecting to it. We do need to call each other names at times, and we can't eliminate all the candidates for that sort of usage. I agree with the above. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
At 07:45 PM 06/21/2000 -0400, you wrote: If you view "the theory" as a toolkit that doesn't involve substantive commitments, it wonm't have the defects of orthodox Marxism, but it also won't have the inspiring message that gave orthodoxy its power. I don't view Marxian dialectical method as a neutral "toolkit," nor did I say I did. The method of looking at the totality (including the totality of the historical process) encourages the asking of all sorts of questions that encourage skepticism about any existing system of power. The substantive commitment is to supporting the oppressed against the oppressors. That's an ethical thing, but hard to separate from a vision that sees the capitalist system as exploitative (in the sense that some get rewarded because they have power over others, not because they contribute to human welfare) and as made by human beings in a historical process rather than being a "gift" of nature. If I had an inspiring message I'd tell you. No-one has inspiring messages these days except people like Fukayama and the IMF types with their Glorious Capitalist Revolution from Above. And those messages only _sound_ inspiring. I doubt that substantce and method can be prised apart in the way you suggest. It's true: Neoclassical and methodological individualist "tools" almost always are linked to right-wing politics, etc. It's hard to separate method from political commitment. (I'm no positivist.) Lukacs, for example, was pretty orthodox in his substantive views. He would have been horrified by my own substantive views, for example. I don't know if that's good or bad, since I don't know what "substantive views" you have. But the point is that the dialectical method gives a way of questioning existing dogma (substantive propositions, if you will) to adapt to new conditions, new facts, new arguments, etc. It's alternative to the method of mainstream social science, which invariably gives one-sided answers, either conservative, technocratic, or knee-jerk liberal. Not that I think that everything the social science orthodoxy says is wrong, but they almost always give us an incomplete, static, ahistorical, abstract, and/or apologetic viewpoint. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Jerks, was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20521] Jerks, was Re: Peter Dorman and RobinHahnel Greetings Economists, Carrol Cox brings up my wanting a definition about Jerk, Carrol, Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term jerk (which used to be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp one) is because of the partially successful effort to eliminate sexist, racist, heterosexist, etc. language. Jerk is one of the few nasty names left to use. So I would not advise objecting to it. We do need to call each other names at times, and we can't eliminate all the candidates for that sort of usage. Doyle The point is not to worry about a name like jerk. If I get mad and intensely feel something any word will do. I could just as well say Christian blah blah. I am not roping off jerks because I want to make the world safe for jerks. I am trying to get across the point about the content of the word used by Jim Devine. It is perfectly obvious (in some ways) what people mean by dogmatism. Where Jim Devine is saying well jerks are evenly distributed throughout all the political spectrum is valid and therefore using that very assertion from Jim the common assumption that what makes dogmatism dogmatism is dogmatic behavior confuses what we are really talking about. I mean they are everywhere how are we going to keep them from making dogmatic sects. What is unstable and with no political content is the description, dogmatist. It rests upon the idea that kinds of cognition don't socially interact as well as others. But if you look at for example, the origin in the Church of dogma, and sectarianism it was a means of power for the Church. It was and is a successful form of social groups practice in many circumstances. It is not clear in a scientific sense what makes someone behave that way thought there are certainly many theories of how to deal with compulsive behavior. And using the word jerk is simply trying to make the point that it isn't a disabled person. But the issue is still the same, what is a dogmatism. And that is a serious question rather than something to sling about casually as if it was obvious that it meant something. And the use of the word jerk does not make it any more clear what constitutes a dogmatic group. One cannot say jerks participate throughout the social spectrum and that jerks are what a sectarian groups are constituted by, because it is like saying that something is a jerk quality and that contaminates the group. Any group will have jerks, but dogmatism must be about something besides the sprinkling of jerks. Furthermore within that, the main thrust of the charge is anti-disabled, because the cognitive behavior of people who are most likely to be what people mean by dogmatists is obsessive and compulsive. You cannot be for disabled rights without then understanding that disabled people have a right to access. If that is so then what makes a group not dogmatism is not about keeping the disabled under control, but what makes the structure of a group dogmatic. That is an important question. It goes to the heart of what and why people feel close to each other and not. To the question of inside and outside. If you look at the structure of Christian religious orders, it is telling us that kinds of behavior are being cultivated as a group process. Those individuals who felt the religious calling were not everyone, and that by regulating and using that mind process the Church was expanding the social horizon of brain work in church social structure. Once that process was set in motion as a successful means of social order, no amount of condemnation of such dynamics can effectively deal with the force of such a group. Except to understand what it is that is actually happening within a group to make a dogmatic process happen. I mean to grasp what it is that is actually happening rather than condemning things in a mindless contentless way. In my opinion, what is going on is that a vast underground of emotions (conscious as feelings but not easily articulated in speech) is what is being managed within dogmatic groups. By taking advantage of these forces, kinds of brain work can be approached that would not be possible otherwise in groups more generally constituted by able bodied people since that sort of groups dampens the emergence of kinds of unusual cognitive patterns of consciousness. The way to understand that is to think about a theory of the mind. That is in my opinion again, that what one sees in obsessive and compulsive disorders is kinds of intense feelings that go beyond the usual range of intensity or perhaps last longer in duration whose qualities can be imagined as more extreme than normal, and therefore point at frontiers of thinking boundaries. Managing these feelings has to be different for those individuals, and at the expense of their social lives because they obviously can't fit in the norms, but is in other ways like the ability to work on the tallest buildings in construction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel(fwd)
Dear Doyle, in polemics concerned with red-baiting Marxism, the term "jerk" is used in a way to stigmatize the people on the Marxist left. Additionally, it serves the religious purposes of classifying them as dogmatic. The term dogma refers to religious convinction or faith. Associating Marxism with dogma is to dogmatize Marxism and invite the Church to the discussion. Like Carrol, I would not, of course, advise people not to use jerk. People need to stress out in a polemic, and "jerk" is one of the advisable terms to attack. I always look at the context of the meaning of jerk though. What it means and what it stays for can have class, gender, race and disability connotations, because our language is not always politically correct and neutral. For example, sometimes, drug abusers are called jerks and criticized as being individually responsible for their own victimization. Regarding gender, I don't know how it applies here, but I am sure it must be pretty the same, in my culture, a similar term to jerk is used to stigmatize women who do not follow the traditional feminine practices (cooking, birth giving etc..). Many times Marxist women, feminists on the left have been attacked for being masculine and imitating men--masculinity complex they call-- both by the mainstream culture and women on the far radical front. good night, It is also very interesting to put this point out in regard to how mental illness is stigmatized repeatedly this way. The point being, that the word, jerk, is not certainly about a mentally ill person. But that if someone is obsessive, then they belong in the social structure not external to society exactly in the sense that the liberal Democratic law ADA was intended. There is a way in which the sense of these sorts of discussions is that we are healthy functioning people and there are those who aren't and we certainly know the difference don't we. That is the dividing line between us and the dogmatists. it was written: By mistake, I've been sending pen-l my wrong web-page address, the one that refers to the support group for parents of kids with Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism) that my wife and I run. Doyle With regard to this web site, your phrase irony-impaired is offensive. You have a lot of gall to criticize anyone for being "irony-impaired". thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Jerks, was Re: Peter Dorman and RobinHahnel
Greetings Economists, Doug Henwood asks if I give my permission to use the word "Wanker". I grant Doug Henwood permission to use the word Wanker. He must first follow the conditions put out here. His useage must be run by a committee consisting of Bill Clinton, Max Sawicky, and Alan Greenspan. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Enjoying Orthodoxy (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd))
Justin wrote: If you view "the theory" as a toolkit that doesn't involve substantive commitments, it wonm't have the defects of orthodox Marxism, but it also won't have the inspiring message that gave orthodoxy its power. I doubt that substantce and method can be prised apart in the way you suggest. Lukacs, for example, was pretty orthodox in his substantive views. He would have been horrified by my own substantive views, for example. Anyway, I was attacking orthodox Marxism of Louis' variety, not a watered-down methodological Marxism. I regatd Louis, and probably Mine and Yoshie (sorry, Yoshie) as millenarian Marxists, although not the cultified sort. I am aware that there are jerks of all political persuasions. Used to be there were more on the right, maybe still are, if only because the right is so much bigger. --jks No apology necessary. I get to play an "Orthodox Marxist" perhaps only in the minds of posters on LBO-talk PEN-L. :) Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I couldn't have been called "Orthodox" even a decade ago. If I have really become "Orthodox," perhaps the Marxist tradition has made more progress on what used to be quaintly called the "Woman Question" than I have been aware. As for millenarianism, here's what Doug's favorite thinker of the moment has to say: * Against the old liberal slander which draws on the parallel between the Christian and Marxist 'Messianic' notion of history as the process of the final deliverance of the faithful (the notorious 'Communist-parties-are-secularized-religious-sects' theme), should one not emphasize how this holds only for ossified 'dogmatic' Marxism, not for its authentic liberating kernel? Following Alain Badiou's path-breaking book on Saint Paul, our premiss here is exactly the opposite one: instead of adopting such a defensive stance, allowing the enemy to define the terrain of the struggle, what one should do is to reverse the strategy by _fully endorsing what one is accused of_: yes, there _is_ a direct lineage from Christianity to Marxism; yes, Christianity and Marxism _should_ fight on the same side of the barricade against the onslaught of new spiritualisms -- the authentic Christian legacy is much too precious to be left to the fundamentalist freaks. (Slavoj Zizek, _The Fragile Absolute_ 2) * Needless to say, I disagree with Zizek, in that taking the stance opposite to denial and "fully endorsing what one is accused of" still allow "the terrain of the struggle" to be defined by name-calling. When someone says you are "X (millenarian, dogmatic, Stalinist, you name it)," it's silly to say, "I'm not X"; on the other hand, it's as silly to say, "I _am_ X," unless you really think you are X. Yoshie
Entertaining Dogma (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel)
Doyle What is dogmatism? Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that there are people who are not sceptics. If they all were, they would be wrong. Pascal, _Pensees_ Yoshie
Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel are very progressive, I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. I read a speech by him called "Economic Costs" of something presented in a rountable discussion. Dorman was suggesting alternative ways of increasing efficiency, participation and rationality in the work place. His solution seemed to me a humanist version of Fordism. Dorman was *not* attacking capitalism, relations of production, or power hierarchy in the work place. He was not attacking capitalism as a *system*. There was even no mentioning of exploitaiton in some identifiable sense, so i did not find Dorman's work particulary useful for Marxist politics. Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, but not Marxist per se. Mine http://www.parecon.org/media.htm The Political Economy of Participatory Economics by Albert and Hahnel (Princeton University Press, 1991) With the near bankruptcy of centrally planned economies now apparent and with capitalism seemingly incapable of generating egalitarian outcomes in the first world and economic development in the third world, alternative approaches to managing economic affairs are an urgent necessity. Until now, however, descriptions of alternatives have been unconvincing. Here Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel support the libertarian socialist tradition by presenting a rigorous, well-defined model of how producers and consumers could democratically plan their interconnected activities. After explaining why hierarchical production, inegalitarian consumption, central planning, and market allocations are incompatible with "classlessness," the authors present an alternative model of democratic workers' and consumers' councils operating in a decentralized, social planning procedure. They show how egalitarian consumption and job complexes in which all engage in conceptual as well as executionary labor can be efficient. They demonstrate the ability of their planning procedure to yield equitable and efficient outcomes even in the context of externalities and public goods and its power to stimulate rather than subvert participatory impulses. Also included is a discussion of information management and how simulation experiments can substantiate the feasibility of their model. Available through Amazon.Com. But if Capitalism is Here for at Least Another Fifty Years... by Rabin Hahnel http://www.parecon.org/writings/hahnelumasstalk.htm Moreover, fewer can find solace in old left doctrines of inevitable capitalist collapse. Many twentieth century progressives sustained themselves emotionally and psychologically with false beliefs that capitalism's dynamism and technological creativity would prove to be its weakness as well as its strength. Grandiose Marxist crisis theories -- a tendency for the rate of profit to fall as machinery was substituted for exploitable living labor, or insufficient demand to keep the capitalist bubble afloat as productive potential outstripped the buying power of wages used to buoy the hopes of the faithful in face of crushing political defeats. And less ideological reformers were still affected by the myth that capitalism organized its own replacement. Unfortunately, none of this was ever true. Planks in a Progressive Reform Program Marx's prophesy of economic emiseration did not prove true for the first world. But capitalism has never delivered sustained growth, much less economic development in the periphery, and the prospects for third world economies are more bleak than ever. Junior status in the global capitalist system is hardly an attractive prospect as we enter the twenty-first century. But it does mean that governments of third world countries must not enter into international economic relations that undermine programs that reorient their economies toward basic need provision. If this means trade, investment, and credit relations must be limited largely to the Scandinavian economies and other third world economies dedicated to basic need provision as well, so be it. Referring to AFL-CIO (:Mine) Union leadership is less hostile to political activity outside the Democratic Party, more critical of centrist Democratic Party politicians, and more aggressive at punishing Democrats who fail to vote pro-labor than
RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel are very progressive, " . . . I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. . . . " You gotta watch out for these guys. Dorman, if that's his real name, is heavily invested in the potentially "benign" reforms of the Capitalist State. He advocates a free market in body parts. Hahnel looks like he hasn't shaved since the 80's. Teaches at American U. in Washington, D.C., a school whose extensions in the Middle East are well-known incubators for U.S. intelligence agents. Hahnel has these loopy schemes for democratic planning, an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. a word to the wise. mbs
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, but not Marxist per se. Mine Robin Hahnel and his partner Michael Albert are basically modern versions of utopian socialism, a political current that combines: 1) Ahistoricism: The utopian socialists did not see the class struggle as the locomotive of history. While they saw socialism as being preferable to capitalism, they neither understood the historical contradictions that would undermine it in the long run, nor the historical agency that was capable of resolving these contradictions: the working-class. 2) Moralism: What counts for the utopian socialists is the moral example of their program. If there is no historical agency such as the working-class to fulfill the role of abolishing class society, then it is up to the moral power of the utopian scheme to persuade humanity for the need for change. 3) Rationalism: The utopian scheme must not only be morally uplifting, it must also make sense. The best utopian socialist projects would be those that stood up to relentless logical analysis. If you look at their "Looking Forward", you are presented with a vision of social transformation virtually identical to that of the 19th century utopians. In a reply to somebody's question about social change and human nature on the Z Magazine bulletin board, Albert states: "I look at history and see even one admirable person--someone's aunt, Che Guevara, doesn't matter--and say that is the hard thing to explain. That is: that person's social attitudes and behavior runs contrary to the pressures of society's dominant institutions. If it is part of human nature to be a thug, and on top of that all the institutions are structured to promote and reward thuggishness, then any non-thuggishness becomes a kind of miracle. Hard to explain. Where did it come from, like a plant growing out of the middle of a cement floor. Yet we see it all around. To me it means that social traits are what is wired in, in fact, though these are subject to violation under pressure." Such obsessive moralizing was characteristic of the New Left of the 1960s. Who can forget the memorable slogan "if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." With such a moralistic approach, the hope for socialism is grounded not in the class struggle, but on the utopian prospects of good people stepping forward. Guevara is seen as moral agent rather than as an individual connected with powerful class forces in motion such as the Cuban rural proletariat backed by the Soviet socialist state. Albert's and Hahnel's enthusiasm for the saintly Che Guevara is in direct contrast to his judgement on the demon Leon Trotsky, who becomes responsible along with Lenin for all of the evil that befell Russia after 1917. Why? It is because Trotsky advocated "one-man management". Lenin was also guilty because he argued that "all authority in the factories be concentrated in the hands of management." To explain Stalinist dictatorship, they look not to historical factors such as economic isolation and military pressure, but the top-down management policies of Lenin and Trotsky. To set things straight, Albert and Hahnel provide a detailed description of counter-institutions that avoid these nasty hierarchies. This forms the whole basis of their particular schema called "participatory planning" described in "Looking Forward": "Participatory planning in the new economy is a means by which worker and consumer councils negotiate and revise their proposals for what they will produce and consume. All parties relay their proposals to one another via 'facilitation boards'. In light of each round's new information, workers and consumers revise their proposals in a way that finally yields a workable match between consumption requests and production proposals." Their idea of a feasible socialism is beyond reproach, just as any idealized schema will be. The problem is that it is doomed to meet the same fate as ancestral schemas of the 19th century. It will be besides the point. Socialism comes about through revolutionary upheavals, not as the result of action inspired by flawless plans. There will also be a large element of the irrational in any revolution. The very real possibility of a reign of terror or even the fear of one is largely absent in the rationalist scenarios of the new utopians. Nothing can do more harm to a new socialist economy than the flight of skilled technicians and professionals. For example, there was very little that one can have done to prevent such flight in Nicaragua, no matter the willingness of a Tomas Borge to forgive Somocista torturers. This had more of an
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Max Sawicky *confided*: You gotta watch out for these guys. Dorman, if that's his real name, is heavily invested And I wonder if there's any significance to the unmistakable coincidence that his name, without the 'm', is an anagram for NORAD. One can't be too careful when dowsing for political purity. Tom Walker
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Lou, you have hit the heart of the matter once again! Unfortunately, the equation of game theory+utopian socialism produces such results... Mine Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, but not Marxist per se.Mine Lou wrote: Robin Hahnel and his partner Michael Albert are basically modern versions of utopian socialism, a political current that combines: 1) Ahistoricism: The utopian socialists did not see the class struggle as the locomotive of history. While they saw socialism as being preferable to capitalism, they neither understood the historical contradictions that would undermine it in the long run, nor the historical agency that was capable of resolving these contradictions: the working-class. 2) Moralism: What counts for the utopian socialists is the moral example of their program. If there is no historical agency such as the working-class to fulfill the role of abolishing class society, then it is up to the moral power of the utopian scheme to persuade humanity for the need for change. 3) Rationalism: The utopian scheme must not only be morally uplifting, it must also make sense. The best utopian socialist projects would be those that stood up to relentless logical analysis. If you look at their "Looking Forward", you are presented with a vision of social transformation virtually identical to that of the 19th century utopians. In a reply to somebody's question about social change and human nature on the Z Magazine bulletin board, Albert states: "I look at history and see even one admirable person--someone's aunt, Che Guevara, doesn't matter--and say that is the hard thing to explain. That is: that person's social attitudes and behavior runs contrary to the pressures of society's dominant institutions. If it is part of human nature to be a thug, and on top of that all the institutions are structured to promote and reward thuggishness, then any non-thuggishness becomes a kind of miracle. Hard to explain. Where did it come from, like a plant growing out of the middle of a cement floor. Yet we see it all around. To me it means that social traits are what is wired in, in fact, though these are subject to violation under pressure." Such obsessive moralizing was characteristic of the New Left of the 1960s. Who can forget the memorable slogan "if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." With such a moralistic approach, the hope for socialism is grounded not in the class struggle, but on the utopian prospects of good people stepping forward. Guevara is seen as moral agent rather than as an individual connected with powerful class forces in motion such as the Cuban rural proletariat backed by the Soviet socialist state. Albert's and Hahnel's enthusiasm for the saintly Che Guevara is in direct contrast to his judgement on the demon Leon Trotsky, who becomes responsible along with Lenin for all of the evil that befell Russia after 1917. Why? It is because Trotsky advocated "one-man management". Lenin was also guilty because he argued that "all authority in the factories be concentrated in the hands of management." To explain Stalinist dictatorship, they look not to historical factors such as economic isolation and military pressure, but the top-down management policies of Lenin and Trotsky. To set things straight, Albert and Hahnel provide a detailed description of counter-institutions that avoid these nasty hierarchies. This forms the whole basis of their particular schema called "participatory planning" described in "Looking Forward": "Participatory planning in the new economy is a means by which worker and consumer councils negotiate and revise their proposals for what they will produce and consume. All parties relay their proposals to one another via 'facilitation boards'. In light of each round's new information, workers and consumers revise their proposals in a way that finally yields a workable match between consumption requests and production proposals." Their idea of a feasible socialism is beyond reproach, just as any idealized schema will be. The problem is that it is doomed to meet the same fate as ancestral schemas of the 19th century. It will be besides the point. Socialism comes about through revolutionary upheavals, not as the result of action inspired by flawless plans. There will also be a large element of the irrational in any revolution. The very real possibility of a reign of terror or even the fear of one is largely absent in the rationalist scenarios of the new utopians. Nothing can do more harm to a new socialist economy than the flight of skilled technicians and professionals. For example, there was very
RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Just to open a small parenthesis here. I was in fact criticizing Dorman and Hahnel againist the claim that they were progressive. I don't wanna be associated with the folks, or the imperialist agency of American orientalism--American University--Hahnel is a part of. The first sentence does not belong to me. Mine JD wrote: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel are very progressive, I wrote: " . . . I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. . . . " You gotta watch out for these guys. Dorman, if that's his real name, is heavily invested in the potentially "benign" reforms of the Capitalist State. He advocates a free market in body parts. Hahnel looks like he hasn't shaved since the 80's. Teaches at American U. in Washington, D.C., a school whose extensions in the Middle East are well-known incubators for U.S. intelligence agents. Hahnel has these loopy schemes for democratic planning, an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. a word to the wise. mbs
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
Peter Dorman is a progressive. He is not a Marxist. At least, I recall him saying on pen-l that he was no longer a strict aherent to marxism. He has done excellent work regarding worker's rights. I am not sure whether Robin Hahnel is or is not a Marxist. I am not sure whether he is still on the list. Louis does not like the theories of Albert and Hahnel. I have my doubts as well, but he is certainly a progressive. I don't see how we can gain much through such taxonomy. All this started because Jim Devine siad they they used game theory in the interest of progressive change. Rather than attacking each other, we would do better trying to understand what is actually happening in the world around us. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to open a small parenthesis here. I was in fact criticizing Dorman " . . . I made some inquiry on Peter Dorman. He does not look like an ideologue, but he does not look *very* progressive either. . . . " -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
In a message dated 6/20/00 7:13:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The biggest problem, of course, is the socialist project itself. What sense does it make to think in terms of scientific socialism when the working-class as we know it is not the same class that created the Paris Commune. If we had something like the Paris Commune in the last 50 years or so in one of the advanced capitalist countries, left economists would be thinking about ways that such an experience could be replicated. Since we lack such an example, we console ourselves with fantasies of a good society instead. Of course some people might think that one lesson to be drawn from the failure of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries to live up to the expectations of traditional revolutionary Marxists, a failure that is pretty consistent for 150 years, arguably, and 70 years or so for sure, is that there is something wrong with the theoretical apparatus of traditional revolutionary Marxism. It is possible to explain away the failure of reality live up to your theory by reference to disturbing factors, historical conjunctures, etc.--flat-earthers and creationists do it too--although this is pretty odd for a theory that claims to be superior to other because ot tracks the "real movement" of history. However, the price of orthodoxy is political irrelevance, and having the people you purport to support regard you, if they think of you at all, as deluded fanatics. But pay no mind to me. Louis will tell you that I am a right wing social democrat (isn't that it, Louis?) and a class enemy. --jks
Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
In a message dated 6/20/00 6:21:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Regarding Hahnel, I may call him progressive, but what he challenges is not terribly clear to me, especially his attack at Marx in the name of participatory economics.. Like Dorman, he does *not* openly use the words socialism or Marxism in his critique of market capitalism. I would tend to describe him institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian, but not Marxist per se. RH is an anti-Marxist, and quite clear about this. Why one has to be a Marxist to challenge capitalism I do not understand. RH has the most credible planning alternative to capitalsim around, not that I think that is worth much. What your string of useless adjectives, "institutionalist, liberal reformist or social libertarian," might maen excrept that RHis not really "one of us" and not to be quite trusted, I don't know. Of course I am a pretty poor excuse for a Marxist myself, being a pro-market liberal democrat. --jks
Re: Peter Dorman
God, how I hate it when people send things to the list instead of to private parties. And now I've done it myself. I am deeply shamed. My apologies to one and all. Peter Peter Dorman wrote: Paul, On the subject of Slovenia, I'm wondering how you might respond to this situation: I'm leading a group of students on an overseas study trip to Budapest and Prague this summer. I've been looking into the possibility of adding a side trip to Ljubljana. The train fare from Budapest is not bad, although the schedule is terrible. Tea Petrin (do you know her?) is willing to organize a short program through the University of Ljubljana. My question is, is the case of Slovenia different and interesting enough to justify the hassle of doing this side trip? Is it something you would do if you were in this situation? Peter
Re: Peter Dorman
Paul, On the subject of Slovenia, I'm wondering how you might respond to this situation: I'm leading a group of students on an overseas study trip to Budapest and Prague this summer. I've been looking into the possibility of adding a side trip to Ljubljana. The train fare from Budapest is not bad, although the schedule is terrible. Tea Petrin (do you know her?) is willing to organize a short program through the University of Ljubljana. My question is, is the case of Slovenia different and interesting enough to justify the hassle of doing this side trip? Is it something you would do if you were in this situation? Peter
Peter Dorman
Peter, Could you please resend your e-mail. It got lost with a lot of other stuff with my e-mail problems. Paul Paul Phillips
Response to Peter Dorman on AS-AD
Peter, I agree that putting everything in terms of rates of change really is preferable, especially on the price side. I am not sure what happens then about the impact on real interest rates of an increase in the rate of inflation. However, in the simple (-minded) pure theory static case where MS is constant, an increase in P increases the real interest rate, not just the nominal. I suggest you check out any standard intermediate macro text on that point. So the Keynes effect does operate in that case and there is an interest rate effect reinforcing the international sub effect to make this simple (-minded) AD slope downwards. Has winter ended yet in Lansing? It snowed in Boston for the EEA. Barkley Rosser James Madison University
AD-AS, response to Peter Dorman
Peter: 1) I am glad to hear that you are free of sin, my brother, in your (past) teaching of micro. However in your remarks about "microland is faster than macroland" I would say it ain't necessarily so, especially when prices are a signaling device. We have seen plenty sudden speculative frenzies, including for commodities such as when Japanese housewives rioted over toilet paper out of fear of an impending shortage after a price increase, in very short times after a price increase. Also, new information, somebody is sticking syringes in something, can change preferences very rapidly. 2) (or is this more of 1)?) I would suggest that the endogeneity of MS is an empirical issue rather than a logical one. I fully agree that in most modern financially sophisticated economies with most money being "bank money" (deposits or accounts of one sort or another) money has a significant endogenous component. But this may not hold in a simple commodity money world (Yap Island rocks, Dahomey cowrie shells, gold in Hume-era Britain). In principle it can be exogenous. The real problem here (which is empirical) is what Mike Meeropol and others, along with myself (and I think you as well) have mentioned which is the lack of independence of AD and AS. 3) no comment 4) On international sub. effect, this is the point I made in my JPKE article. On the other hand foreign exchange markets are perhaps the most notoriously unpredictable and irrational of them all. Cheers. Barkley Rosser JMU to JMC
