Re: Economics and law/bureaucratic order made real
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does the Japanese produce better vehicles and the old Soviet vehicles ... as massed produced . . . not specialized .. . were of an inferior quality? One thread of thought says the Soviet system was inferior to the American system and the Soviet workers were lazy, stupid, culturally backwards and lacked freedom of _expression due to their bureaucracy. This is the exact argument advanced by a section of the intellectual stratum of Japan against their American counterparts. --- It's not because they were lazy or stupid, it's because they couldn't be fired for doing a bad job. Or most anything else -- many workplaces had one or two incorrigible alcoholics who would come in to work and be told to sleep it off in the back room. (They were given the worst jobs though.) All Soviet goods were sold with the date of manufacture, and the purchaser invariable made sure not to buy something made after a holiday or on a Monday (to avoid hangover-related shoddiness) or at teh end of the month (which meant everybody was working ful speed to fulfill the plan). Note that in areas where the Soviets _did_ discipline labor -- the military and aeronautics, for instance -- their goods were surburb. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law/bureaucratic order made real
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does the Japanese produce better vehicles and the old Soviet vehicles ... as massed produced . . . not specialized .. . were of an inferior quality? One thread of thought says the Soviet system was inferior to the American system and the Soviet workers were lazy, stupid, culturally backwards and lacked freedom of _expression due to their bureaucracy. This is the exact argument advanced by a section of the intellectual stratum of Japan against their American counterparts. --- It's not because they were lazy or stupid, it's because they couldn't be fired for doing a bad job. Or most anything else -- many workplaces had one or two incorrigible alcoholics who would come in to work and be told to sleep it off in the back room. (They were given the worst jobs though.) All Soviet goods were sold with the date of manufacture, and the purchaser invariable made sure not to buy something made after a holiday or on a Monday (to avoid hangover-related shoddiness) or at teh end of the month (which meant everybody was working ful speed to fulfill the plan). Note that in areas where the Soviets _did_ discipline labor -- the military and aeronautics, for instance -- their goods were surberb. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Re: Economics and law
Agreed. That's playing with fire. --- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would not like to see an extended Stalin debate. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law/bureaucratic order made real
In a message dated 8/15/2004 1:00:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >The American system of vehicle production was very bureaucratic . . . but less than that of the Soviets and much more than that of the Japanese producers . . . in terms of democratic input of the workers . . . measured by their ability to halt production and correct a problem.< Comment The domestic and historic American auto producers will never . . . ever . . . produce superior quality vehicles than their Japanese counter parts . . . for the very same reasons the Soviets could not produce vehicles superior to the American producers. On the one hand the industrial class in America was consolidated and evolved on a curve in front of its Japanese and Soviet counterpart the former produces better vehicles and the latter worse vehicles. Why does the Japanese produce better vehicles and the old Soviet vehicles ... as massed produced . . . not specialized .. . were of an inferior quality? One thread of thought says the Soviet system was inferior to the American system and the Soviet workers were lazy, stupid, culturally backwards and lacked freedom of _expression_ due to their bureaucracy. This is the exact argument advanced by a section of the intellectual stratum of Japan against their American counterparts. If memory serves me correct the book advancing this argument in Japan was "The Right To Say No" published in the 1980s. The reaction of the autoworkers union was to prohibit Japanese cars from being parked in the parking lot of the International Union and a wave of smashing Japanese vehicles in Detroit. Everything is involved in the equation and real human beings - the subjective aspects . . . are always the decisive factor within a given qualitative and quantitative boundary of the industrial system. However, this does not isolate the set of factors that are fundamental to the production process. The Soviets production of military planes means the technological capability existed . . . so the human potential was present. The history of Soviet industrial socialism contains an important key to understanding the components of industrial society because its system of production was constructed at a specific quantitative boundary. The Japanese producers . . . after the Second Imperial World War . . . constructed their industrial system at yet another . . . different . . . boundary of the industrial system. Nor can the issue be looked at as "Forced industrialization" because industrialization by definition is forced on society in every country on earth as the material results of the triumph of a new mode of production. Even in its mode of accumulation . . . the injection of the money economy into a natural economy requires incredibly destructive force at every stage of the industrial advance. Look at the Western hemisphere and see the truth of the quest for gold. Look at American history . . . clearing of the Western frontier and the advance of the manufacturing process. The difference in tempo of industrialization is another question all together. My understanding of industrialization - heavy industry, is that it grew out of the manufacturing process . . . and specifically heavy manufacturing as opposed to chair making. From the 14th century on industrialization rivets in history and grows out slavery and the slave trade . . . ship building . . . heavy manufacturing . . . which laid an important basis for what would become the steel industry . . . science . . . navigation . . . the armament industry, trade routes and the early impulse of the state to shattered local constrained markets. We forget this was the actual process of divorcing millions of producers from the land and their means of production and with rose color glasses speak of capital magically rolling out of the countryside and the conversion of the serf into modern proletarians. All industrialization is forced by definition. Soviet industrialization did not evolve from the slavery trade but occurred at another juncture of history and was infinitely more peaceful and humane than the earlier period of industrialization. The anti-Sovietism under the banner of anti-Stalinism has very little to do with Stalin and more to do with imperial privilege and falsification of world history in y opinion. The hundreds of millions of descendants of 14th through 19th century slaves are very clear that the edifice of industrial society was carved from their backs. To hell with Stalin . . . because he is not the issue. He becomes the focal point because American Marxists have been in denial of their history for 400 years and point an accusing finger at everyone else. Our inability to accurately describe Soviet industrial socialism and Soviet industrial democracy . . . seems to me to be based in difference about the meaning of the mode of production . . . on the level of theory. I use the concept "industrial mode of production" with
Re: Economics and law
--- andie nachgeborenen: I agree with about the good Czar with under Stalinism, but that is not an example of socialist democracy -- I don't think you think it is either. --- Certainly not. __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: Chavez question
possible explanations: higher turnout among the escualidos steady anti-government propaganda in private media belief that relations with the U.S. would improve if the opposition won some personal dislike of HCF But 58.26% isn't bad in a recall election. Not bad at all. At 07:31 AM 8/16/2004 -0700, you wrote: Thank God he won! Still, I have a question. If 70% of the people are poor, how did the opposition get so many votes? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 www.veninfo.org ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Re: Economics and law
--- andie nachgeborenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with your reservations about the term > Stalinism, I just don't have a better one. > > I agree with about the good Czar with under > Stalinism, but that is not an example of socialist > democracy -- I don't think you think it is either. > > jks Incidentally, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq with all its "Saddam is a brutal, hated dictator, so of course nobodt likes him and we will be greeted as liberators" rhetoric, I kept thinking of Stalin. Stalin was not hated (by most people). He was worshipped (by most people). Being a brutal dictator does not necessarily mean that you are hated or seen as illegitimate by the people over whom you are dictating, especially if their historical experience tells them that power is absolute and arbitrary. For all I know, Saddam's ruthlessness may have bought him street cred as a tough guy you don't mess with. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
In a message dated 8/16/2004 5:39:53 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Stalin was not hated (by most people). He was worshipped (by most people). Being a brutal dictator does not necessarily mean that you are hated or seen as illegitimate by the people over whom you are dictating, especially if their historical experience tells them that power is absolute and arbitrary.< Comment Joesph the Steel . . . Molotov . . . the Hammer. It is not like these guys did not know the names they adopted as they understood themselves in the historical currents and the revolution unfolding in Russia. Life is not a dream or ideological category. There were always workers in the shop more capable than myself in every sphere . . . better machine operators . . . assemblers . . . inspectors and smarter. Most of these really good guys and women steered clear of union politics and the politics of management because they did not want to be bothered with the intrigue and maneuvering inherent to bureaucracy. Politics is a dirty business and covering politics with ideology and Marxist concepts does not change the fact that privilege is involved because the bureaucracy is an agent of administration of something. People tend to support the "strong man" . . . and not because they are backwards . . . but because "strong" means the ability to get things done. Getting things done operates in a context and the content is a complex of industrial processes where the individual is atomized in the social process . . . intensely alienated as expressed in the personal vision of being a cog in an enormous machine. Those charged with administering various facets of this enormous machine that is society are expected to get things done in a way that does not chew up everyone . . . only ones neighbor. The Russian working class as a whole did not and today does not blame Stalin but rather . . . everyone under Stalin for not being selfless . . . and I understand this dynamic. Stalin was a man without personal wealth and the working class understood this simple truth. "If only Comrade Stalin knew what the bureaucracy was really doing . . . if only Comrade Stalin really knew what our local tyrants were doing . . . if only Comrade Stalin knew . . ." Real people are never . . . ever . . . as democratic as the intellectual stratum of society. The Soviet proletariat supported Stalin in muffling the intellectual stratum and it is not very different in America. This creates a certain danger . . . or rather is the environment of the social struggle. Nothing concerning the historical environment of the Stalin era frightens me on any level. I would trade Moscow 1936 for Mississippi or Georgia or Alabama 1936 in a heart beat. If only life was as simple as shouting democratic assertions. The intellectual stratum in the imperial centers tend to miss the ball and not understand the actual rules of the game . . . or rather see things from a position of privilege. Melvin P.
Re: Chavez question
Half the British working classes regularly voted for Thatcher. Vast numbers of American workers are rock-solid Republicans. Why do people vote against their own interests? This question is an old topic. Frank's Kansas book is the current best left survey of the question from a US perspective; Mike Davis's old Prisoners of the American Dream the best general (US) take I know. Why it might happen in Venezuala I don't know. Btw, an old college friend of mine I haven't spoken to in decades, but we were really close in college, Andres Mata, is editor of El Universal down in VZ, he's not a Chavez supporter, but maybe I might try to get in touch with him and ask what he thinks. It would be an excuse to try to re-establish a connection, anyway: From the BBC: Friday, 12 April, 2002, 16:13 GMT 17:13 UK Venezuela press condemns 'autocrat' Chavez Mr Chavez resigned under military pressure Venezuela's major newspapers have welcomed the ousting of Hugo Chavez, heaping condemnation and insult on the deposed president. Nowhere were the attacks more virulent than in the pages of El Nacional, which called him a coward who had brought the country to the verge of chaos. With this miserable and cruel act, you committed the worst of your political errors and betrayed your country El Nacional "We all knew about his mental problems, that he would shrink when the real battle started, but we ignored his lack of scruples, which became manifest when he ordered his sharpshooters to open fire on innocent people." "With this miserable and cruel act, you committed the worst of your political errors and betrayed your country." El Nacional accused Mr Chavez, a former paratrooper, of "soiling the military uniform and the institution which gave you an opportunity in life". "They say history elevates or buries men; for you it has reserved a pit beside the Venezuelan leaders infamous for their atrocities." Your obsessions have cost Venezuela countless moral and material losses, never has so much madness been seen in this land El Nacional His threats to shut down the main television stations were akin to "turning Venezuela into a jungle", the daily said. "Your obsessions have cost Venezuela countless moral and material losses, never has so much madness been seen in this land." Shared responsibility For the editor of El Universal, Andres A Mata, Mr Chavez is an autocrat who has lost his way. After being freely elected as a democratic leader, Chavez stopped being one Andres A. Mata "After being freely elected as a democratic leader, Chavez stopped being one." In his piece headlined, "Hugo Chavez: An autocrat in both style and substance", Mr Mata says the former president also violated several international laws "He violated the Inter-American Democratic Charter by denying Venezuelan workers the right to meet freely and hold open elections... He violated the Rio Agreement in publicly declaring on more than one occasion that Afghanistan is only an example of the terrorism sponsored by the United States worldwide." Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thank God he won! Still, I have a question. If 70% of the people are poor, how didthe opposition get so many votes?--Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929Tel. 530-898-5321E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Re: Economics and law
I would not like to see an extended Stalin debate. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Economics and law
Michael writes:
>Ken, this comes close to baiting.
Sorry. True... it could... but there is a difference, don't you think?
I was baiting on a "personal level" ("You freaking lawyers!") or just
the "unexpected" kind on this list ("As a group, US lawyers are not well
trained in other cultures")?
Ken.
--
I divined then, Sonia, that power is
only vouchsafed to the man who dares
to stoop and pick it up.
-- Raskolnikov
Re: Economics and law
David Shemano writes: >The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist >economy, was less "able" [...] Yes it was -- the part you are responding to. It was about regions. I wanted to show that you probably didn't even know where Europe is... let alone why Germany is not a unit. There is a stereotype about Americans-in-control: "They can't read maps." (Canada knows this.) I assume the moderator gave you a thumbs up for a reason. (Maybe you are not a Novak-Limbaugh sort.) Anyway, so you tried to switch topics... and now it is not about the devaluation of life I mentioned in the original thread, now it is about Volvos and good cars from that socialist country. Good legal strategy, btw... when losing, swing any shit at hand in forms of motions... Ken. -- The Bible is probably the most genocidal book in our entire canon. -- Noam Chomsky
Re: Economics and law
Ken, this comes close to baiting. On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:38:03AM -0400, Kenneth Campbell wrote: > David Shemano writes: > > >The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist > >economy, was less "able" [...] > > Yes it was -- the part you are responding to. It was about regions. > > I wanted to show that you probably didn't even know where Europe is... > let alone why Germany is not a unit. > > There is a stereotype about Americans-in-control: "They can't read > maps." (Canada knows this.) I assume the moderator gave you a thumbs up > for a reason. (Maybe you are not a Novak-Limbaugh sort.) > > Anyway, so you tried to switch topics... and now it is not about the > devaluation of life I mentioned in the original thread, now it is about > Volvos and good cars from that socialist country. > > Good legal strategy, btw... when losing, swing any shit at hand in forms > of motions... > > Ken. > > -- > The Bible is probably the most genocidal book in our entire canon. > -- Noam Chomsky -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
RE: [PEN-L] Chávez Loyalists Troll Barrios for Venezuela's Undecided
Yahoo News says that the turnout is heavy. If so, that is great news. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Re: KPFA and Sasha Lilley
Greetings Economists, Thanks Michael for giving me the leeway to using Sasha's name this way. You are right though and I was careless to word things this way. A flame war is far from my intent. But we all know how certain sorts of approaches facilitate that. Also Sasha I hope you feel also respect in my addressing you. My intent is really for the left community to help us think about how to address what's happening and help us to both resolve hurt and pain and more importantly build a bigger movement. Nor do I represent Pushing Limits here. We have debated this issue and left open to our collective's members to make their own decisions where they stand. In that sense I will listen carefully to Sasha and anyone else that has signed their note. From my side I hope to reach across to friends and comrades where I can. And express what I can about where I see problems. Which I think is exactly how trust and power is built amongst us. thank you, Doyle
Re: Economics and law
Carrol Cox wrote: If necessary labor (in Hannah Arendt's sense of _merely_ necessary labor in contrast to work or action) is to be reduced to the absolute minimum, and men/women are to be fishers in the morning and critics in the afternoon, that necessary labor needs to be rationalized and divided into such minute parts that it becomes a trivial part (in terms of time & skill) of human activity, which then can become fully human (work & action in contrast to labor). One of Engels's footnotes in Capital I is also a useful gloss: "The English language has the advantage of possessing different words for the two aspects of labour here considered. The labour which creates Use-Value, and counts qualitatively, is Work, as distinguished from Labour, that which creates Value and counts quantitatively, is Labour as distinguished from Work." The ultimate goal of socialism is to eliminate Labor and replace it with Work -- electricity and taylorism are means to that end. In this light, Lenin's perspective on taylorism might also evoke that passage in _Capital_ where Marx compares the ancient and modern perspective on labor-saving technology, quoting an ancient poet on how the water-wheel could reduce the labor of the servant and contrasting it with the capitalist use of machinery to extend the working day. Marx also identifies free time in this sense with time for individual development. This development is required for the activities that constitute life in the realm of freedom. Marx also claims it's required for activity in the realm of necessity, however. Taylorism is inconsistent with this. Moreover, the claim is that the most productive - i.e. the most "efficient" - form of relations and forces of production in this realm are those that presuppose and require this development on the part of individuals, i.e. "conditions most worthy and appropriate to their human nature." "Just as the savage must wrestle with nature to satisfy his needs, to maintain and reproduce his life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. This realm of natural necessity expands with his development, because his needs do too; but the productive forces to satisfy these expand at the same time. Freedom, in this sphere, can only consist in this, that socialized man, the associated producers, govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their collective control instead of being dominated by it as a blind power; accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate to their human nature. But this always remains a realm of necessity. The true realm of freedom, the development of human powers as an end in itself, begins beyond it, though it can only flourish with this realm of necessity as its basis. The reduction of the working day is the basic prerequisite." (Marx, Capital vol. III [Penguin ed.], p. 959) "The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few,for the development of the general powers of the human head. With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of penury and antithesis. The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them." Grundrisse pp. 705-6 "Real economy -- saving -- consists of the saving of labour time (minimum (and minimization) of production costs); but this saving identical with development of the productive force. Hence in no way abstinence from consumption, but rather the development of power, of capabilities of production, and hence both of the capabilities as well as the means of consumption. The capability to consume is a condition of consumption, hence its primary means, and this capability is the development of an individual potential, a force of production. The saving of labour time [is] equal to an increase of free time, i.e. time for the full development of the individual, which in turn reacts back upon the productive power of labour as itself the greatest productive power. From the standpoint of the direct production process it can be regarded as the production of fixed
Re: Economics and law
In a message dated 8/15/2004 12:34:00 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Lenin expressly holds up Taylorism as an ideal for Soviet industry at a couple of points. I could find the references if you wanted. But I think the Bolshies were more impressed with German war planning planning, which was more familiar to them. Gramsci conceived of Fordism not only asa tool of analysis but as containing elements of a Communist society. jks < Comment I like Lenin but he wrote that electrification of agriculture and Soviet Power equates communism and that is how things looked in 1920 . . . but we know different in 2004. All of us historically wrong. What was understood in 1920 was the actual material components of a mode of production called industrial production. Lenin's whole fight with the syndicalist or rather anacho syndicalist . . . can be read on line in the Lenin library. The communist called these fights around the specific extensive and intensive development of industry "right and left deviations" . . . while the capitalist called them winning and losing in the market. This fight occurred under the heading of "state capitalism" . . . a concept Lenin rejected but spoke to. An aspect of Taylorism . . . which was superseded in Japan . . . was another level of rationalization of production. . . and quality control based on statistical analysis of every product. If the world had evolved different . . . which it did not . . . we would be arguing the attributes of intensive versus extensive development of the material power of production. Hey the industrial system by definition is an economic terrain hostile to communism. Now the real question is that the quality of what you produce is largely determined by the quality of the machines you get from the producers of your heavy machinery which is only corrected and evolved in relationship to the feed back you get from the muckerfuckers making the final product. OK. Excello and Gidding and Lewis are important manufactures of heavy machinery for auto. They can only evolve the intensive manufacture of the equipment them provide you with based on the feedback loop you supply them. This is the cultural thing . . . which is also a property thing . . . but nothing makes sense until we put things into an agreeded upon context. For Lenin the man . . . real person and political leader . . . the system of Talyorism . . . which grew out of the Singer Sewing Machine assembly and manufacture process . . . and later adapted to the Ford system or Fordism . . . this was a giant step over what Russia possessed. I became convince of the importance of Giant Steps by John Coltrane. :-) This was after father and mother beat "My Favorite Things" into my head by Coltrane. Melvin P.
Re: Economics and law
I agree with your reservations about the term Stalinism, I just don't have a better one. I agree with about the good Czar with under Stalinism, but that is not an example of socialist democracy -- I don't think you think it is either. jksChris Doss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- andie nachgeborenen don't care if it isn't a Russian word, I don't thinkthe Russians understand the Soviet era any better thanWestern specialists. Which isn't very well -- I speakhaving been one once.--Well, the Russians (Ukrainians, Latvians, etc. etc.etc.) do have the advantage of having lived there.Then again they had poor access to information (as didWesterners, in a different way.)My problem is that 1) the word "Stalinism" is used fora whole lot of different societies and periods, sothat Romania is treated as no different from the GDR,or the Khrushchev era is referred to as "Stalinist"even though he denounced the Father of the Peoples,and 2) when the word is applied in the West it isusually tied up with a bunch of misconceptions aboutwhat life was actually like in those countries.---As rto Charles and Chris' point that Stalinistrepression was selective and popular and that theregime took account of public opinion, of course. Werevisionist Sovietologists argued that point againstthe totalitarianism school for 35 years. That doesn'tmean, however, that Stalinism was democratic or thatit was controlled by ordinary working people the waymost of us here would want socialism to be. That isobvious too, don't you agree? I mean, as the Old Mansaid, a worker's state wouldn't have a politicalpolice.--Oh, the backing of the people for Stalin was more likethe backing of the simple people for the tsars or thePharoah than anything else. In the 30s, the USSR wasstill a largely illiterate peasant country with littleaccess to information whose populace was used toseeing the Leader as something akin to God. Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Re: Economics and law
Justin (converted to plain text from html code): Lenin expressly holds up Taylorism as an ideal for Soviet industry at a couple of points. I could find the references if you wanted. But I think the Bolshies were more impressed with German war planning planning, which was more familiar to them. Gramsci conceived of Fordism not only asa tool of analysis but as containing elements of a Communist society. - These passages are commonly cited to show how Lenin was a spawn of the devil. But they probably should be collated with his (half serious) comment that communism was soviets + electricity, and glossed with Tom Walker's signature line, "Wealth is liberty... it is disposable time and nothing more." (I don't know who he was quoting), _and_ with M&E's argument in GI that communism would involve the dissolution of the division of labor. If necessary labor (in Hannah Arendt's sense of _merely_ necessary labor in contrast to work or action) is to be reduced to the absolute minimum, and men/women are to be fishers in the morning and critics in the afternoon, that necessary labor needs to be rationalized and divided into such minute parts that it becomes a trivial part (in terms of time & skill) of human activity, which then can become fully human (work & action in contrast to labor). One of Engels's footnotes in Capital I is also a useful gloss: "The English language has the advantage of possessing different words for the two aspects of labour here considered. The labour which creates Use-Value, and counts qualitatively, is Work, as distinguished from Labour, that which creates Value and counts quantitatively, is Labour as distinguished from Work." The ultimate goal of socialism is to eliminate Labor and replace it with Work -- electricity and taylorism are means to that end. In this light, Lenin's perspective on taylorism might also evoke that passage in _Capital_ where Marx compares the ancient and modern perspective on labor-saving technology, quoting an ancient poet on how the water-wheel could reduce the labor of the servant and contrasting it with the capitalist use of machinery to extend the working day. Carrol
Re: Economics and law/bureaucratic order made real
The whole matter of workers control and democratic input in the actual production process or what I understand to be the collective intellectual and emotional passions of the working class . . . and giving this broad _expression_ . . . has driven me up the wall for twenty years of my working life. In respects to Soviet society this whole question of democratic input versus one man management has been described under the theory category of socialist relations of production . . . and has cause me more than a few headaches. In my way of thinking an autoworker in the Soviet Union and America in 1935 or 1975 . . . had more in common in their actual life activity than "not in common." The reason of this is the commonality of actual tools, machines and physical organization of auto production on the basis of that, which is industrial. Important differences exists that in turn impact the actual production process. These difference have to do with the property relations and the drive for profits. Auto plants in America produce one thing and one thing only besides profit . . . automobiles or vehicles while Soviet plants had multifunction production. I do not want to stray to far from this question of workers democrary and control . . . but an industrial facility will manifest a variation in curve of intensive and extensive development based on whether it process . . . as a system . . . on primary product or many. If you produce many products then you instruments of production are developed to perform multifunctions or rather machines are created that can be repeatedly converted over to produce more than one thing. The more functions a machine or tool has to perform . . . the less efficient it is to bourgeois property. Shoddy products achieved legendary status in the Soviet Union and some of this had much to do with its political system . . . but my position is that this was not the fundamentality. This is my thinking based on involvement in the actual fight to close the gap between the Japanese automotive producers and the Americans. Why are the Japanese vehicles absolutely superior to the American counterparts in every category? I discovered another truth at the time Bob Eaton was the CEO for Chrysler and he personally sent my older brother to Japan to study the issue of production and we spent the better part of a year unraveling "why." The first implentation of the results were atrempted at Trenton Engine outside Detroit . . . whose evolution was based on a previous study of the Honda system. Mutherfuckers should have went to Toyota . . . but that is another struggle dealing with the bureaucratic order. I asked brother "why did you not do Germany . . . because Bob wanted you to go to Germany and look around?" We did not know that Bob Eaton had consolidated his Germany contacts while he was with "General Motors Europe" before his tour at Chrysler Yes . . . Bob Eaton was consolidating his based amongst the workers in auto but we did not know this at the time of the unfolding of this history. You know the auto magnates are rats and this knowledge is what compels you from nothing to politically something. But your world view is fucked up because you cannot see the world in concrete terms as living labor and the immediate combat . . . because you do not have the data and the subjective response of the individual is some unpredictable shit . . . that you cannot predict "What the fuck is Bob talking about and are you going to Japan? " I do not know brother but he seems to want to know something and I will go to Japan befoe going to Germany." "Why in the fuck he wants you to go brother." "Besides having the largest stamping plant in north America under my political jurisdiction and me cussing that mutherfucker out because he do not drive a Chrysler car and has a chauffeur . . . which means he never encounter quality problems . . . your Big Brother is the4 baddest mutherfucker thjaqt you know." "OK Big Brother . . . I always knew I was number 2. Is Bob a 2 or one? This mutherfucker is not immune to operating within a certain family system or non family system?" "He do not seem like a 1 little brother." "That is why you not going to Germany?" "Not at all brother . . . if we lose . . . none of us have jobs and all that retirement shit is out of the window . . . and all the money is gone. Plus. . . I want to go to Japan and see what a mutherfucker is doing. Plus I am hitting the back street of Japan and not taking the fucking tour shit. The whote guys scared and I am not hanging out with their puck ass because they treat eveyone like shit. "Fuck them guys . . . ain't no one going to tell them shit in Japan." "OK Big Brother . . . say all the notes and documents." The evolution is deep . . . on every front. Remember when General Motors was called "Generous Motors" and "what is good for General Motors is good for the country?" Well, today General Motors is manuf
Re: Economics and law
---Didn't the Bolsheviks at one point deliberately try toimmitate aspects of American big capital? (I'mreviewing Yale Rochmond's Cultural Exchange and theCold War, and he asserts this.)* * Lenin expressly holds up Taylorism as an ideal for Soviet industry at a couple of points. I could find the references if you wanted. But I think the Bolshies were more impressed with German war planning planning, which was more familiar to them. Gramsci conceived of Fordism not only asa tool of analysis but as containing elements of a Communist society. jks Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
Re: KPFA and Sasha Lilley
Generally, it is a bad idea to challenge another member directly in the heading, since it sets off flames, but I cannot think of many people less inclined to intemperate behavior than Doyle and Sasha. If she wants to open a dialogue that could help matters at Pacifica, I would be glad to see the list help. If not, we can just hope that this dispute works out without too much damage. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Re: Shleifer update
I assume you mean that he will become the chair of Harvard's econ. department. After all, wasn't he close to Summers? Daniel wrote: shit, if that's the dude's defence he'll be lucky if he doesn't get the chair! dd Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Davies Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 3:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Shleifer update -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Perelman, Michael Sent: 15 August 2004 05:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Shleifer update Harvard and Shleifer say that the reforms they suggested worked well.
Re: electricity/water comparisons
Thanks Patrick! That was very informative. As you may know, we have a similar problem here -- not with water, but with electricity and heating -- but for different reasons. The Far East and Siberia are plagued with shutoffs of electricity (in Siberia, in winter). This is because, in Russia, the city or regional governments, not the consumers, pay the bills (though the government is trying to get around it by increasing payments made by consumers, which are far under market rates). However, in large regions, teh authorities are chronically short of cash, for three reasons: 1. The generally grim economic situation in those areas. 2. The middle class, which is where most of the money is, often works off the books, so little tax money is derived from them. 3. Corruption in the bureaucracy skims off additionsl layers of money. Accordingly, when the energy-grid monopoly UES doesn't get its payment, it shuts down supplies. This has even happened to military facilities while engaging in exercises! This is why its head, Chubais, is often referred to by (KPRF head) Zyuganov in typical demagogic fashion as the "energy gangster." __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Shleifer update
Anders Aslund says the same thing. He's the David Irving of post-Soviet studies. --- Daniel Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > shit, if that's the dude's defence he'll be lucky if > he doesn't get the > chair! > > dd > > -Original Message- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Perelman, > Michael > Sent: 15 August 2004 05:10 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Shleifer update > > > Harvard and Shleifer say that the reforms they > suggested > worked well. > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
--- andie nachgeborenen http://www.google.ru/search?q=cache:jGjH1YybTMcJ:www.jacobite.org.uk/ellis/religion.pdf+%22Peter+the+Great%22+Lomonosov+praise+swedes&hl=ru), including the author's comments: My address to you, our now peaceful neighbours [i.e. the Swedes, defeated by Petersforces in the Great Northern War] is intended such that when you hear this praise ofthe martial exploits of our Hero [Peter] and my celebration of the victory of Russian forces over you, you do not take it as an insult, but rather as an honour to you, for tohave stood for so long a time against the mighty Russian nation, to have stood againstPeter the Great, against the Man, sent from God to the wonder of the universe, and inthe end to have been defeated by Him, is still more glorious than to have defeated weakforces under poor leadership.47 Lomonosov can be yet more explicit than that in his identification of Peter with Christlike attributes. In his Ode on the 1752 anniversary of Elizabeth Petrovnas coronation, he says this about Peters mother Natalia Naryshkina: And thou, blessed among women, By whom bold Alexis Gave to us the unsurpassable Monarch Who opened up the light to the whole of Russia. The correspondence here with the following well-known words from the Gospel According to St. Luke is palpable: And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1, xxviii) Granted, he has not gone so far as to claim for Peters mother an Immaculate Conception, orfor Peter a physical Resurrection, and it would be more than far-fetched to suppose that thisis simply a question of his not wanting to compromise the continuity of the Romanov dynasty by denying Tsar Alexis any part in Peters conception; but his use of such recognisably New Testament language would be hard to explain away as coincidental and his identification of Peter with Christlike or, perhaps better, messianic, qualities is still evident. -- Me again: In fact, there is a Cult of Putin today, which has not been fostered by the Kremlin but is rather a source of embarrassment to it it -- e.g. people have named bars and even a tomato after Putin, to the Kremlin's intense displeasure. The Kremlin has a special office devoted to correspondence directed to Putin from the people -- hundreds of thousands of letters every year -- many of which take the form of asking Putin to intercede in people's personal problems. __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
--- Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Secondly, the primary Marxist point about capitalism was that, destructive of human life as capitalism had been from its very beginning (the advances for the few from the beginning disguising the greater horror for the many), it _had_ opened up the possibility of _real_ improvement of human life, a possibility that did not exist within agrarian society (as superior as such societies had been for the the vast majority in comparison with capitalism). Carrol --- Didn't the Bolsheviks at one point deliberately try to immitate aspects of American big capital? (I'm reviewing Yale Rochmond's Cultural Exchange and the Cold War, and he asserts this.) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What made Soviet socialism . . . real existing socialism was the legal system and ownership rights - property rights, that prevented anything other than means of consumption passing into the hands of individuals. That is to say . . . means of production could not pass into the hands of individuals. -- Hi Melvin, This isn't totally true. The USSR did allow small-scale private farming and very small-scale private enterprise, e.g. sewing and repairing clothes for money. Half of Soviet agriculture in the Brezhnev era was produced ny collective farm workers who, after doing their work at the kolkhoz, could grow produce on their private land plots, which they would take to the cities and sell. If anybody is interested in a vivid description of daily life in the Khrushchev era, I recommend Russian writer (and political agitator) Eduard Limonov's wonderful little book about his life as a young man in Kharkov in the 1950s turning from petty crime to literature, Dairy of a Scoundrel. It's available on the Web in English, translated by the eXile's John Dolan, if anyone is interested. (It's not one of the shock books Limonov is famous for, just a simple retelling of his youth. I recommend it wholeheartedly. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Shleifer update
shit, if that's the dude's defence he'll be lucky if he doesn't get the chair! dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Perelman, Michael Sent: 15 August 2004 05:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Shleifer update Harvard and Shleifer say that the reforms they suggested worked well.
Re: Najaf
"Unrealizable" in the present circumstances, for sure, Carrol, so long as the US thinks it stll has a chance of building an effective puppet army to help it crush the resistance, and knows that an invitation to have the UN come in would be interpreted worldwide as a serious defeat. But if things continue to deteriorate and US casualties rise, it's not inconceivable that the US would quietly admit defeat and publicly support a UN "interim peacekeeping force" to enable it to withdraw its forces, while trying to save face by claiming victory at the same time. More likely in this situation, though, it would simply help cobble together a broad "national unity" government incorporating the dissident Islamist and nationalist resistance forces, and accept the new goverment's request that it withdraw, without any need for UN troops, which would only draw further attention to the US humiliation. The anti-occupation forces would enter the government on condition of a US withdrawal and in the confidence they would quickly come to dominate the state after elections. Both the resistance forces and the Americans, each in their own way, know this stage hasn't yet been reached. It doesn't matter, IMO, whether Kerry or Bush is in the White House to preside over this withdrawal if it comes to that. But I do think Kerry, if he wins, will probably be more inclined to move faster because he'll think his election will have given him that mandate. All this is predicated, of course, on the US being unable to crush the resistance, and fairly quickly, which is by no means a settled matter. I wouldn't presume to involve myself in your internal antiwar movement debate, of which I know very little. Whether the demand for UN troops is a politically more acceptable way of calling for US withdrawal -- or whether it is a unrealistic perspective which obscures and weakens the effort to bring the troops home now -- is something for you to hash out. I know a UN force was never a serious option for Vietnam, though you probably recall that some - I think SANE and others -- called for it at the time. Ultimately it will be for the anti-occupation Iraqis to decide what form a US retreat should take, and for us to respect their choice. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Najaf > Marvin Gandall wrote: > > > > A spokesman for Al Sadr meanwhile told Agence France Presse > > early today that UN troops should be brought into Iraq to replace US forces, > > an unrealizable demand indicating the Mehdi Army is anticipating a fight. > > Debate on demands of the anti-war movement has been frequently disrupted > by the inability of too many leftists to acknowledge that UN involvement > is an _unrealizable_ demand. The _only_ rational demand is immediate US > withdrawal without conditions. > > Al Sadr has, I believe, made this suggestion before, but it has always > been obvious that it could not be a serious proposal. It is becoming > increasingly obvious that the only military strategy which could > maintain the U.S. in Iraq is that of "We had to destroy the > [village/city/nation] to save it." And as the account Marvin attaches > note, that is not a politically possible strategy in Iraq. > > Leftists who look for complicated "solutions" to propose will look > increasingly foolish over the next several years. > > Bring the troops home now! > > Demand that now, and then we can boast in a few years of how prescient > we were, after all the complicated solutions turn out to be only > face-saving methods of disguising a u.s. retreat in disgrace. > > Carrol >
Re: Najaf
Marvin Gandall wrote: > > A spokesman for Al Sadr meanwhile told Agence France Presse > early today that UN troops should be brought into Iraq to replace US forces, > an unrealizable demand indicating the Mehdi Army is anticipating a fight. Debate on demands of the anti-war movement has been frequently disrupted by the inability of too many leftists to acknowledge that UN involvement is an _unrealizable_ demand. The _only_ rational demand is immediate US withdrawal without conditions. Al Sadr has, I believe, made this suggestion before, but it has always been obvious that it could not be a serious proposal. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the only military strategy which could maintain the U.S. in Iraq is that of "We had to destroy the [village/city/nation] to save it." And as the account Marvin attaches note, that is not a politically possible strategy in Iraq. Leftists who look for complicated "solutions" to propose will look increasingly foolish over the next several years. Bring the troops home now! Demand that now, and then we can boast in a few years of how prescient we were, after all the complicated solutions turn out to be only face-saving methods of disguising a u.s. retreat in disgrace. Carrol
Re: naming that system
In a message dated 8/14/2004 2:47:45 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >The reason that Schachtman was dead wrong was that the Stalinist bureaucracy, which he fantasized as a historically new *ruling class*, had no ability (or desire) to inaugurate a new mode of production--its "historical mission," now completed, was to make prevalent and modern the capitalist mode of production within the Great Russian Empire. < Comment One can actually inaugurate a new Mode of Production - in material life . . . on the basis of political fiat? I do not believe that industrial socialism was a new Mode of Production of course an industrial society. Is not the basis of every mode of production in society . . . every form of society that has existed and can exist . . . a certain stage of development of the division of labor, human energy, machine and tool development and primary energy source -- with the property relations within? And is not the meaning of division of labor in society an _expression_ of all these things as primacy as opposed to the political form of society and the legal _expression_? Naming the system begs the question what is the meaning of "system?" On the one hand no one disputes . . . with any credibility that the industrial system of production prevailed under the majority of Stalin's tenure. No one disputes . . . with any credibility . . . that is was a certain kind of industrial system. Once one shifts the shape of the question . . . "naming the system" . . . and pose the matter more clearly . . . the answer becomes more than 50% apparent. The fundamental feature of the mode of production in the Soviet Union was industrial with the property relations within. What was restored in the Soviet Union was not an antiquated mode of production . . . which as a general rule is impossible to restore . . . but a specific property relations. Once a new mode of production arises and takes root and then stands on its economic legs it is generally . . . impossible . . . to "unnegate" the new qualitative defintion, that is the new mode of production. Its . . . like . . . . it is imposibble to deevolve society back to landed property relations (agricultural society) as the primary form of wealth and political feudalism because there no longer exist anything to go back to support this "negated" mode of production. That is to say the industrial mode of production and it's property relations grew out of the previous mode of production - sublated, and the previous mode of production is no longer waiting in the back ground for restoration . . . but is gone and no longer exist as a historical category. Melvin P.
Re: naming that system
Michael A. Lebowitz wrote: [Justin]: Well, I don't want to get into this distraction on the Russian question, but you could call the system bureaucratic collectivism (Schachtman's term) or the command-administrative system (the perestroichiki's term), or totalitarianism, or lots of things, but the fact is we don't really have a good name for it. How about the 'vanguard mode of production'? Cf. Lebowitz, 'Kornai and the Vanguard Mode of Production' in Cambridge Journal of Economics (May 2000). Nope. "mode of production" is an exclusively Marxist term and concept, and it signifies a whole epoch in the historical development of conscious human labor characterized by a specific set of class relations. The reason that Schachtman was dead wrong was that the Stalinist bureaucracy, which he fantasized as a historically new *ruling class*, had no ability (or desire) to inaugurate a new mode of production--its "historical mission," now completed, was to make prevalent and modern the capitalist mode of production within the Great Russian Empire. Incidentally, while Stalin, alas, was alive, I never heard any of his minions within, or acolytes without, the Russian Empire dare to express anything but the greatest pride at the appellation "Stalinist." Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus." Herakleitos of Ephesos
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
In a message dated 8/14/2004 8:18:31 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >CB: When you say "abolish property" instead of "abolish private property" are you putting forth a different concept than the one that Marx , Engels and Marxists use ? Or just shorthand for what Marxists refer to as the abolition of _private_ property ?< Reply Both . . . or rather Yes . . . because I am not a Marxist . . . just kidding. Although I am more communist - Red, than Marxist . . . from my understanding of the history of American Marxism as a political body as opposed to more than less academic discourse. Marxism is just one facet of communism anyway and never the largest sector at that. Ain't a socialist either . . . although some of my best friends . . . So the answer to the above is . . . Yes, or rather both. All of the above.:-) In fact I have the only valid concept of property according to Marx than has ever existed in history. Everyone else is wrong and I am right because . . . just playing. Private property is a form of property . . . Yes? What is to be abolished is not just the "private" or the form . . . but the property relations itself. By property or the property relation is meant all the things in our society through which one individual dominates another as well as class domination - the actual interactive interrelatedness of everyone to each other . . . Bourgeois property is only one form of property and what ever ones understanding of property is . . . that is what's meant by abolish property . . . not just the bourgeois kind. That is the direction of history as I understand all of what Marx and Engels have written. All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. Thus, "property relations" is used to mean all forms of domination of the individual by another individual based in class rights and class antagnoism . . . until the bright red future of communism is achieved and property is wipe from the minds of men and women. We have entered the beginning of a new historical era where the property relations itself can be abolished by abolishing the last form of private property relations . . . bourgeois property . . . WITHOUT THE STATE BEING THE PROPERTY HOLDER. This might take 100 years or a thousand years . . . I don't know. In the former Soviet Union the state was the property holder by way of its specific system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. By way of the state power . . . money, certificates and "sovereign credit" was issued that allowed the working people to access the system of production and distribution. I call this a from of property relations. The bourgeois property relations was abolished in the Soviets industrial infrastructure and more than less in agriculture. Perhaps less than more in agriculture . . . depends on ones point of view concerning exchange and the price form. Properly speaking the industrial workers did not sell their labor power to themselves in exchange for means of consumption . . . but then again . . . yes they did . . . as a transition phase never completed . . . with the state mediating this PROPERTY RELATIONS and the exchange of commodities. If commodities . . . including labor . . . was exchanged in the Soviet Union and this was not a bourgeois property relations or the private property relation . . . then how can anyone say that the working class was property holder and yet . . . there was no property relation at the same time? Property is bigger than a historically specific form. Abolition of property means advancing well beyond Soviet society and what makes this possible is subjective man in the context of a radically new emerging system of production. I do not advocate a Soviet America. Soviets were forms of organization of the workers as property owner. Bourgeois private property is the final and most complete _expression_ of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms . . . yet, under industrial conditions society is not and was not at a technological stage where the mass of people are no compelled to work as the basis of individual consumption. What made Soviet socialism . . . real existing socialism was the legal system and ownership rights - property rights, that prevented anything other than means of consumption passing into the hands of individuals. That is to say . . . means of production could not pass into the hands of individuals. Those who dominate and or administer the things that dominate people and reproduce the compulsion for exchange based on labor are still within a property relation. Socialism means a change in the form of property . . . from bourgeois private property to what? . . . Proletarian property. Here is the contradiction . . . not antagonism. Without question it was correct to exclude the bourgeoisie from owning prope
Re: Economics and law
Well, I don't want to get into this distraction on the Russian question, but you could call the system bureaucratic collectivism (Schachtman's term) or the command-administrative system (the perestroichiki's term), or totalitarianism, or lots of things, but the fact is we don't really havea good name for it. Stalinism is unfortunate insofarr as it suggests than man was responsible for the whole thing, which is absurd, but it is also true taht he shaped the system more than anyone else and that he exemplified the social forces that created it. So I'll use it anyway. I don't care if it isn't a Russian word, I don't think the Russians understand the Soviet era any better than Western specialists. Which isn't very well -- I speak having been one once. As rto Charles and Chris' point that Stalinist repression was selective and popular and that the regime took account of public opinion, of course. We revisionist Sovietologists argued that point against the totalitarianism school for 35 years. That doesn't mean, however, that Stalinism was democratic or that it was controlled by ordinary working people the way most of us here would want socialism to be. That is obvious too, don't you agree? I mean, as the Old Man said, a worker's state wouldn't have a political police. jksChris Doss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:CB: It is not quite clear that because there was aGulag, show trialsofParty members and other acts of state repression onspecific occasions,thatthere was no or little democratic process in decisionson other mattersinSoviet society during Stalin's rule or "Stalinism" (other matters suchasdecisions on transportation safety)---Me : In the Brezhnev era, the primary domestic purposeof KGB informers was to gauge public opinion withrespect to this or that government policy.I personally hate the word "Stalinism." It's not evena Russian word (it is now, but it was imported). Whatexactly does it mean? And why the obsession with one man?__Do you Yahoo!?New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Re: Economics and law
--- andie nachgeborenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where did you get it? It's not like there is a Lada > dealership on every corner . . . jks > There is here. :) __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
The distinction between Stalinist societies that appropriated the name "socialist" and those based upon real democratic input is absolutely spot-on. Bill -- What would you call the USSR when it had free elections in 1990? __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CB: It is not quite clear that because there was a Gulag, show trials of Party members and other acts of state repression on specific occasions, that there was no or little democratic process in decisions on other matters in Soviet society during Stalin's rule or "Stalinism" ( other matters such as decisions on transportation safety) --- Me : In the Brezhnev era, the primary domestic purpose of KGB informers was to gauge public opinion with respect to this or that government policy. I personally hate the word "Stalinism." It's not even a Russian word (it is now, but it was imported). What exactly does it mean? And why the obsession with one man? __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
On Saturday, August 14, 2004 at 07:18:13 (-0700) andie nachgeborenen writes: >Do we really know at all what a socialist society would do about >transportation safety? I think trying to predict from the hostory of >Stalinist societies is a very shaky guide. A socialist society, as >most conceive it in this list, would be one where there would be a >lot more democratic input into decisions about how much weight to >give values like transportation safety. Of course the very hallmark >of Stalinism was that there was very little democratic input into >such decisions. So you can't tell much from what people would do when >they had no say about what they might do if they had a real say. Now, >we might guess that if they had a say they would prefer to be safer, >but (as this thread began) safety competes with other things that >might matter a lot to them too. Cost in resources, availability of >transportation, etc. So it's not really possible to say how the >debate would come out beforehand. jks The distinction between Stalinist societies that appropriated the name "socialist" and those based upon real democratic input is absolutely spot-on. Bill
Re: Economics and law
Where did you get it? It's not like there is a Lada dealership on every corner . . . jksDaniel Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I drove a Lada for five years. It was fourteen years old when I got it andwas still going just fine when I gave it away last month. They were builtoff the plans of old Fiats.dd-Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chris DossSent: 13 August 2004 07:42To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Economics and lawDavid:>Cop out. In my experience, there was one example ofa>socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: theYugo.>Case closed.---This is totally untrue. The USSR exported automobilesto Latin America and elsewhere. Russia and Belarusexport tractors to Australia to this day, where Ladas,I am told, have a cult following.Those vehicles break down a lot, but then again theyare easy to repair.__Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
Re: Economics and law
Do we really know at all what a socialist society would do about transportation safety? I think trying to predict from the hostory of Stalinist societies is a very shaky guide. A socialist society, as most conceive it in this list, would be one where there would be a lot more democratic input into decisions about how much weight to give values like transportation safety. Of course the very hallmark of Stalinism was that there was very little democratic input into such decisions. So you can't tell much from what people would do when they had no say about what they might do if they had a real say. Now, we might guess that if they had a say they would prefer to be safer, but (as this thread began) safety competes with other things that might matter a lot to them too. Cost in resources, availability of transportation, etc. So it's not really possible to say how the debate would come out beforehand. jks"David B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kenneth Campbell writes:>> >How about West and East Germany? Can't complain about>> >different historical development. I think most might agree that there is a very different historical>> development between the parts of Germany that were east and west. Check>> it out. Pretty main stream. And, after the war, the east had a different trajectory, as well, based>> on need of the conquering powers. You seem to know history... help me>> out here... Which one of the two countries that has "US" in its>> acronym... which one lost about 25 million people in the war... and had>> cities bombed, occupied, dismantled, bombed again... >I stand by the position that if you refuse to consider>> >historical evidence and insist on speculating about>> >what could happen in utopia: cop out. I say the same thing! Brother, we've found each other at last!>>Let's try one last time. The suggestion was made that a socialist economy will more highly value transportation safety than a capitalist economy. Every historical example I come up with to try and test the suggestion, you say is not an appropriate comparison. For example, you imply there is apparently something in the historical development of East Germany, as compared to West Germany, that would cause East Germany auto manufacturers not to value safety as much as their West German counterparts, even though the East Germans had a socialist economy and West Germany had a capitalist economy, but such fact has no relevance for the validity of the suggestion that socialist economies value safety more than capitalist economies. I am at a loss how to respond.How do you propose to test the hypothesis? Is there nothing relevant from 75 years of historical experience that will satisfy you?David Shemano Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CB: If they hadn't been doing something that was building socialism some kind of threat to capitalism , they wouldn't have been in such imminent danger of being "defeated again". The reason imperialism was especially focussed on invading and conquering the SU is that they were building socialism, however flawed. --- Also just because it was a rival center of power. __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CB: Are you saying that the Soviet people knew they were really just trying to catch up with the West again ,and just used the Communist terminology to cover it up or that they didn't realize what they were really, "pragmatically" doing ( simply trying to catch up with the West) ? Basically the best argument against what you are saying is what the Soviet people said. --- Oh, I think it was both. You had some people who believed the ideology and tried to implement it, some people who believed the ideology but tried to implement something else and lied to themselves about, and other people who just cynically used the ideology. I think I have a good description of the USSR: socialism with tsarist characteristics. Or tsarism with socialist characteristics. :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
The majority of cars sold in Russia are Russian-made, or imports of used cars from the West. Not many people are going to be able to afford a brand-new Volvo. --- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obviously, someone who is very poor & needs > transportation will be unlikely to > purchase a Volvo & would be more likely to settle > for a Yugo. > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: electricity/water comparisons
- Original Message - From: "Chris Doss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Wow. A water Chubais. If they did that in Russia, they > would have mass opposition rallies. The very idea of > paying bills is a novelty here. What are water costs > like in South Africa? Water is free here (two things > Russia is not short off -- ater and land). Hey Chris, Not through my own techie efforts, but through praxis in a municipal water war (maybe the world's strongest today - alongside Manila and Accra), we have a fairly sophisticated answer to that question; the short answer is US$0.84 per thousand liters. In Feb I did a report posted at http://www.africafiles.org which sets out the existing water tariff (a 'convex curve') here in Johannesburg, along with the ideal-type concave curve which gives *everyone* at least a 50 liter/capita/day *free* lifeline, and penalises hedonistic consumption by my white petit-bourgeois neighbours (and yeah, myself) through much higher-than-marginal-cost prices when consumption goes above 150 lcd. As for praxis, our comrades in the Anti-Privatisation Forum helped with the first 25 lcd in 2001, but as that graph shows, the next blocs go up very fast and then flatten out, which means the marginal cost for overconsumption doesn't act as a good deterrent (the price elasticity is still too low to get a conservation response). Anyhow, we've found in many of the towns around South Africa that the slope, shape and convexity of the water tariff is actually a pretty good proxy for the state of class struggle. Hopefully with the 2005 municipal elections, which may be contested in several strong lefty pockets by a 'new social movements' network of folk like the http://www.apf.org.za, there will be more national focus on this issue. Meanwhile, the comrades in Soweto keep fighting against pre-paid water meters, shallow sewers, pit latrines, and other ways in which Suez (the Paris company with the outsourcing contract) tries to slow consumption, at the cost of worsening HIV/AIDS (water borne diseases like diarrhoea and cholera becoming fatal opportunistic infections), gender inequity and other externalities which don't interest Paris shareholders. On top of that comes yesterday's news that, thanks to the infamous Lesotho dams (subject of a recent corruption controversy at the World Bank), the bulk costs of water are rising faster than anywhere on earth... Ciao, Patrick 13 August 2004 SA water price hike 'largest in world' SA's average water price increase of 10,6% implemented last year was the single largest in the world, making the country's water charges the ninth-highest of the 14 major world economies, according to a study. This emerges as government plans to reduce the cost of doing business in SA. It means that water utilities, like parastatals in the telecommunications, transport and electricity sector, could soon be forced to review their pricing structures in line with the 3% to 6% inflation targeted band. The survey, released this week by US-based utility cost control and consulting firm NUS Consulting , found that SA's water prices had increased 10,6% to $0,84/m³ in the 12 months to last month. This resulted in SA losing its previous position as the country with third-least expensive water costs, behind the US and Canada. "The single-largest increase in the past year was experienced in Cape Town, where a water supply shortage led to a price rise of over 16%," George Rahr, MD of NUS Consulting in SA, said yesterday. He said widespread drought that plagued the country last year had contributed to the price increases. Further price increases were expected next year. Overall, said Rahr, utilities in the country's interior tended to have higher price increases due to the scarcity of water resources in these areas. "None of these cities are situated on or near a major primary river, and therefore must rely upon water from distant dams," he said. Gauteng's primary storage dam, the Vaal Dam, for example, had its water levels supplemented from the Lesotho Highlands, a distance of about 250km, which carried a "premium on its price due to infrastructure requirements". Gauteng's water utility Rand Water, which gets its supplies from the Vaal Dam, imposed a 5,7% tariff increase last month, attributing the hike to operating costs and rising demand due to the province's growing population. The increase was also aimed at offsetting the 6,1% increase on raw bulk water supplied from the Vaal River by the water affairs and forestry department. The survey found that Germany had the highest water costs in the world at $2,20/m³, while Canada was the least expensive at $0,52/m³. Business Day http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1679268-6078-0,00.html
Re: Stan Goff article
http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08132004.html This is a long, well-researched article that takes on John Kerry's environmentalist platform but goes much deeper into broader questions of oil depletion, global warming, etc. It cites Mark Jones extensively as well as Henry Liu. Highly recommended. Comment Any blow against Kerry and Company as the solution to the Bush Jr. administration has my unqualified support . . . period. I write very little on the Kerry controversy and what is called the "3rd Party Movement" . . . because I personally will write in Lenin's name on the ballot . . . if I decide to vote. The majority of Americans do not vote and because someone says that they should or how they should vote . . . does not move me in interesting places. Then . . . I might decide to vote for Nader. I voted for Gus Hall before and did not agree with his Marxism. Brother Goff begins his article with the following: "Imperialism is the political _expression_ of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment" -Rosa Luxemburg, "The accumulation of capital," 1913 In my opinion this is not true and was never true as a theoretical proposition and most certainly was not true in 1913 and . . . the truth was verified in the outbreak of the First Imperial World War . . . which was over a re division of a world divided into sphere of influence and domination. Re division of the world is an important concept . . . as a theory concept . . . because all the world was already being drawn forward in the orbit of capitalist imperialism . . . before 1913. The domination of the world market and its economic structure . . . based primarily on the closes colonial system . . . as opposed to what Lenin tagged financial industrial imperialism . . . meant that capitalist imperialism had already fundamental triumphed as a colonizing force. An attribute of Lenini's imperialism is the distinction between the export of financial capital as a social power versus the export of raw materials and human capital . . . sorry . . . Organizations of human beings on behalf of the capitalist imperialist. Michael Hudson in his Super Imperialism unravels this export of finance and updates this process in his preface to the 2002 edition. (I have both . . . the original and the update). That is to say the issue was not capitalist imperialism filling in all the non-capitalist space with capitalism . . . a horrible abstraction . . . because at each distinct juncture in the development of the industrial system . . . its colonial adjuncts provide a material function to the imperial centers. We are not talking about a world of 1910 -1913 dominated by fedual imperialism. OK . . . the question is the meaning of "what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment." Then . . . yep . . . then . . . "capital in its competitive struggle" is through in to mean something . . . but imperialism by definition is the export of a more developed means of production . . . as the curve of history . . . to a backwards people . . . or what is politically correct to say today . . . a less economically developed people. What was exported if not bourgeois relations? Filling in the non capitalist environment means filing in the "space" as in putting together a puzzle. Let me guess . . . I miss the dialectic. This is a crappie argument that was solved almost 90 years ago by Lenin and others. I am not arguing the energy question because running out of oil might be the best thing to happen to humanity . .. in the short and long run. I am not arguing entropy . . . but ask the reading to delve into who obesity can be the primary cause of premature death in America today? I have had enough of this for now and disagree with the description of the evolution of the industrial revolution . . . on the basis of quotes for the late Mark Jones. The industrial revolution or what became heavy industry as the pivot evolved from manufacture of heavy manufacture as opposed to the manufacture of consumer goods . . . and this is old hat. As if saying somthing a thousand times makes it right. Well . . . until one unravels the evolution of what is called "needs" and how "need" are restructure and created on the basis of distinct modes of production the energy question remains un resolvable. And reduces communist to asking people not to eat a tuna fish sandwich . . . something I will not do. Why did industrial capitalism develop on a curve of history where the automobile achieve prime important? Here is the energy question in the flesh and the way to take it too our working class. To each his own. And it is good to argue in the same circle. Melvin P.
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backward- page 529 ness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution - "Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries." We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or we shall go under. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/TEE31.html end of quote. I would not call this a nationalist's utterance by any stretch of the imagination. Whether one agrees of not all of Stalin's major writings are worth knowing as source material. Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation - 1928 is brilliant. His 1930 speech at the 15th Party Congress stands the test of time. What is fundamental in all his speeches and major addresses is the need to industrialize because they were already Sovietized and industrialization was on the historical agenda for who ever won the political contest. Yes, â they understood they were building the foundations of socialism and then socialist industry. "We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries." Something to think about . . . ain't it . . . especially when one wants to understand how a particular leader thought and envisioned the world. No one magically jumps to the communist future on the basis of industrial society. It is simply not possible. What is required is an additional revolution in the mode of production that places the abolition of property on the immediate historical agenda. Not unlike the real revolution in production that abolished the sharecropper as a class . . . which today is understood as the material prelude that abolishes the agricultural worker as agricultural laboring class ... as a primary social force in history. Thousands of years of the transitions in the form of this class of agricultural workers is being abolished from human history. Collectivism was not the answer but a practical solution to a practical problem of scattered production in agriculture. Pardon my economic determinism. I choose to error on this side of the equation. We have arrived at the very beginning of this process that abolishes property . . . and not simply allows for a change in the form of property . . . based on the revolution in the technological regime. Consciousness . . . the masses slowly gaining an awareness of the moment . . . determines everything from here out. Let's see what happens under our impact in the next fifty years. Proletarians Unite! Melvin P.
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
(M.Hoover wins the door prize . . . The Task of Economic Executives 1931.) 1931 - It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible ! The tempo must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the whole world. page 528 To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered because of her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her -- because of her backwardness, because of her military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because it was profitable and could be done with impunity. You remember the words of the pre-revolutionary poet: "You are poor and abundant, mighty and impotent, Mother Russia."[93] Those gentlemen were quite familiar with the verses of the old poet. They beat her, saying: "You are abundant," so one can enrich oneself at your expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent," so you can be beaten and plundered with impunity. Such is the law of the exploiters -- to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak -- therefore you are wrong; hence you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty -- therefore you are right; hence we must be wary of you. That is why we must no longer lag behind. In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backward- page 529 ness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution-"Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries." We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or we shall go under. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/TEE31.html
Re: Economics and law
Obviously, someone who is very poor & needs transportation will be unlikely to purchase a Volvo & would be more likely to settle for a Yugo. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
1928 - At the same time we have around us a number of capitalist countries whose industrial technique is far more developed and up-to-date than that of our country. Look at the capitalist countries and you will see that their technology is not only advancing, but advancing by leaps and bounds, outstripping the old forms of industrial technique. And so we find that, on the one hand, we in our country have the most advanced system, the Soviet system, and the most advanced type of state power in the world, Soviet power, while, on the other hand, our industry, which should be the basis of socialism and of Soviet power, is extremely backward technically. Do you think that we can achieve the final victory of page 258 socialism in our country so long as this contradiction exists? What has to be done to end this contradiction? To end it, we must overtake and outstrip the advanced technology of the developed capitalist countries. We have overtaken and outstripped the advanced capitalist countries in the sense of establishing a new political system, the Soviet system. That is good. But it is not enough. In order to secure the final victory of socialism in our country, we must also overtake and outstrip these countries technically and economically. Either we do this, or we shall be forced to the wall. This applies not only to the building of socialism. It applies also to upholding the independence of our country in the circumstances of the capitalist encirclement. The independence of our country cannot be up held unless we have an adequate industrial basis for defence. And such an industrial basis cannot be created if our industry is not more highly developed technically. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/ICRD28.html 1930 - It is a contradiction between capitalism as a whole and the country that is building socialism. This, however, does not prevent it from corroding and shaking the very foundations of capitalism. More than that, it lays bare all the contradictions of capitalism to the roots and gathers them into a single knot, transforming them into an issue of the life and death of the capitalist order itself. That is why, every time the contradictions of capitalism become acute, the bourgeoisie turns its gaze towards the U.S.S.R., wondering whether it would not be possible to solve this or that contradiction of capitalism, or all the contradictions together, at the expense of the U.S.S.R., of that Land of Soviets, that citadel of revolution which, by its very existence, page 263 is revolutionising the working class and the colonies, which is hindering the organisation of a new war, hindering a new redivision of the world, hindering the capitalists from lording it in its extensive home market which they need so much, especially now, in view of the economic crisis. Hence the tendency towards adventurist attacks on the U.S.S.R. and towards intervention, a tendency which will certainly grow owing to the development of the economic crisis. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/SC30.html
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes >> But I will take the bait. Show me what you have learned about "eastern >> Germany" and why that section of that country would be a tad less able >> to produce cars. (You can do it!) The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist economy, was less "able" to produce a safe car. The issue is whether a socialist economy would "value" safety more so than a capitalist economy and implement those values. If true, I would assume that, at any level of development, there would be evidence that the finished product evidenced a relative level of safety concerns compared to other factors (style, cost, functionality, efficiency, etc.), and that relative importance compared to other factors could be compared to relative level of importance in a capitalist product. In the United States, Volvos have excellent reputations for safety. Let's assume that Volvos do reflect an increased importance of safety compared to other factors, as compared to other automobiles. Would that be because of the social relations and means of production in Sweden? Would that be because of a Swedish personality trait going back centuries? Would that be because of a random occurrence? If the former, it might support the argument. However, I don't see how, for instance, the Yugo or the Trabant, support the argument. I mean, is there any evidence that when the Trabants were being designed, the designers decided, based upon available resources, to sacrifice a certain level of functionality for safety, as compared to designers of a comparable car in a capitalist economy? I am no expert, but I think the opposite was probably true. And if so, why does that not refute the original hypothesis? David Shemano
Re: Stan Goff article
http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08132004.html This is a long, well-researched article that takes on John Kerry's environmentalist platform but goes much deeper into broader questions of oil depletion, global warming, etc. It cites Mark Jones extensively as well as Henry Liu. Highly recommended. This article is a keeper. Thanks, Louis, for pointing to it. Dan
Re: Economics and law
I drove a Lada for five years. It was fourteen years old when I got it and was still going just fine when I gave it away last month. They were built off the plans of old Fiats. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chris Doss Sent: 13 August 2004 07:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Economics and law David: >Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a >socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. >Case closed. --- This is totally untrue. The USSR exported automobiles to Latin America and elsewhere. Russia and Belarus export tractors to Australia to this day, where Ladas, I am told, have a cult following. Those vehicles break down a lot, but then again they are easy to repair. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Charles Brown wrote: > > > CB: If they hadn't been doing something that was building socialism > some kind of threat to capitalism , they wouldn't have been in such imminent > danger of being "defeated again". The reason imperialism was especially > focussed on invading and conquering the SU is that they were building > socialism, however flawed. Agreed, but that wasn't what Stalin said. (I'm going by memory here: I hope someone can find the exact quotation.) He talked about how the West had beaten "us" repeatedly through Russian history: i.e., the whole was in nationalist, not socialist, terms. The earlier defeats (and he names several) were not of socialist regimes but of Czarist regimes. And he speaks of _Russia_ being behind militarily, culturally, economically, and several other adverbs. He undoubtedly _could_ have written what Charles writes above, but he didn't. Carrol
Re: Economics and law
David the Savior is back and writes: >Let's try one last time. Please do. We appreciate your altruism. >The suggestion was made that a socialist economy will >more highly value transportation safety than a >capitalist economy. If you are trying to cite thread precedent, I applaud you. "Economics and law" was my thread about space heaters. If you have a new one about "Yugos," try starting it under that thread name (sorry, process is important to me, as a would-be lawyer, you understand that). Nonetheless, you write (and you write well): >Every historical example I come up >with to try and test the suggestion, you say is not an >appropriate comparison. For example, you imply there is >apparently something in the historical development of East >Germany, as compared to West Germany, that would cause East >Germany auto manufacturers not to value safety as much as >their West German counterparts, even though the East Germans >had a socialist economy and West Germany had a capitalist >economy, but such fact has no relevance for the validity of >the suggestion that socialist economies value safety more than >capitalist economies. I am at a loss how to respond. You are narrowing the issue. That is why you are "at as loss." But I will take the bait. Show me what you have learned about "eastern Germany" and why that section of that country would be a tad less able to produce cars. (You can do it!) >How do you propose to test the hypothesis? Is there nothing >relevant from 75 years of historical experience that will satisfy you? Sure. You are a kind of proof yourself. Grin. Ken. -- When I look back on all the worries I remember >the story of he old man who said on his >deathbed that he had a lot of trouble >in his life, most of which never happened. -- Winston Churchill
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes: >> >How about West and East Germany? Can't complain about >> >different historical development. >> >> I think most might agree that there is a very different historical >> development between the parts of Germany that were east and west. Check >> it out. Pretty main stream. >> >> And, after the war, the east had a different trajectory, as well, based >> on need of the conquering powers. You seem to know history... help me >> out here... Which one of the two countries that has "US" in its >> acronym... which one lost about 25 million people in the war... and had >> cities bombed, occupied, dismantled, bombed again... >> >> >I stand by the position that if you refuse to consider >> >historical evidence and insist on speculating about >> >what could happen in utopia: cop out. >> >> I say the same thing! Brother, we've found each other at last! >> Let's try one last time. The suggestion was made that a socialist economy will more highly value transportation safety than a capitalist economy. Every historical example I come up with to try and test the suggestion, you say is not an appropriate comparison. For example, you imply there is apparently something in the historical development of East Germany, as compared to West Germany, that would cause East Germany auto manufacturers not to value safety as much as their West German counterparts, even though the East Germans had a socialist economy and West Germany had a capitalist economy, but such fact has no relevance for the validity of the suggestion that socialist economies value safety more than capitalist economies. I am at a loss how to respond. How do you propose to test the hypothesis? Is there nothing relevant from 75 years of historical experience that will satisfy you? David Shemano
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Chris wrote: >Russia engages in these grandiose "catching up with >the West" adventures every couple of centuries or so. What I have always enjoyed about Chris's posts about Russia is his love of the populace... Likewise, I do with North Americans... Ken. -- Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the vanquished were, of course, exterminated. -- Voltaire
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Oh, I think a lot of Soviet policy was simply a utilitarian, "how do we build up the country as quickly as possible to overtake our enemoies?" thing. Russia engages in these grandiose "catching up with the West" adventures every couple of centuries or so. It has succeeded twice, under Peter the Great and Joseph the Steel, two historical figures I think have a lot in common, except that the Stalin had tanks instead of musketry. There's no way he could beat Peter's Drunken Synods, though. :) -- > > I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin > correctly stated in 1931, > we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be > defeated again.In > support of Chris' point, I don't recall this > statement as having anything > to do with building socialism as such. > michael > Michael A. Lebowitz > Professor Emeritus > Economics Department > Simon Fraser University > Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 > > Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at > Residencias Anauco Suites > Departamento 601 > Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 > Caracas, Venezuela > (58-212) 573-4111 > fax: (58-212) 573-7724 > __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian > country ? People had been > surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. > Fend off the West? Russia's been doing this since Peter the Great. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Economics and law by Charles Brown 13 August 2004 17:09 UTC by Chris Doss Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It wiould be better to say something like "the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of teh stuff is fluff." ^^ CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: Economics and law
Carrol Cox wrote: Secondly, the primary Marxist point about capitalism was that, destructive of human life as capitalism had been from its very beginning (the advances for the few from the beginning disguising the greater horror for the many), it _had_ opened up the possibility of _real_ improvement of human life, a possibility that did not exist within agrarian society (as superior as such societies had been for the the vast majority in comparison with capitalism). The antithesis of capitalism is not "agrarian society"; it is socialism (looking forward), or feudalism and some variety of primitive communism (looking backwards). Capitalism is an advance over feudalism solely on the basis of productivity of labor, etc. It might not even lead to a higher standard of living if capitalist property relations go hand in hand with colonialism. Primitive communism is another story altogether, as should be obvious from my citations from Melville's Typee. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Economics and law
Charles Brown wrote: > > > > CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been > surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. For one thing, the USSR existed in a capitalist sea, & as Stalin said in 1930, they had 10 years to catch up with the west industrially, culturally, etc or they would be overrun. (This speech by Stalin was quoted by Carl Oglesby in a book the title of which I now forget, and I have never been able to run down the text in any of Stalin's works that I possess.) Secondly, the primary Marxist point about capitalism was that, destructive of human life as capitalism had been from its very beginning (the advances for the few from the beginning disguising the greater horror for the many), it _had_ opened up the possibility of _real_ improvement of human life, a possibility that did not exist within agrarian society (as superior as such societies had been for the the vast majority in comparison with capitalism). Carrol
Re: Economics and law
David wrote: >I was never good at geography. That's apparent. >The argument was made that a socialist economy would put more >emphasis on transportation safety than a capitalist economy. >Seems plausible. Silly me, I though one way to test that >thesis was to examine and compare the actual products produced >by the respective systems. Yes, I like comparisons, too. You seem to be saying you are also one of those people. Comparing things also involves the "backstory" and not merely the object (and its immediate tools of creations -- themselves being things). >How about West and East Germany? Can't complain about >different historical development. I think most might agree that there is a very different historical development between the parts of Germany that were east and west. Check it out. Pretty main stream. And, after the war, the east had a different trajectory, as well, based on need of the conquering powers. You seem to know history... help me out here... Which one of the two countries that has "US" in its acronym... which one lost about 25 million people in the war... and had cities bombed, occupied, dismantled, bombed again... >I stand by the position that if you refuse to consider >historical evidence and insist on speculating about >what could happen in utopia: cop out. I say the same thing! Brother, we've found each other at last! Ken. -- To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it. -- Cicero (doing his Zen thing)
Re: electricity/water comparisons
Hi Patrick. --- Patrick Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In SA, they've finally stopped the practice of shutting off whole sections of (black) townships when a large proportion of residents don't pay bills, but they still do for apartment houses. And that's in a country with a centre-left regime and a constitutional right to water. Last year, 1.3 million people were disconnected from water because of non-payment, even the state's chief water bureaucrat recently admitted. --- Wow. A water Chubais. If they did that in Russia, they would have mass opposition rallies. The very idea of paying bills is a novelty here. What are water costs like in South Africa? Water is free here (two things Russia is not short off -- ater and land). __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
> Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It would be better to say something like "the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of the stuff is fluff."< Comment Soviet housing pattern - communal apartments, and the need to provide living quarters in the context of this massive and rapid industrialization of the country - the shift from agriculture to industry . . . has a rough equivalent to aspects of the housing pattern in America. I believe it was in Detroit that the large government sponsored housing project called the Jefferson Projects . . . was created to meet the demand for housing under the Roosevelt administration. Eleanor Roosevelt officiated at the opening of this housing complex. The Jefferson Project contained 14 story high rises - 6 stories and 3 stories, and met the demands for housing of a population shifting on the basis of the mechanization of agricultural and servicing the boom bust cycles of the auto industry. There were several such housing projects in Detroit, although not as massive as the Jefferies Project. In fact Cabrina Green in Chicago is such a projects and one can find such communal quarters in perhaps every major city in America. In general housing pattern shapes itself on the basis of industrial centers and the working people providing the labor. A certain dispersal of industry and downsizing affects housing pattern under capitalism and socialism. The specific character of the housing pattern . . . meaning the pecking order . . . is another matter. The last "race riot" in Detroit during the Second Imperial World War era was actually ignited over housing . . . back in 1943 . . . if memory serves me correct. Dad took us out of the Jefferies Project in the early 1960s when his employment with the Ford Motor Company stabilized. Interestingly . . . this same Project is being looked at today as luxury apartments for the wealthy. I would pose the question as the housing pattern during the industrial era and the curve of its ascendency and decay . . . under capitalism and socialism. There is a growing and serious problem of homelessness in America but not a housing shortage as such with hundred of thousands on the waiting list for section 8 housing - welfare. Oh . . . paying for water in America is the height of American bourgeois criminality. When the bourgeois mentality learns to effectively bottle fresh air and offer it for sell to the masses . . . in an affordable manner our ass is out. Did not a movie star . . . Woody Harrelson . . . open a fresh air bar . . . yep . . . you could come in and buy fresh air . . . a few years ago? Melvin P.
Re: Economics and law
--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ^^ CB: Are you saying the Soviet people did not think their policy was about socialism or that they didn't know what they were really doing ? --- Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It wiould be better to say something like "the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of teh stuff is fluff." __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: electricity/water comparisons
Hi Patrick. --- Patrick Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In SA, they've finally stopped the practice of shutting off whole sections of (black) townships when a large proportion of residents don't pay bills, but they still do for apartment houses. And that's in a country with a centre-left regime and a constitutional right to water. Last year, 1.3 million people were disconnected from water because of non-payment, even the state's chief water bureaucrat recently admitted. --- Wow. A water Chubais. If they did that in Russia, they would have mass opposition rallies. The very idea of paying bills is a novelty here. What are water costs like in South Africa? Water is free here (two things Russia is not short off -- water and land). __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
--- Kenneth Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just this eve, I was spending some time talking about history with a friend. She brought out a book with a variety of graphs. The most salient one, in this regard (thread), was the shift of population from "agricultural workers" to "industrial workers." The graph only measure 100 years, starting from 1860. The curves that the UK and US generated with meagre slopes in that time frame. Those units had made that "relocation" much earlier. Japan's curve started around the 1880s. The USSR was around 1930. (There were others, like Turkey, with similar steep relocation curves.) I mentioned to her, in talking about that, that the one thing that I found the most knee-jerk and unreflective about the right is that they make unsophisticated comparisons, usually assuming from some mythical "ground zero" that the US and Russia started on a level playing field and only socialism crippled Russia. Ken. --- Yeah. Look at communal apartments, which were always adduced in anti-Soviet propaganda as evidence of the evils of the latter system. In fact, communal apartments were a response to massive and rapid urbanization. People have to live somewhere. When England industrialized, what happened to the people who flooded into the cities -- they lived in workhouses? Anyway I think both sides of this debate are missing the point of the Soviet experience (limiting the discussion to the USSR). Soviet Union policy was really not about "socialism." The Soviet Union was about modernizing an agrarian country in lickety-split time. It succeeded. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Re: Economics and law
David: >Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a >socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. >Case closed. --- This is totally untrue. The USSR exported automobiles to Latin America and elsewhere. Russia and Belarus export tractors to Australia to this day, where Ladas, I am told, have a cult following. Those vehicles break down a lot, but then again they are easy to repair. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell wrote:
>Respectfully, David, your response is itself a "cop out." Yugo... you be
>nice now.
>
>Just this eve, I was spending some time talking about history with a
>friend. She brought out a book with a variety of graphs. The most
>salient one, in this regard (thread), was the shift of population from
>"agricultural workers" to "industrial workers." The graph only measure
>100 years, starting from 1860.
>
>The curves that the UK and US generated with meagre slopes in that time
>frame. Those units had made that "relocation" much earlier. Japan's
>curve started around the 1880s. The USSR was around 1930. (There were
>others, like Turkey, with similar steep relocation curves.)
>
>I mentioned to her, in talking about that, that the one thing that I
>found the most knee-jerk and unreflective about the right is that they
>make unsophisticated comparisons, usually assuming from some mythical
>"ground zero" that the US and Russia started on a level playing field
>and only socialism crippled Russia.
>
>I think you may have done something similar by offering the Yugo as a
>piece of evidence ("case closed!") when it is really just a propaganda
>symbol of something about the historical reality of two very different
>cultures and economic developments.
Was the Yugo made in Russia? Was Yugoslavia part of Russia? I was never good at
geography.
The argument was made that a socialist economy would put more emphasis on
transportation safety than a capitalist economy. Seems plausible. Silly me, I though
one way to test that thesis was to examine and compare the actual products produced by
the respective systems. You don't like the Yugo as an example? Fine. How about West
and East Germany? Can't complain about different historical development. What was
safer on average, a Mercedes/BMW/VW, or a Trabant?
I stand by the position that if you refuse to consider historical evidence and insist
on speculating about what could happen in utopia: cop out.
David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
David interprets the car as a capitalist commodity. I partially agree with him, but for different reasons since I don't like cars. But the question would be how the automobile industry depended heavily on the state -- to build roads, to dislodge street cars Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Economics and law
Charles wrote:
>>It's hard because the Soviet Union (and all socialist
>>inspired economies) had to put so much economic
>>emphasis on military defense because capitalism was
>>constantly invading them or threatening to nuke 'em.
>>This throws off all ability to measure from Soviet and
>>socialist inspired history what might be the benefits
>>of a peaceful socialist development of a regime of
>>safety from our own machines.
David:
>Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a
>socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo.
>Case closed.
Respectfully, David, your response is itself a "cop out." Yugo... you be
nice now.
Just this eve, I was spending some time talking about history with a
friend. She brought out a book with a variety of graphs. The most
salient one, in this regard (thread), was the shift of population from
"agricultural workers" to "industrial workers." The graph only measure
100 years, starting from 1860.
The curves that the UK and US generated with meagre slopes in that time
frame. Those units had made that "relocation" much earlier. Japan's
curve started around the 1880s. The USSR was around 1930. (There were
others, like Turkey, with similar steep relocation curves.)
I mentioned to her, in talking about that, that the one thing that I
found the most knee-jerk and unreflective about the right is that they
make unsophisticated comparisons, usually assuming from some mythical
"ground zero" that the US and Russia started on a level playing field
and only socialism crippled Russia.
I think you may have done something similar by offering the Yugo as a
piece of evidence ("case closed!") when it is really just a propaganda
symbol of something about the historical reality of two very different
cultures and economic developments.
Ken.
--
Hear how he clears the points o' Faith,
Wi' rattlin' an' thumpin'
Now meekly calm, now wild in wrath
He's stampan an he's jumpan!
-- Robert Burns
"The Holy Fair"
Re: [lbo-talk] KPFA Staff Open Letter to the Local Station Board
This is very sad. I have no idea what is at stake. The other letter that I saw also had endorsements from people that I respect. All that I know is that I hope that Sasha & the other people at KPFA continue their good work. I am very dependent on the information that I get off the station. I first heard Pacifica while spending a summer in LA in 1960. I was a senior in college, but I had never been exposed to anything like that -- both culturally & politically. When I went to grad school in Berkeley during the 60s, I learnt more from the station than from my classes. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Economics and law
Charles Brown writes: >> Why is your personal opinion relevant? I mean, I am sure I can find >> somebody >> (Melvin P.?) who apparently highly values going 100. Therefore, your >> opinion >> is cancelled out. Now what do we do? >> >> ^ >> >> CB: Well, it's like why vote ? Your vote is only one in millions. How can it >> be relevant ? David Shemano's vote is going to cancel yours , so why vote ? >> >> In general, all we have here on email is opinions ,no ? For example, you >> recognized that opinions are readily expressed in this mediuam when you said >> to Michael Perelman: >> >> "I don't have a strong opinion on whether regulation should be done by >> legislation or litigation -- it seems like a peripheral issue." >> >> >> Would your opinion have been relevant if you had one ? I knew my statement would cause a problem, but I think the point is valid. You, Charles Brown, subjectively value safety in such a manner that you think the speed limit should be 40 and not 70. I am not sure why your entirely subjective opinion translates into a rule for everybody else. It seems to me that cost/benefit analysis rule-making should ultimately be determined by something other than one person's subjective opinion. >> Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? We have 75 years of >> experience with socialist inspired economies. Did they place a higher value >> on >> safety compared to comparable capitalist societies? >> >> ^ >> CB: Well, yea for automobile safety. The Soviet cars were like tanks, which >> , Justin mentioned, would be the direction that you would go to have safer >> cars. They had more mass transportation in the form of omnibuses, trains, >> trolleys than individualized units, as Melvin alluded to as a safer form, >> generally. >> Obviously, there can be train accidents too. Has anybody ever done a comparison of transportation deaths among countries? It might be interesting. >> Were they able to >> implement safety concerns more economically than comparable capitalist >> societies? >> >> ^ >> CB: Good question. I'm not sure how you would get a comparable capitalist >> society , but if you think my opinion on it is relevant, I'd say a >> comparable capitalist economy for the SU would be someplace like Brazil in >> some senses at some periods. >> >> It's hard because the Soviet Union (and all socialist inspired economies) >> had to put so much economic emphasis on military defense because capitalism >> was constantly invading them or threatening to nuke >> 'em. This throws off all ability to measure from Soviet and socialist >> inspired history what might be the benefits of a peaceful socialist >> development of a regime of safety from our own machines. Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. Case closed. >> It seems to me that safety increases in value as a society becomes >> wealthier, and the value is not correlated to the economic system itself. >> >> ^ >> CB What do you mean by "safety increases in value" ? I'm not sure human life >> is valued more highly as society gets wealthier. >> >> >> Death and injury by automobile accidents is the main cause of premature >> death in the U.S., isn't it ? Unless we live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average, something has to be the main cause of premature deaths, right? What would you propose to be the main cause of premature deaths in lieu of auto accidents? David Shemano
Re: Paying the price for war
Here is to educating Americans on who pays for and who profits from imperial war, and why. Seth Re: Paying the price for war by Michael Perelman 12 August 2004 Seth may well be understating the cost of the war. The budget of Walter Read is probably left out of these estimates. The cost of caring for the next generation of homeless people who never found their way back from the horror. The extra costs associated with the anger generated abroad. Could we use the "priceless" tag-line? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: One Iraq veteran
Title: Re: One Iraq veteran A young friend, about 20 or so, spent time in Iraq during his on-going 4 year enlistment in the Air Force. He's now stationed in the states but will go back to Iraq in February. The conversation with him was depressing. . The spin is frightening. Gene Coyle The following "Other Voices" column appeared in this morning's Grass Valley CA The Union... The Union, Grass Valley CA http://www.theunion.com Mother sees tough side of Iraq war Susan and William Porter August 12, 2004 Last year I sent my son to war. During the seven months he was in Iraq, he experienced fierce combat, lost friends to death and injury, saw and did things that no human being should ever have to see or do - things he'll have to live with for the rest of his life. He was barely 18 years old. It was the worst seven months of my life. Every morning I woke up grateful that no one had come knocking on my door during the night. The crunch of tires on gravel or headlights shining through the window caused the entire family to hold its breath until the unknown vehicle passed by our drive. Each and every day was a struggle to maintain some sense of order and sanity while knowing my child was in harm's way. Sleep was something to do only when the body gave out and couldn't stay awake any longer. It wasn't until he was back on U.S. soil last September that I was able to get a full night's sleep and not flinch every time I heard a car drive down the lane. My peace was short-lived. He was home less than a month before the battalion was told they'd be going back. For the better part of a year, I've been living with the dread of going through this nightmare again. His deployment draws near. Sometime in the next month or so, I'll be sending my son to war for the second time. Recently I nailed a John Kerry poster and a yellow ribbon to a tree on my property. Nailed it securely. As an American, I have the right of free speech, and as the mother of a Marine, I've more than earned the right to my opinion that the current leadership of this country has got to change. Within a matter of days, the sign was missing, stolen by someone who has no respect for the rights and freedoms my son has sworn to protect. I have a few questions for this person, so quick to show his support of Mr. Bush. How many letters and care packages have you sent to Iraq to show your support for the troops? How many letters of condolence have you written to the over 900 families who've lost a son or daughter, father, brother, mother, sister in this idiotic war? How many mothers have you comforted with your words and actions of support? Your behavior leaves little doubt as to your character. Do you really think violating my rights, trespassing on my property and stealing from me exemplifies the "values" and "moral clarity" your party is so quick to claim?
Re: NJ gov.
from what I hear, the problem was not so much the affair, as the revelation that he's a friend of Dorothy. dd Who the hell is Dorothy? -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: 12 August 2004 21:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NJ gov. Why would an affair make him resign? Is the Lt. Gov. a dem? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: NJ gov.
from what I hear, the problem was not so much the affair, as the revelation that he's a friend of Dorothy. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: 12 August 2004 21:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NJ gov. Why would an affair make him resign? Is the Lt. Gov. a dem? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: One Iraq veteran
Gene, you probably know that the area surrounding Chico is perhaps the most conservative in the state. I wouldn't be disheartened by what you hear coming from our local stations. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: JEP & Schleiffer
Michael wrote: (B (BPaul deserves criticism for his summary of Shleifer -- he is far too gentle. Shliefer (Binsists that market-induced competition does not create undesirable consequences. It (Bis non-market corruption that is bad. (B (BResponse Jim C: I have been invited to present a paper in Beijing at Tsinghua (BUniversity at the upcoming conference on Sept 1-2 on The International Symposium on (Bthe Reform of Property Rights & Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries. (BMy paper is on the "The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based (BProcesses and Socialist Construction." (BThe paper argues that capitalism requires certain fundamental institutions, values, (Bnorms, power relations/structures, etc (social capital) for its expanded reproduction (Band the requisite fundamental social capital of capitalism is fundamentally (Bcontradictory to those fundamental institutions, values, norms, power (Brelations/structures requisite for socialist construction--even allowing for diverse (Bdefinitions of what socialism and socialist construction is all about. The social (Bcapital of capitalism, as in the case of social capital in general, involves (Binstitutions designed to foster some degrees of trust, hope, cooperation, social (Bcohesion and buying into the system on the part of the masses even as market-based (Bforms and levels of competition, values and behaviors associated with methodological (Bindividualism--along with the core relations and survival imperatives in capitalist (Bcompetition--undermine that social capital and objectively--and (Bmeasureably--cause/reinforce mas! (B s cynicism, loss of hope, loss of social cohesion, social darwinism, loss of trust, (Bfraud, environmental decay and inevitable trajectories/vicissitudes/trends that cause (Bloss of mass belief in the system itself. The paper argues that the core imperatives (Band power-relations/structures of survival in capitalist competition are (Bself-contradictory and undermine the requisite social capital of capitalism (necessary (Bfor its expanded reproduction) itself as well as being fundamentally in contradiction (Bwith--and hostile to--the requisite "social capital" of socialist construction (B (BThe paper argues that socialism is about dictatorship of the proletariat, changing (B"human nature" itself and progressively pulling up the poisonous weeds of capitalism (Band pre-capitalism (productive relations, ideas, myths, traditions, institutions, (Bpower relations/structures, etc) and that although China faces myriad challenges and (Bhorrible historical legacies that must be addressed, along with increasing hostility (Band threatening machinations from U.S. imperialism thus making rapid development of (Bmaterial forces even more imperative for survival and socialist construction of China, (Ball capitalist/market-based institutions are fundamentally contradictory to socialist (Bconstruction and should be regrarded as tactical compromises (as Lenin honesty (Bcharacterized the NEP in Russia) for the purposes of strategic advance and not a new (Bmodel of socialist construction to be emulated elsewhere. (B (BI have been asked to moderate a workshop on the question of whether or not capitalism (Bis being restored in China--or has already been restored in China--with proponents of (Bthe thesis--that capitalism is being/has been restored in China--(of which I am not (Bone)invited to debate the question with scholars from Tsingua and other Chinese (Buniversities who anxiously await the debate. (B (BI also note, that the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard, (Boriginally one of the sponsors of the Symposium, is no longer listed as one of the (Bsponsors and I wonder if the machinations of Schleiffer had something to do with that. (B (B (BPlace: Tsinghua University, Beijing (BTime: September 1-2, 2004 (B (BThe International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights (B& Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries (B (BINVITATION (B (BDear Professor: (B (BI am very pleased to invite you to take part in the International Symposium on the (BReform of Property Rights & Enterprise Development in Sino-Russian Economic (BTransition, which will be held in Beijing on 1-2 September, 2004. The participants (Bwill include some distinguished scholars of this field from China, Russia, the United (BStates, Britain, Japan and other countries, about 20 from home and overseas (Bseparately; high officials from the National Development and Reform Commission, State (B-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, (BDevelopment Research Center of the State Council $B!$ (JFinance and Economics (BCommission of NPC, Law Commission of NPC, and distinguished entrepreneurs from both (Bstate-owned and private-owned enterprises and foreign corporations. (B (BMain topics of the fo
Re: Paying the price for war
Seth may well be understating the cost of the war. The budget of Walter Read is probably left out of these estimates. The cost of caring for the next generation of homeless people who never found their way back from the horror. The extra costs associated with the anger generated abroad. Could we use the "priceless" tag-line? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: JEP & Schleiffer
BTW this is the Russian newspaper Izvestia commenting on Schleiffer's fall from grace. Izvestia August 10, 2004 HARVARD PROFESSOR'S SPOUSE LINED HER POCKETS IN PRIVATIZATION An update on the scandal around the so called Harvard Project. Author: Konstantin Getmansky [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] HARVARD PROJECT, A PROGRAM GENEROUSLY FINANCED BY THE US ADMINISTRATION, WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP RUSSIA MAKE A TRANSITION TO FREE MARKET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 1990'S. IN FACT, AMERICAN CONSULTANTS ANDREI SCHLEIFER AND JONATHAN HAY USED INSIDER INFORMATION ON PRIVATIZATION OF MAJOR RUSSIAN ENTERPRISES FOR PERSONAL ENRICHMENT Harvard Project, a program generously financed by the US Administration, was supposed to help Russia make a transition to free market in the middle of the 1990's. In fact, American consultants Andrei Schleifer and Jonathan Hay used insider information on privatization of major Russian enterprises for personal enrichment. Their wives participated. Nancy Zimmerman recompensed the US Administration for the damage estimated by attorneys at $1.5 million last Thursday. Zimmerman decided to pay up to avoid criminal charges. It happened a month after the verdict of the federal court of Massachusetts that convicted her husband, Harvard Professor of Economics Schleifer, for machinations and falsification of his reports on his activities in the capacity of adviser to the government of Russia. Schleifer spent between 1994 and 1997 in Moscow, involved with the already non-existent Harvard Institute of International Development within the framework of the American program of assistance to Russia in transition to free market economy. Along with everything else, Schleifer was a consultant of the Federal Commission for Securities that received hefty grants from the United States then for establishment of the securities markets in Russia. The first accusations concerning integrity of the professor and his wife appeared right upon his return to the United States in 1997. The prosecutor's office initiated criminal proceedings and an investigation only in 2000. When it was over, it filed lawsuit against Schleifer and Zimmerman demanding recompense to the US Administration for its losses. Investigation is convinced that Schleifer with the help from his wife used his position for personal enrichment. Using the insider information he was privy to, he and his wife established several dummy corporations through which they bought shares in Russian enterprises slated for privatization. The accord between the US Administration and Harvard expressly banned this. Aware of that and using their personal capitals, Schleifer and Zimmerman bought $464,000 worth of shares in Russian oil companies. Schleifer also used his relatives' fortunes to buy into Gazprom. "This is blatant neglect of all norms of ethics," said Sarah Bloom, Massachusetts Assistant DA. "Two experts hired to promote observance of the law, integrity and openness of market in Russia taught the Russians something altogether different." On June 28, the federal court of Massachusetts convicted Schleifer. Judge Douglas Woodlock did not set the sum Schleifer and Jonathan Hay (his colleague and former head of the Harvard Institute of International Development) are supposed to return to the US Administration. DA office insists on $102 million. The final verdict will be passed on September 13. As for Zimmerman, the court did not even begin. Last Thursday, he returned to the state $1.5 million worth of damage as estimated by the prosecution. "Zimmerman is one of the owners of Farallon Fixed Income Associates," said Samantha Martin of the Massachusetts DA office. "We believe that FFIA used the resources, personnel, and influence of the Harvard Project in Russia for its own investments in the Russian economy. Between December 1995 and June 1997, FFIA made use of all these resources and insider information on the activities of New World Capital. The company bought and sold shares in Russian companies using the arrangement that permitted it not to pay taxes to the Russian budget." "This solution of the problem shows that the United States will always be after whoever uses government programs for his or her own benefit," said Massachusetts DA Michael Sullivan. "We will not permit the use of taxpayers' money for personal enrichment." Translated by A. Ignatkin --- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did he get fired? Just from the development > institute? > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: JEP & Schleiffer
Did he get fired? Just from the development institute? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: JEP & Schleiffer
Robert Naiman wrote: Shleifer should get a chutzpah award, writing about ethics, given his history with USAID and Russia. He got fired from Harvard, no? Hey, it takes one to know one. Why do you think FDR made Joe Kennedy the first head of the SEC? Doug
Re: JEP & Schleiffer
Shleifer should get a chutzpah award, writing about ethics, given his history with USAID and Russia. He got fired from Harvard, no? At 09:43 PM 8/11/2004 -0700, you wrote: Paul deserves criticism for his summary of Shleifer -- he is far too gentle. Shliefer insists that market-induced competition does not create undesirable consequences. It is non-market corruption that is bad. And he is considered one of the bright lights of economics. Paul wrote: 2) Latest AEA/AER publication (San Diego Proceedings) has a choice article: "Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior?" by Andrei Shleiffer. Opening sentence: "This paper shows that conduct described as unethical and blamed on 'greed' is sometimes a consequence of market competition." This builds on the author's article entitled "Corruption" in last year's QJE. I am sorry to kick someone when they are down, and also to criticize someone not on the list but... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: back to PPP comparisons\Chris' question
Thanks for the input! See below. > > State supplied utility benefits such as electricity > are in Russia's > national accounts in Ruble terms, so yes they are > included in these > comparisons. Even with the recent price hikes, my monthly electricity bill in Moscow (pretty large Stalin-era apartment, with two big rooms, kitchen, bathroom, water closet) is a whopping $8. Domestic consumers also get gas and oil at far below market rates (you probably already know this). BTW even if an apartment dweller simply refuses to pay the bill, there is no effective way to disconnect him or her, since Soviet apartment blocks are constructed in such a way that you either shut power off to the whole block or not at all. Ditto for water. Such deadbeats were frequent subjects of mockery in Soviet comedies. > > Self-grown food is normally not in *conventional* > national accounts - one > example of why people get perplexed when they see > very low GNP p/c figures > that don't match up to their intuitive feel for > living standards. That's a very good point. I remember how stunned I was at how much richer Moscow was than I has expected, going by official figures (unaware that up to half of the economy does not exist on the books). (The home-grown food issue, BTW, also points to what a wild exaggeration Gaidar's warning of impending famine was in 1991. It is impossible to starve in Russia. I know people who got through the dark days of the early 90s by gathering mushrooms in the forest. Russia is mostly wilderness. Hunting is as much a way of life in Siberia, as, say tax evasion in Moscow. :) ) Moreover, Russia still has a strange, quasi-Soviet economy that is to some extent nonmonetarized. E.g. the factory where someone works might pay him or her practically nothing, but it provides daycare for your kids, gives you meals, free bus passes etc. etc. etc. (This is why people where able to survive during the days of year-long wage delays -- they didn't live off their wages. Their wages were supplemental.) > > Existing apartments are assets so they are not, per > se, in Russia's Ruble > national accounts. Incidentally the high apartment ownership rate and the way it was acquired (privatization of the apartment you happened to live in in 1991) has interesting sociological effects. For instance, Russia does not have ghettoes organized around ethnic or income (or for that matter sexual) lines. You can have a middle-class family and an impoverished beggar living next to one another (the exception is the rich). The concept of a slum is completely alien (I recollect an Indian acquaintance trying to get the idea across to a Russian coworker to no avail -- "you mean like a Khrushchev building?" "You don't understand, you've never seen a slum."). For the same reason Russian cities are not divided into low- and high-crime areas -- there is a low level of danger everywhere, but nowhere that is completely secure and nowhere that it is suicide to go into. There's also the everpresent alcoholic who seems to live in every apartment block, who would be on the streets in the United States but still has his apartment to stagger home to in Russia (everything in the apartment, however, has probably been pawned to buy booze). __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: JEP & Schleiffer
Paul deserves criticism for his summary of Shleifer -- he is far too gentle. Shliefer insists that market-induced competition does not create undesirable consequences. It is non-market corruption that is bad. And he is considered one of the bright lights of economics. Paul wrote: 2) Latest AEA/AER publication (San Diego Proceedings) has a choice article: "Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior?" by Andrei Shleiffer. Opening sentence: "This paper shows that conduct described as unethical and blamed on 'greed' is sometimes a consequence of market competition." This builds on the author's article entitled "Corruption" in last year's QJE. I am sorry to kick someone when they are down, and also to criticize someone not on the list but... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: ABK Comrades!
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/11/04 9:58 PM >>> >on other hand, nader's folks are pretty disingenuous re. reps who were >apparently working to help him get on ballot, You might want to verify your source. (as in Michigan where we do not need any signatures thanks to the Reform Party endorsement). <<<<<>>>>> above was news story for some days during time i was in michigan this summer, re. reform party endorsement, apparent problem with ballot line exists because there are apparently 2 reform parties in state, nader campaign was said to be filing suit about time i was leaving at end of july, has there been court ruling in matter, if so, was it decided in nader's favor, thereby, securing his place on reform line, if not, above statement by nader is not accurate... michigan reform party flap led nader campaign in michigan to go from saying that it wouldn't accept petition signatures generated by reps to saying that it was no longer sure that it would refuse to accept such signatures to eventually accepting said signatures (which were in excess of number needed)... my source is recollection of news coverage in michigan... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: ABK Comrades!
Title: Re: ABK Comrades! on other hand, nader's folks are pretty disingenuous re. reps who were apparently working to help him get on ballot, You might want to verify your source. Here's what Nader has to say about it... Ralph Nader Responds to Terry McAuliffe False Statements on Republican Support Tells Him to Stop Democratic Dirty Tricks Challenges Kerry-Edwards to Debate August 6, 2004 Terry McAuliffe, Chairman Democratic National Committee 430 S. Capitol St. SE Washington DC 20003 Dear Mr. McAuliffe: I am writing in response to your letter of August 6, 2004 which contains numerous falsehoods. If you had not approved the actions of these Democratic officials I would assume that your dirty tricksters are misleading you. But since you have approved of this tasteless adventure, it is more likely that you are intentionally spreading false information and need to be saved from further recklessness by veracity. The falsehoods include: - You asserted that: Signatures "for the most part are being gathered by Republicans." This is absolute fiction. We have many volunteers and signature gatherers working across the country gathering signatures on behalf of Nader-Camejo. Republican support, as I am sure you are aware is greatly exaggerated (as in Nevada where claims of Republican support are laughably false) and, in any event, contrary to our approach (as in Michigan where we do not need any signatures thanks to the Reform Party endorsement). - State parties are merely checking to "make sure we play by the rules." You are able to invoke opposition using the rigged statutes that your Party and the Republicans enacted together in many states, but the actions of your underlings have gone further than that, e.g. spoiling ballot access conventions in Oregon, using taxpayer funded employees in Illinois to check signatures and more. - Waiting for me to disavow "any financial or organizational help from Republicans or Republican groups." I have always said we reject organizational help from any major Party. As for individual contributions, I'll bet our major donations from individual Democrats far exceed major donations from individual Republicans in part because they want your Party to be pulled toward more progressive programs and away from its corporate grip and its corporate and corporate executive contributors. Look at your recent Convention's corporate hospitality suites and the at least $40 million in corporate contributions to your Party's coronation, for example. Besides, don't you want us to garner Republican votes? - Aligning "with the kind of right-wing, Pat Buchanan conservatives" such as the Reform Party. Sadly, today's Reform Party is more progressive than the Democratic Party on many issues. They want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq not a continued quagmire occupation; they sincerely want statehood for Washington, DC; they want to withdraw from trade agreements that undermine our sovereignty and weaken environmental, labor and consumer protections; they want to truly protect the environment and support organic farming; they oppose the constitutionally abusive Patriot Act; they want election reforms that will create a more robust democracy including open debates and voting on weekends so America's workforce can vote more easily; they want a crackdown on corporate crime and an end to corporate welfare, and they demand reduction of the huge deficit that is a tax on our children. However, your false claims about inappropriate Republican support should not cloud the actions of your Party, its lobbyists, law firms and underlings. As you can see from the enclosed article in The Los Angeles Times, we are very concerned about this nationwide effort to prevent voters from having a real choice. When I announced my candidacy, John Kerry said he would take my voters by taking my issues. Do you lack confidence in Senator Kerry? If you were confident in him, you would not be harassing, litigating and dirty tricking us from being on the ballot. You would not be trying to deny voters from making their own choices. Your letter fails to disavow these actions. Do you support these dirty tricks? Your Party has received millions of dollars from known wealthy Republicans hedging their bets - a tradition that wealthy Democrats also follow for Republican Presidential candidates. Please send me the names of those Republicans and the amount of their contributions. Moreover, kindly admit as soon as possible that your letter contained false statements and do not repeat them. I expect that you will have enough confidence in the debating capabilities of Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards to have the two party created and controlled Commission on Presidential Debates* open its doors to me and my vice presidential nominee, Peter Miguel Camejo. Polls indicated Californians believed Camejo did the best during the California guberna
Re: lesser evil question
Michael Perelman wrote: If Kerry keeps shifting right, maybe we will have to vote for Bush as the lesser evil? Michael, I realize you are being witty but the differences between Bush and Kerry are substantial. They range over taxation, stem cell research, AIDS funding, etc. They also agree substantially on Iraq, trade agreements like NAFTA, etc. However, from a Gramscian standpoint it is essential to preserve the appearance of democracy. That is why elections are so important. They give the impression that history is being made, even when the major decisions that are made after the election do not involve the people who pulled the levers. For the Democratic Party to retain credibility with Columbia professors, trade union functionaries, journalists at places like the NY Times and Mother Jones, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who marched against the Vietnam war, NPR listeners, etc., it must take correct positions on at least a number of issues. If tomorrow John Kerry announced that he favored teaching creationist "science" in the high schools, opposed affirmative action on principle (even though he opposed it tactically during an election campaign some years back), school vouchers and started making regular appearances on Rush Limbaugh, the whole game would be up. To run a proper shell game, you have to give the mark the impression that he can win sometimes. That is why the con man allows some bets to go against him occasionally. That is bourgeois democracy in essence. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Fidel Castro "horrified by China"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My resistance is to an ideological curve in our history that bounces from crying crocodile tears over the alleged famine killing perhaps as many as 40 million people and all kinds of vilification of the revolution in China and the on going revolutionary process. Which I haven't heard anyone do here, please correct me if I'm wrong. But speaking of revolution, here's the (very) rough draft of a piece by Li Changping, former county head in China, who came to fame in China by writing a letter to then Premier Zhu Rongji about corruption and the desperate conditions in Hubei Province. Prevent Rural Problems From Becoming Revolutionary The main manifestation of rural problems 1. In central and western China, most rural households find it difficult to even maintain simple reproduction after paying taxes and fees on their agricultural income. Furthermore, the majority of migrant workers find it difficult to reproduce their labor power on their wages. In 70% of the villages in central and western China, each family has about 8 mu of land. In average years, each mu of land produces about 1,500 jin of grain, and at .5 yuan/jin, this is about 750 yuan in gross revenue per mu. After subtracting about 200 yuan per mu in production and transaction costs, and 100 yuan in all sorts of visible and invisible taxes and fees, this leaves 450 yuan/mu in income, or about 3,600 yuan in income per family, and usually not more than 5,000 if you include income from sidelines. This figure is an approximation of farm income in currency, while only about 3,000 yuan of a family's income comes in the form of cash. Because education, medical, and the production costs of farmers are all high, it is thus difficult for farming households to break even. According to a survey undertaken by students from Nanjin University in their hometowns, 66% of central-western rural households find it difficult to maintain simple reproduction, and 64% of households are operating in debt. Migrant workers in cities currently earn about 6,000 yuan a year, but they have on average 900 yuan in medical expenses, 1,500 yuan in rent, 2,000 in food and incidental expenses, 200 yuan in clothing expenses, etc. This leaves them with about 600 yuan/year to take home. It is not possible for a young man to accumulate enough money to build a house, get married, and prepare for children and old age on 600 yuan a year. 2. Central-western China's infrastructure has been crumbling. Health, education and other public goods exist only in name. Rural markets are depressed, and financial resources have dried up. Production and life in general are difficult in rural areas, and the romantic image of farming in China is now nothing more than a historical memory. In recent years, the state has spent a great deal on managing large river systems, with impressive results. However, because the level of organization and mobilization in villages has fallen from the past, many of the infrastructure projects built under the communes are not being maintained, lowering villages' abilities to fight natural disasters. The number of school buildings has increased in the last few years, but the public education system that existed before the 80s no longer exists. Schooling is now farming households' biggest expense (36% of their income). A survey by the Ministry of Health revealed that rural households pay on average 500 yuan/year in medical expenses. Falling ill and going to the hospital have become a luxuries for farmers, and also one of their greatest fears. In the 80s, middle schools, roads, electricity, communication, pumps, etc., were all part of the state's responsibility, but now they are all the "people's" responsibility. How will farmers, who have a difficult time with simple reproduction, be able to shoulder what should be the state's burden to provide public goods? Farmers' disposable cash income is falling, as is their purchasing power. Rural markets are shrinking, and TVEs (town and village enterprises) are having a rough time as rural markets shrink. The four major state banks have retreated from rural areas, and the inability of farmers to secure loans has become one of the bottlenecks for rural development. The new generation of farmers no longer feel a connection with the land, signaling that the age of chaotic urban growth is set to begin. 3. Agricultural investment continues to drop, the natural environment in rural areas is getting worse, farmers produce more and earn less, and many villages are being pressured to return to self-sufficiency. The central government increased its agricultural investment, but provincial, city, county and township governments, heavily in debt (rural townships alone owe 230 billion yuan in debt) and under pressure to issue wages to their millions of bloated staff, prevented this money from reaching the countryside. Since the 1990s, hundreds of millions of hours of labor were mobilized each year to undertake infrastructure pro
Re: Fidel Castro "horrified by China"
In a message dated 8/11/2004 3:20:06 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <> >>He probably has never criticized China's capitalist transformation publicly since China has been fairly generous with Cuba economically. The article I forwarded quotes diplomats who were in contact with Castro supposedly, but I doubt you'll find anything specific in print. The last time Castro visited China, he made a rather tactful observation about how much had changed.<< Reply Agreed . . . and I will most certainly examine the sources indicated. I of course do not deny the existence of the bourgeois property relations in China. Nor do I beleive that one can advance to communism on the basis of the industrial system. My resistance is to an ideological curve in our history that bounces from crying crocodile tears over the alleged famine killing perhaps as many as 40 million people and all kinds of vilification of the revolution in China and the on going revolutionary process. China . . . or rather the character and substance of her economy . . . is most certainly being more and more integrated into the world economy on the basis of bourgeois reproduction or a set of needs that generates profits and the reproduction of the bourgeois property relations. What some call expanded value without qualification. Value is more than one thing . . . and embraces a social relationship. To be frank . . . telling me about the law of value or expanded value in CHina means next to nothing . . . it don't mean shit to me. You did not state this . . . but is there a possibility of us reaching communism without an expanded value that is transformed on the basis of the form of property and the technological regime? We read and can read the same material more than less. I cannot predict the path of the people of China for the next 100 years. Fuck dumb shit. What has been our path for the past 100 years . . . in terms of the liberation of an oppressed class? The class that was liberated was the sharecropper . . . he was fucking abolished or his energy as a class was no longer need as productive activity. All of us speak of value as this mystical thing. My communism is common sense. Yea . . . common sense and not theoretical excursion about alienation. Fuck that abstract shit about expanded value . . . I did that for twenty years. What did Fidel say about China is a valid question and you answered in an honorable way. I know a little bit about Cuba and its curve of history and why Fidel is out of time. Hey . . . I love Fidel . . . but there are some outstanding demographics that cannot be ignored forever. There is some real history involved. Thanks . . . Lou. Melvin P. China . . . or rather her economy . . .
Re: ABK Comrades!
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10/04 11:44 PM >>> Only Nader/Camejo represented a potential to threaten the Democratic Party's hegemony over the left side of the political spectrum by taking 2-7% of the votes, according to the polls <http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/nader-2004-nader-2000.html> -- hence the Democrats' well-organized attacks on Nader/Camejo. Yoshie <<<<<>>>>> dems were going after nader irrespective of his standing polls, this was gonna be payback, baby, for what lots of dems (however misguided and cry-baby like) think happened in 2000... and hey, it's their party, they can be scummy, although i'd suggest that criticizing nade for considering another prez bid, trashing him when he decides to run, and then attempting to keep him off ballots and destroy his candidacy (at relatively little financial cost to dems and economic burden to nader) are quite different approaches, some 'lefties' (most, if not all, of whom should be able to offer persuaive account that nader did not cost gore 2000 election) might genuinely/sincerely consider first approach to be legitimate or at least something to debate, such folks should have nothing to do with nor be associated with people engaged in third approach... on other hand, nader's folks are pretty disingenuous re. reps who were apparently working to help him get on ballot, this is same ole' cynical establishment-like politics that ought to be shunned... allow me to play mainstram poli sci guy for a moment, potential electorate has been told countless times grave importance of 2004 election (for sake of discussion at least, assume this is true), historical data indicates that so-called 'important' elections are often close contests, role of minor parties tends to be reduced in such instances as competition tends toward 'big tents' of two major parties, tends to be spike in turnout in these types of elections as well, very largest percentage of which goes to one or other of two large party camps... above may help explain why nader fared less well than some had hoped in 2000, might also offer some predictive (so says mainstream poli sci guy) expectation of nader - and other minor candidates - doing rather poorly in 2004... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Kerry would have gone to war
Shane is also correct in interpreting my meaning. On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:18:25PM -0400, Shane Mage wrote: > Michael Perelman writes: > > >The foreign policy difference between Bush & Kerry would probably be > >that Kerry would be less likely to instigate crises, such as Haiti > >-- maybe Venezuela, but faced with public pressure might react like > >Bush, or even worse in order to prove that he is STRONG. > > > "public pressure"--this should be translated "an orchestrated > media campaign," n'est-ce-pas? > > Shane Mage > > "Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not > consent to be called > Zeus." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Fidel Castro "horrified by China"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nevertheless my base question was what did Fidel say that qualified as being horrified by China. He probably has never criticized China's capitalist transformation publicly since China has been fairly generous with Cuba economically. The article I forwarded quotes diplomats who were in contact with Castro supposedly, but I doubt you'll find anything specific in print. The last time Castro visited China, he made a rather tactful observation about how much had changed. To really get a handle on how he might see developments in China, you have to look at what he has said about Cuba and extrapolate from that. Castro has been resistant to market "reforms" all along the line. If you want more information, check the Castro speech database at: http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/castro.html It is a very useful resource. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Kerry would have gone to war
Michael Perelman writes: The foreign policy difference between Bush & Kerry would probably be that Kerry would be less likely to instigate crises, such as Haiti -- maybe Venezuela, but faced with public pressure might react like Bush, or even worse in order to prove that he is STRONG. "public pressure"--this should be translated "an orchestrated media campaign," n'est-ce-pas? Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus." Herakleitos of Ephesos
Re: Kerry would have gone to war
Exactly. On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:10:37PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: > > >The foreign policy difference between Bush & Kerry would probably be > >that Kerry would > >be less likely to instigate crises, such as Haiti > > Clinton co-opted Aristide; Bush overthrew him. The first sucks but > the second is worse. > > Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
KPFA had a debate between Cobb & Camejo regarding the charge of the rigged convention. It did not sound nearly as clear cut as it was presented here. I was once on a jury panel for Camejo, but was kicked off & left with a clenched fist salute. I liked what he did when I was at Berkeley, but in his run for Gov., much of his attack on Davis what almost identical to what the Republicans said. He would mention some progressive positions, but he devoted most of his time to fiscal responsibility. In the debate Cobb came off as a well-intentioned Green. Not strong, but nice & sincere, but he gave a reasonable explanation. Camejo had answers, but nobody seemed to have a clear cut case. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Kerry would have gone to war
Michael Perelman wrote: The foreign policy difference between Bush & Kerry would probably be that Kerry would be less likely to instigate crises, such as Haiti Clinton co-opted Aristide; Bush overthrew him. The first sucks but the second is worse. Doug
Re: Kerry would have gone to war
The foreign policy difference between Bush & Kerry would probably be that Kerry would be less likely to instigate crises, such as Haiti -- maybe Venezuela, but faced would public pressure might react like Bush, or even worse in order to prove that he is STRONG. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
