Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Ken: I don't smoke... But I think yer a bit harsh on our dyslexic lawyer friend. I have nothing against Justin, Ken. The problem is not him but the contract theory, which is a direct consequence of western rationality. And contracts require lawyers. If it is not Justin, there will be someone else. As I told Jurriaan once in private, in my view, western rationality is about horse trading, since it reduces human interactions to deals and bargaining. When you adhere to western rationality, you design mechanisms to induce others to do what you want them to do, if you can, of course. This is why western rationality requires Justins. My Irish philosopher friend James Daly has a book entitled Deals and Ideals and there he calls what I call western rationality the Anglo-French version of Enlightenment. The Anglo-French version of Enlightenment is irrational. Back to work, that is, homework, Sabri
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
After hearing Carrol's story and reminded of Mark Jones, I don't think my future looks that bright. Not a pipe smoker though, just cigarettes. Given my family history, most likely I will pass away because of lung cancer. Who says human beings are rational? What was that rationality of the Western kind? Complete and transitive preferences of sorts or some such thing? Western rationality requires, or leads to, Justins of the world. Sabri
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Sabri, yer gonna out live us all. Some Turkish hills thing. Worry not. I don't smoke... But I think yer a bit harsh on our dyslexic lawyer friend. You wrote: Western rationality requires, or leads to, Justins of the world. Adults have the right to kill themselves, in any way they wish. As long as it's an informed choice. (Tobacco is actually helping us, here, making product warnings part of everyday life. Spreading the gospel of merchant accountability across the whole spectrum of crap goods and stupid consumption.) If people then still choose slow suicide through tobacco, so be it. Here in Canada, we do have a legion of lawyers trying to tie U.S. tobacco to smuggling schemes via First Nation lands along the border. I sure hope those Canadian prosecutors (we call 'em Crown) win. But I stand with Justin on one thing: YOU put the smoke to yer mouth. YOU inhale. While we can peel off the layers of media influence, ads bought to sell death products, etc. -- eventually, there is still the remaining individual who puts the stinkin' shit to their lips and drags. And that's where the buck ultimately stops. You have the facts -- increasingly so, today, because of tobacco and the lawyers and activists who have fought them. Smoke 'em if you gottem. Ken. -- I yam what I yam coz that's what I yam. -- Popeye (He had a pipe)
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
JKS writes:I'd be proud to defend the First Amendment ina NAzi case too. if the gov't cracks down on the Nazis, they crack down on the Left, too, most often in a bigger way. A first amendment defense of the Nazis is indirectly defending the Left. Elementary, my dear Mr. Devine. :) You know, FDR packed the Supreme Court down there and that was a huge influence felt in the social fabric of US lives for decades... an influence which is now waning. But all that free speech stuff, and the finding of a right to privacy in the penumbra of other rights... leading to Roe v Wade... that came through those hired-guns from the FDR and Brandeis-Holmes era. You should definitely support your local loon Nazi's right to smoke tobacco. Ken. -- The Olden Days, alas, are turned to clay. -- Ishtar, at the Deluge
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
JKS writes:I'd be proud to defend the First Amendment ina NAzi case too. I wrote: if the gov't cracks down on the Nazis, they crack down on the Left, too, most often in a bigger way. A first amendment defense of the Nazis is indirectly defending the Left. From: Kenneth Campbell Elementary, my dear Mr. Devine. :) You know, FDR packed the Supreme Court down there and that was a huge influence felt in the social fabric of US lives for decades... an influence which is now waning. -- for what it's worth, FDR didn't succeed in packing the Supes (by appointed a few beyond the usual nine members), though he did have an influence. Interestingly, it was Eisenhower who appointed Earl Warren, the leader of the liberal Warren Court. He later said that it was a mistake, but I think it reflects the fact that back then there was a wing of the GOP that wasn't that bad (compared to say, McCarthy). ... You should definitely support your local loon Nazi's right to smoke tobacco. -- they should be _forced_ to smoke tobacco. Jim
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
--- Kenneth Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should definitely support your local loon Nazi's right to smoke tobacco. (tobacco doused in lots of pesticide) Mike B) = * the Council Republic is not the culmination of everything, and even less does it stand for the most perfect form in which humans can live together. However the Council Republic is a prerequisite for the reconstruction of culture, because it makes possible the liquidation of the state,. It must be the task of the revolutionary of today to work for the Council system and the Council Republic. (Der Ziegelbrenner) http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
On Friday, October 31, 2003 at 04:07:09 (+0100) Jurriaan Bendien writes: Alexander Cockburn, whom I traditionally respect and admire, now writes: Krugman is a press agent, a busker, for Clintonomics. For him as for so many others on the liberal side, the world only went bad in January, 2001. If a Democrat, pretty much any Democrat conventional enough to win Wall Street's approval, takes over again, maybe in 2005, the world will get better again. The question that needs to be asked is what we achieve by polemically writing off Krugman and calling him nasty names. Krugman is a very learned left-liberal economist capable of very good critical inquiry into the US economy and suggesting positive alternatives. ... Krugman is not left-liberal. He is a neo-liberal, appearing in sharp distinction to the hard-core right-wingers that dominate public policy presently. His critical inquiry is pretty shallow, consisting mostly of currently calling Bush and his gang on their blatant falsehoods. When Clintonomics was ruling, he put out drivel about the Self-Organizing Economy. Your ideas about criticizing Krugman to bring them over to our side, whatever our side may be, is utter nonsense. Krugman isn't going to change his mind about his version of neoliberalism any more than Bush is. Bill
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
I fully agree with the following view about Krugman and what to expect from him, politically and otherwise. Ahmet Tonak Krugman is not left-liberal. He is a neo-liberal, appearing in sharp distinction to the hard-core right-wingers that dominate public policy presently. His critical inquiry is pretty shallow, consisting mostly of currently calling Bush and his gang on their blatant falsehoods. When Clintonomics was ruling, he put out drivel about the Self-Organizing Economy. Your ideas about criticizing Krugman to bring them over to our side, whatever our side may be, is utter nonsense. Krugman isn't going to change his mind about his version of neoliberalism any more than Bush is. Bill
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Krugman is very good at what he does. He's a sharp polemicist, writes very clearly about economics, and annoys the hell out of the right. No, he's not a radical, or a Marxist, or social democrat even. But he doesn't pretend otherwise. He's kind of like Anthony Lewis, only he writes better. I don't see why he provokes this kind of hostility on the left. Why's he worth the effort? Is it envy? Given the state of politics today, prominent talented liberals should be pretty low on our list of enemies. Doug
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
On Friday, October 31, 2003 at 10:33:27 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: Krugman is very good at what he does. He's a sharp polemicist, writes very clearly about economics, and annoys the hell out of the right. All true, for which he should be (and is, by me at least) applauded. No, he's not a radical, or a Marxist, or social democrat even. But he doesn't pretend otherwise. He's kind of like Anthony Lewis, only he writes better. I don't see why he provokes this kind of hostility on the left. Why's he worth the effort? Is it envy? Yeah, that's it: I envy Paul Krugman. The fact that he doesn't pretend otherwise applies equally well to George Bush --- so what? The criticism is levied against Krugman's short-sightedness, his unwillingness to see what is rotten, except when the proper political gloss is dropped. Given the state of politics today, prominent talented liberals should be pretty low on our list of enemies. Who says Krugman is an enemy? Criticizing him for falling far short of telling the whole truth is not labeling him an enemy. As for Cockburn's views on him, I don't see him labeling Krugman anything like an enemy, he's just taking him down a peg, as is proper. Prior to Bush, Krugman was more or less a thoughtless cheerleader for free markets, damn the consequences, which he never seemed to bother with in the first place. Now, suddenly, politics seems to matter to him, whereas before markets were marvels that spun themselves out of thin air. Here's what I wrote about him in 1996, quoting Krugman: Los Angeles is a patchwork of areas of very distinct character, ranging from Koreatown to Hollywood, Watts to Beverly Hills What is so striking about this differentiation is that it is so independent of physical geography: there are no rivers to set boundaries, no big downtown to define a gradient of accessibility. The strong organization of space within metro Los Angeles is clearly something that has emerged, not because of any inherent qualities of different sites, but rather through self-reinforcing processes: Koreans move to Koreatown to be with Koreans, beautiful people move to Beverly Hills to be with other beautiful people. ---Paul Krugman, _The Self-Organizing Economy_, Blackwell, 1996, p. 4. Hmm... a long history of racist laws, rules, and behavior has nothing to do with this?? Just how is the absence of physical impediments evidence of self-organizing behavior? What is the use of focusing on these impediments while ignoring human-made ones? Do poor Blacks in Watts move there to be with other poor Blacks? Has Krugman never heard of the practice of blockbusting? What if we were to write this of South Africa... Capetown is a patchwork, beautiful whites living together in self-organized bliss, and blacks living together, somewhere, ..., else? Why is there is no entry for racism in the index? Why does Krugman displaysuchconfidence while uttering such foolish pronouncements? I suppose this was prompted by envy as well. Bill
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Attacking left liberals has been Cockburn's forte. He's run a long time smear job on Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a man who has done more to put the Klan and the Ayran Nations literally out of business than anyone else, because Dees doesn't live a life of ascetic poverty, unlike, uh, Cockburn . . . . Oops, I forgot, Cockburn lives pretty well. jks --- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Krugman is very good at what he does. He's a sharp polemicist, writes very clearly about economics, and annoys the hell out of the right. No, he's not a radical, or a Marxist, or social democrat even. But he doesn't pretend otherwise. He's kind of like Anthony Lewis, only he writes better. I don't see why he provokes this kind of hostility on the left. Why's he worth the effort? Is it envy? Given the state of politics today, prominent talented liberals should be pretty low on our list of enemies. Doug __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Krugman is not left-liberal. He is a neo-liberal, appearing in sharp distinction to the hard-core right-wingers that dominate public policy presently. His critical inquiry is pretty shallow, consisting mostly of currently calling Bush and his gang on their blatant falsehoods. When Clintonomics was ruling, he put out drivel about the Self-Organizing Economy. Your ideas about criticizing Krugman to bring them over to our side, whatever our side may be, is utter nonsense. Krugman isn't going to change his mind about his version of neoliberalism any more than Bush is. If if you say so, it must be true, and if I am wrong, I am wrong. But I am not too worried about my error in this specific area. My experience of conventional economists is that they look at the world from an economic point of view, a sort of economism. Socialists economists don't, socialists don't, because we think that there is more to it than the question of whether Mr Moneybags can sell his last ten tons of coal, or whether the rich are getting richer. Our dispute goes deeper because it raises questions about the efficacy of markets and privatisation, about economic health and the quality of human life, hence the economic question can never be separated from the social question. But suppose you are correct, fact is that Krugman has a lot better grip on the data, and out-argues the neo-conservatives. Therefore by taking Krugman seriously rather than dismissing him as a Clintonite ratbag, you both create a space for controversy and learn something new. That's how Jim Devine does it. I never said you had to agree with Krugman, but with Krugman, you get a better idea of where the debate is really at, instead of fundamentalist garbage. Suppose that Krugman raises the idea of a self-organising economy, then this raises a marvellous opportunity for socialists to make points about the realities of the market and about socialist self-management by the working class. You could of course philosophise about ideological hegemony and a war of position in the manner of Ernesto Laclau, or reflect on the Antimonies of American Marxism in the manner of Perry Anderson, but you could also step into the real controversy. The Left often moans about Stalinist practices, but old habits die hard and they keep on slagging off at individuals and engaging in character assassinations anyhow, that's all I am saying. I don't deny that workingclass people swear, I am just saying that if this substitutes for political argument, we are better off sticking our missives into the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. You suggest a priori that it is never possible to convince Krugman of anything, so you have lost the argument already before anybody has said anything. J.
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
andie nachgeborenen wrote: Attacking left liberals has been Cockburn's forte. He's run a long time smear job on Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a man who has done more to put the Klan and the Ayran Nations literally out of business than anyone else, because Dees doesn't live a life of ascetic poverty, unlike, uh, Cockburn . . . . Oops, I forgot, Cockburn lives pretty well. jks Actually, it is Ken Silverstein who has exposed Dees. The Church of Morris Dees By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine, November 2000 How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance Ah, tolerance. Who could be against something so virtuous? And who could object to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Alabama-based group that recently sent out this heartwarming yet mildly terrifying appeal to raise money for its Teaching Tolerance program, which prepares educational kits for schoolteachers? Cofounded in 1971 by civil rights lawyer cum direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees, a leading critic of hate groups and a man so beatific that he was the subject of a made-for-TV movie, the SPLC spent much of its early years defending prisoners who faced the death penalty and suing to desegregate all-white institutions like Alabama's highway patrol. That was then. Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement, renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, though I don!t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye. The Center earned $44 million last year alone--$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments--but spent only $13 million on civil rights program , making it one of the most profitable charities in the country. The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC's most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today, as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants. But news of a declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris Dees and Co., which is why the SPLC honors nearly every nationally covered hate crime with direct-mail alarums full of nightmarish invocations of armed Klan paramilitary forces and violent neo-Nazi extremists, and why Dees does legal battle almost exclusively with mediagenic villains-like Idaho's arch-Aryan Richard Butler-eager to show off their swastikas for the news cameras. In 1987, Dees won a $7 million judgment against the United Klans of America on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son was lynched by two Klansmen. The UKA's total assets amounted to a warehouse whose sale netted Mrs. Donald $51,875. According to a groundbreaking series of newspaper stories in the Montgomery Advertiser, the SPLC, meanwhile, made $9 million from fund-raising solicitations featuring the case, including one containing a photo of Michael Donald's corpse. Horrifying as such incidents are, hate groups commit almost no violence. More than 95 percent of all hate crimes, including most of the incidents SPLC letters cite (bombings, church burnings, school shootings), are perpetrated by lone wolves. Even Timothy McVeigh, subject of one of the most extensive investigations in the FBI's history-and one of the most extensive direct-mail campaigns in the SPLC's-was never credibly linked to any militia organization. No faith healing or infomercial would be complete without a moving testimonial. The student from whose tears this white schoolteacher learned her lesson is identified only as a child of color. Which race, we are assured, does not matter. Nor apparently does the specific nature of the racist acts directed at him, nor the race of his schoolyard tormentors. All that matters, in fact, is the race of the teacher and those expiating tears. I wept with him, feeling for once, the depth of his hurt, she confides. His tears washed away the film that had distorted my white perspective of the world. Scales fallen from her eyes, what action does this schoolteacher propose? What Gandhi-like disobedience will she undertake in order to reach real peace in the world? She doesn't say but instead speaks vaguely of acting out against the pain. In the age of Oprah and Clinton, empathy--or the confession thereof--is an end in itself. Any good salesman knows that a products value is a highly mutable quality with little relation to actual worth, and Morris Dees-who made millions hawking, by direct mail, such humble commodities as birthday cakes, cookbooks (including Favorite Recipes of American Home Economics Teachers), tractor seat cushions, rat poison, and, in exchange for a mailing list containing 700,000 names, presidential candidate George McGovern-is nothing if not a good salesman. So good in fact that in 1998 the Direct Marketing Association inducted him into its Hall of
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
I think the problem with the Krugman phenomenon is not so much Krugman but the broader progressive movement. Because Krugman has written columns critical of the Bush administration he gets raised to the status of intellectual leader of the progressive movement--by progresives. Krugman came through on a book tour to my city and many progressives promoted his talk as if he were one of them. The danger comes of course because he is not advancing any kind of radical vision of change. By giving him legitimacy it ends up confusing people who then continue to read his work and find out he is for the FTAA and free trade etc. There was a similar problem with the way the left treated Stiglitz. It is great to have mainstream economists raise critical points about policy, but we need to be clear that these criticisms are limited and that these economists do not share our broader vision or understanding. Said differently the problem is largely rooted in the lack of political clarity in our movement. Given that problem it is not so bad to every once in a while highlight the political limitations of these mainstream critics of mainstream economics. Marty Hart-Landsberg
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Like I said, he attacked one of the US's most effective civil liberties lawyers, who has put real hurt on violent hate groups that have (pardon me for getting personal here) killed and injured my friends and their family, because he's not an ascetic and doesn't expect the young ;lawyers whow ork for him to work in crumby conditions. Why don't we go after Michael Tigar, too -- he's made a boatload of dough, maindefending the likes of the Hunts, when he hasn't been defending everyone from Bobby Seale on -- actuallt, he has made a boatload, literally, he owns a boat. Or Kunstler,who was also a wealthy man. Tigar and Kunstler thought they were real radicals -- Dees doesn't -- but maybe they don't like up to Kenny Boy's high standards. --- Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andie nachgeborenen wrote: Attacking left liberals has been Cockburn's forte. He's run a long time smear job on Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a man who has done more to put the Klan and the Ayran Nations literally out of business than anyone else, because Dees doesn't live a life of ascetic poverty, unlike, uh, Cockburn . . . . Oops, I forgot, Cockburn lives pretty well. jks Actually, it is Ken Silverstein who has exposed Dees. The Church of Morris Dees By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine, November 2000 How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance Ah, tolerance. Who could be against something so virtuous? And who could object to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Alabama-based group that recently sent out this heartwarming yet mildly terrifying appeal to raise money for its Teaching Tolerance program, which prepares educational kits for schoolteachers? Cofounded in 1971 by civil rights lawyer cum direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees, a leading critic of hate groups and a man so beatific that he was the subject of a made-for-TV movie, the SPLC spent much of its early years defending prisoners who faced the death penalty and suing to desegregate all-white institutions like Alabama's highway patrol. That was then. Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement, renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, though I don!t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye. The Center earned $44 million last year alone--$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments--but spent only $13 million on civil rights program , making it one of the most profitable charities in the country. The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC's most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today, as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants. But news of a declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris Dees and Co., which is why the SPLC honors nearly every nationally covered hate crime with direct-mail alarums full of nightmarish invocations of armed Klan paramilitary forces and violent neo-Nazi extremists, and why Dees does legal battle almost exclusively with mediagenic villains-like Idaho's arch-Aryan Richard Butler-eager to show off their swastikas for the news cameras. In 1987, Dees won a $7 million judgment against the United Klans of America on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son was lynched by two Klansmen. The UKA's total assets amounted to a warehouse whose sale netted Mrs. Donald $51,875. According to a groundbreaking series of newspaper stories in the Montgomery Advertiser, the SPLC, meanwhile, made $9 million from fund-raising solicitations featuring the case, including one containing a photo of Michael Donald's corpse. Horrifying as such incidents are, hate groups commit almost no violence. More than 95 percent of all hate crimes, including most of the incidents SPLC letters cite (bombings, church burnings, school shootings), are perpetrated by lone wolves. Even Timothy McVeigh, subject of one of the most extensive investigations in the FBI's history-and one of the most extensive direct-mail campaigns in the SPLC's-was never credibly linked to any militia organization. No faith healing or infomercial would be complete without a moving testimonial. The student from whose tears this white schoolteacher learned her lesson is identified only as a child of color. Which race, we are assured, does not matter. Nor apparently does the specific nature of the racist acts directed at him, nor the race of his schoolyard tormentors. All that matters, in fact, is the race of the teacher and those expiating tears. I wept with him, feeling for once, the depth of his hurt, she confides. His tears washed away the film that had distorted
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
andie nachgeborenen wrote: Dees doesn't -- but maybe they don't like up to Kenny Boy's high standards. Ken's beef with Dees is that the SPLC has accumulated a large fortune which it hardly spends on anything but doing more direct mail and adding to the fortune. It refuses to take on capital punishment cases because they don't work well in the mail. I like Ken a lot, so I bristle at the Kenny Boy epithet. He's serious and very careful. He's not one to shoot before aiming, unlike his former collaborator. Doug
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Louis Proyect wrote: andie nachgeborenen wrote: Attacking left liberals has been Cockburn's forte. He's run a long time smear job on Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a man who has done more to put the Klan and the Ayran Nations literally out of business than anyone else, because Dees doesn't live a life of ascetic poverty, unlike, uh, Cockburn . . . . Oops, I forgot, Cockburn lives pretty well. jks Actually, it is Ken Silverstein who has exposed Dees. The Church of Morris Dees By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine, November 2000 How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance the article says that dees/splc has done nothing about violence against mexican immigrants at the border. that is not true any longer: a recent issue of SPLC's magazine covered some of the issues and their efforts w.r.t this problem. whether this action was in response to such goading (the article is after all dated nov 2000), i do not know. the only valuable information that i get from this piece is the fact (assuming it is correct) that the SPLC is over-funded. that alone of course (if true) is enough to divert my donations elsewhere next time around. --ravi
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Michael P. wrote me privately stating that he thought Cockburn had attacked Dees as well. Since I couldn't find anything in the Nation archives or Lexis-Nexis, I just assumed that Ken Silverstein was the only critic of Dees. I have just found a Cockburn attack on Dees. It is a pip! The Dees Money Machine by Alexander Cockburn from Wild Justice, The New York Press I've long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life. The reasons: a relentless fundraising machine devoted to terrifying its mostly low-income contributors into unbelting ill-spared dollars year after year to an organization that now has an endowment of more than $100 million, with very little to show for it beyond hysterical bulletins designed to raise money on the proposition that only the SPLC can stop Nazism and the KKK from seizing power. Gloria Browne, a lawyer who's worked with Dees' outfit, once told the Montgomery Advertiser that the Southern Poverty Law Center trades in black pain and white guilt. He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of the civil rights movement. In fact, Dees began the 1960's as an attorney in Montgomery, representing a Ku Klux Klan sympathizer, Claude Henley, who had led an attack on Freedom Riders at the local bus station. Dees has denied he was ever personally supportive of the Klan or Henley, but his former partner, Millard Farmer, has said, We expressed openly our sympathies and support for what happened at the bus station. For the rest of the 1960s Dees sat on the sidelines and got rich from marketing Famous Recipe cookbooks with Farmer; he built a tennis court, pool, high-quality stables and got a Rolls-Royce. He founded the SPLC in 1971. In the end Dees and Farmer fell out, with Farmer (who later gave away most of his money and started Habitat for Humanity) saying bitterly, If an issue isn't bringing in money, he's off to the woods. He may believe [in civil rights] but he'll quit doing the work if it doesn't make money. Farmer says of the Southern Poverty Law Center that it's little more than a 900 number. Dees has always been alert to the paranoias of the hour. The center's entire legal staff resigned in the late 1980s, in part because Dees was reluctant to take up legal issues of real importance to poor people. His obsession was the Klanwatch Project, a cash cow for the SPLC. Literature from the SPLC portrayed the Klan as poised to take over American and embark on an orgy of burning and lynching. This was at a time when the major danger to poor people was going to be welfare reform , a collusive project between the Gingrich Republicans and Clinton liberals, among the latter being many fervent supporters of Dees. Dees sits on a mountain of cash, but his courtroom forays are not profuse. In the early 1990s, when the center's reserves were about half what they are today- $52 million in 1993- the center (between 1989 and 1994) filed only a dozen suits. Recently Jim Reddin and Cletus Nelson sent CounterPunch, the newsletter I coedit with Jeffrey St. Clair, and interesting account of Dees' latest twist in moneygrubbing. In its most recent Intelligence Report newsletter, the SPLC -in a Special Report- puts forth the preposterous theory that far from being a glorious renaissance of the radical spirit in American political life, the protest against the World Trade Organization, most in evidence in Seattle and in Washington, DC, at the start of last week, have been the nexus for a far-flung crypto-facist conspiracy comprised of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members and other shock troops of the far right. The SPLC's anonymous writer confidently states that the anarchists, socialists, environmentalists and other left-wing dissidents who gathered in Seattle at the start of last December were secretly infiltrated by European-style Third Position fascists who mix racism with environmentalism. Right alongside the progressive groups that demonstrated in Seattle- mostly peaceful defenders of labor, the environment, animal rights and similar causes- were the hard-edged soldiers of neofascism, the newsletter excitedly warns. No documentation is offered to substantiate this allegation. The newsletter doesn't name a single right-winger who has infiltrated Direct Action, Food Not Bombs, Greenpeace or any of the other groups that organized the Seattle protests. Dees' pretense is that he stands for civil rights, but of course the newsletter entirely ignores the civil rights abuses committed by the Seattle police against the protesters, even though the ACLU has filed a civil rights suit over the no protest zone declared by city officials. The attack on the anti-globalization movement marks a significant shift in the SPLC's policies, suggesting to us that Dees sees material opportunity in attacking a popular radical cause. As part of its scourched-earth policy, the organization has declared war against grassroots environmental
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
andie nachgeborenen wrote: Like I said, he attacked one of the US's most effective civil liberties lawyers, who has put real hurt on violent hate groups that have (pardon me for getting personal here) killed and injured my friends and their family, because he's not an ascetic and doesn't expect the young ;lawyers whow ork for him to work in crumby conditions. Why don't we go after Michael Tigar, too -- he's made a boatload of dough, michael moore when asked about his multi-million dollar new york apartment responded that his blue-collar ex-neighbours (in clint michigan) would be proud and happy for him. perhaps. --ravi
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
ravi: michael moore when asked about his multi-million dollar new york apartment responded that his blue-collar ex-neighbours (in clint michigan) would be proud and happy for him. perhaps. On the Left, it used to be said that nothing is too good for the working class. This applied to folks who had escaped that class, too. Absent an immediate revolution, who wouldn't want to escape? Jim
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Marty wrote: The danger comes of course because [Krugman] is not advancing any kind of radical vision of change. What bloody danger, for heaven's sake ? Who is creating the danger ? When two million humans die in Iraq because of the total effects of war destruction and economic chaos in two decades, resulting in great part from deliberate policies by imperialist governments and the arms industry - even if we cannot measure that at the present time in an exact way, causing holocaust denial - who is creating the danger ? Well maybe you cannot expect Krugman to advance a radical vision of change, maybe that is up to the socialists, a work of theory and practice. You can say about Bill Clinton what you like, but in certain respects he WAS radical, in changing the political culture of the USA, challenging redneck conservatism all over the place and breaking through traditional mentalities. Okay, you might strongly disagree with his policies and say, well there was strong economic growth anyway, but the thing is that there is something to be learnt politically from what he did, and if you just moralise, you miss that, you don't learn anything politically. Said differently the problem is largely rooted in the lack of political clarity in our movement. This is just crap or frustration in my opinion. I was over in Oakland knowing very well that Peter Camejo does not lack any political clarity and that the Frontlines people do not lack any political clarity. The point is different: you have to know how to plug into the real consciousness of real Americans, and you don't do it by bashing the Marxist bible and you don't do it by moralistic ruminations and you don't do it by continuously questioning the validity of what other people do and suggesting that they should be doing something else. Just look at the pathology of American politics today: because economic events, political alignments and foreign policy don't work out the way politicians wanted them to, they start to blame other people, they search endlessly for somebody else to blame things on, they don't have any constructive policy of their own, it is all reactive. All I am saying is that the Left is not just reactive, it doesn't even tackle the debate, but the point is that there is no good reason for this at all, the world's your oyster. If you are afraid of the danger of Krugman and ignore the danger of imperialism in the Middle-East, then that's like saying you won't have appropriate sex with a person who has AIDS on the ground that he's got the 'flu. J.
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Silverstein might bother to learn something about the law before he starts to mouth off at lawyers who aren't doing what he thinks they ought. Postconviction capital defense is noble, but totally gruelling, emotionally exhausting, and extremely expensive. To give you an idea, in a non-capital case I am working on, it took two big time law firms with unlimited resources who devoted eight lawyers to the task four months to research and write a habeas petition for a prisoner. I am certain we (both firms) have spent at least three quarters of a million dollars on this case so far. This is all pro bono. And although this case is somewhat more complex than the usual habeas petition, it is far less complex than any capital case. I would be surprised if just getting to the petition stage in a capital case -- and doing it right -- cost less than mill and half on average. And, of course, you almost always lose, sow hen youre client dies after you have abandoned your family and spent years working 18 hour days to save him, it's sort of hard to keep doing it after a while. Ask David Boeis -- Clinton's former lawyer -- he was a capital defender in Florida, and an old anatgonist of Bob Graham. So I don't blame Dees or anyone else who has given up capital defense -- I honor them for ever having done it. I think that it is erronenous to say that capital defense plays poorly in direct mail or the public eye, btw; the ACLU and Amnbesty doesn't find that it's a loser for fundraising purposes. As to the rest of SPLC's work, I am quite happy that they are shutting down the KKK and Ayran Nations. Silverstein may not regard them as a threat, and I agree that they are not going to take over the country, but they are worthy targets. Maybe it's a hangover from Greensboro days, but I regard them as a menace. jks --- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andie nachgeborenen wrote: Dees doesn't -- but maybe they don't like up to Kenny Boy's high standards. Ken's beef with Dees is that the SPLC has accumulated a large fortune which it hardly spends on anything but doing more direct mail and adding to the fortune. It refuses to take on capital punishment cases because they don't work well in the mail. I like Ken a lot, so I bristle at the Kenny Boy epithet. He's serious and very careful. He's not one to shoot before aiming, unlike his former collaborator. Doug __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
andie nachgeborenen wrote: Silverstein might bother to learn something about the law before he starts to mouth off at lawyers who aren't doing what he thinks they ought. Postconviction capital defense is noble, but totally gruelling, emotionally exhausting, and extremely expensive. Ken knows what he's talking about; don't patronize him in absentia. He specifically contrasted the non-action of Dees with the work of Stephen Bright http://www.schr.org/, who has little money to work with, but who has pursued capital cases nonetheless. Dees has oodles of money, and won't. As to the rest of SPLC's work, I am quite happy that they are shutting down the KKK and Ayran Nations. Ken also argued that there was almost nothing left of the Klan, in either money or membership, when Dees was going after them. He did it because it plays well with northern liberals, who write him big checks. Doug
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
andie nachgeborenen wrote: the ACLU and Amnbesty doesn't find that it's a loser for fundraising purposes. and to complete the circle: this is the same ACLU whose illinois chapter president was hanging out at a neo-nazi type gathering (captivating quotes on why the ACLU must truck with the extreme right, unfortunately unavailable since i am at work) as reported by... SPLC! ;-) (SPLC does note that state chapters have a lot of autonomy). --ravi
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
My First Amendment prof was David Goldberger, who was the ACLU lawyer in the Skokie-Nazi case. Sorry, youw on;t find me condemning the Illinois ACLU for defending the right of the Nazis to speak. I can ask Colleen Connell (the Exec Dir of the Ill ACLU, anda friend) for your capitivating quote. I am sure I would endorse it too. I'd be proud to defend the First Amendment ina NAzi case too. It's not inconsistent to think that it's really important defend these scumbags' right tos peak, and to argue that when they step outta line and lynch someone the SPLC should shut them downw itha wrongful death lawsuit. But I'm a liberal, I told you that. The point about the ACLU, however, was it does death penalty work, and we don't find that is a fundraising disadavantage, particularly. --- ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andie nachgeborenen wrote: the ACLU and Amnbesty doesn't find that it's a loser for fundraising purposes. and to complete the circle: this is the same ACLU whose illinois chapter president was hanging out at a neo-nazi type gathering (captivating quotes on why the ACLU must truck with the extreme right, unfortunately unavailable since i am at work) as reported by... SPLC! ;-) (SPLC does note that state chapters have a lot of autonomy). --ravi __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
I invite pen-l'ers to look at the IRS forms for SPLC that are online at: http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLC_IRS_990_2001.pdf It has total assets of $134 million! Dees makes $258,000 per year. The 3 people in charge of fundraising make a total of $300,000 per year. This is a big-time operation. Meanwhile, the main expense item is publications, which amounted to $5,246,665. It is likely that the brunt of this went to tolerance.org that disseminated questionnaires on campus that measured intolerance with an eye to making people more tolerant. (Arrggghh!) Here is a snippet: Who do you prefer? (Please note: Black refers to a persons primarily of African descent and White refers to persons primarily of European descent.) /_/ I prefer Black people over White people /_/ I have no preference /_/ I prefer White people over Black people Somebody is obviously getting ripped off. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
JKS writes:I'd be proud to defend the First Amendment ina NAzi case too. if the gov't cracks down on the Nazis, they crack down on the Left, too, most often in a bigger way. A first amendment defense of the Nazis is indirectly defending the Left. Jim
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
How terrible, Dees makes soo much money, how dare he. People who work for good causesa re supposed to be POOR. You wanna guess how much Tigar makes? Or Kunstler made? I bet it wasa lot more than Dees. Hey, Louis, I'm a corporate lawyer at a big law firm; I make my living in part defending tobacco companies, and I make a lot of money too -- not as much as Dees, but I'm getting there, if I stay here, I will someday. I must be a real scumbag. And the SPLC is puting its money into propaganda, and worse, ut's not even Marxist propaganda. If =It were reprinting the marxist classics in overpriced editions, like Pathfinder Books, everything would be fine. Whatta crick. --- Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I invite pen-l'ers to look at the IRS forms for SPLC that are online at: http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLC_IRS_990_2001.pdf It has total assets of $134 million! Dees makes $258,000 per year. The 3 people in charge of fundraising make a total of $300,000 per year. This is a big-time operation. Meanwhile, the main expense item is publications, which amounted to $5,246,665. It is likely that the brunt of this went to tolerance.org that disseminated questionnaires on campus that measured intolerance with an eye to making people more tolerant. (Arrggghh!) Here is a snippet: Who do you prefer? (Please note: Black refers to a persons primarily of African descent and White refers to persons primarily of European descent.) /_/ I prefer Black people over White people /_/ I have no preference /_/ I prefer White people over Black people Somebody is obviously getting ripped off. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
andie nachgeborenen wrote: How terrible, Dees makes soo much money, how dare he. People who work for good causesa re supposed to be POOR. You wanna guess how much Tigar makes? Or Kunstler made? I bet it wasa lot more than Dees. I wouldn't mind Dees getting big bucks if he was doing something useful. Spending $5 million to disseminate questionnaires on racial attitudes seems dubious at best. Hey, Louis, I'm a corporate lawyer at a big law firm; I make my living in part defending tobacco companies, and I make a lot of money too -- not as much as Dees, but I'm getting there, if I stay here, I will someday. I must be a real scumbag. Do you think you can spare $5000? My house in upstate NY needs a new roof. And the SPLC is puting its money into propaganda, and worse, ut's not even Marxist propaganda. If =It were reprinting the marxist classics in overpriced editions, like Pathfinder Books, everything would be fine. In fact, $5 million in Marxist propaganda would be well-spent. I'd start with basic information about the real problem of racism in the USA in which hate groups play a relatively minor role. I think that *institutional racism* is a much more serious problem. Clinton, despite his being regarded as some kind of Maileresque white negro in some circles, did far more harm than any Klansman by eliminating ADC. Whatta crick. Isn't that something you get in your neck? -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jurriaan Bendien wrote: The question that needs to be asked is what we achieve by polemically writing off Krugman and calling him nasty names. Krugman is a very learned left-liberal economist capable of very good critical inquiry into the US economy and suggesting positive alternatives. I personally believe we should aim to attract people like that to the socialist movement, rather than vent abuse language against them. By doing so, we just shoot ourselves in the foot more than anything else. But that's what makes Cockburn Cockburn. He is the ultimate contrarian who coined the term pwogwessive. Although I enjoy reading Krugman (and Maureen Dowd) myself, I enjoy it even more when some self-congratulatory liberal gets a spitball tossed at them. I posted Cockburn's Krugman column to another list yesterday as a reply to a posting of Ed Koch's comment that Krugman was lamebrained in his attempts to anyalye Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad's thinking. Basically, Krugman is a voice of reason within the context of the NY Times and a preening horse's ass in any broader context. But as LBJ memorably said of J. Edgar Hoover, ItÂ’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. Carl _ Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American Greetings! Go to http://www.msn.americangreetings.com/index_msn.pd?source=msne134
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
andie nachgeborenen wrote: My First Amendment prof was David Goldberger, who was the ACLU lawyer in the Skokie-Nazi case. Sorry, youw on;t find me condemning the Illinois ACLU for defending the right of the Nazis to speak. I can ask Colleen Connell (the Exec Dir of the Ill ACLU, anda friend) for your capitivating quote. I am sure I would endorse it too. I'd be proud to defend the First Amendment ina NAzi case too. It's not inconsistent to think that it's really important defend these scumbags' right tos peak, and to argue that when they step outta line and lynch someone the SPLC should shut them downw itha wrongful death lawsuit. But I'm a liberal, I told you that. you are making some poor assumptions here: for instance, that his proclamations (that i refer to) were about the first amendment rights of nazis. i was pointing out his rather specious reasoning to justify his presence at the neo-nazi gathering. would i find you at a nazi affair too? --ravi
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Wait a sec Justin. If you're making big bucks defending tabbacco, well that's understandable. Big tabbacco makes big bucks that they use to pay you. But if some guy is making big bucks from poor black people who think that he will defend them in discrimination/criminal suits and then spending all that money on raising more money and on whatever heaps of money will buy HIM, then, it's a ripoff--yes? Joanna andie nachgeborenen wrote: How terrible, Dees makes soo much money, how dare he. People who work for good causesa re supposed to be POOR. You wanna guess how much Tigar makes? Or Kunstler made? I bet it wasa lot more than Dees. Hey, Louis, I'm a corporate lawyer at a big law firm; I make my living in part defending tobacco companies, and I make a lot of money too -- not as much as Dees, but I'm getting there, if I stay here, I will someday. I must be a real scumbag. And the SPLC is puting its money into propaganda, and worse, ut's not even Marxist propaganda. If =It were reprinting the marxist classics in overpriced editions, like Pathfinder Books, everything would be fine. Whatta crick. --- Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I invite pen-l'ers to look at the IRS forms for SPLC that are online at: http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLC_IRS_990_2001.pdf It has total assets of $134 million! Dees makes $258,000 per year. The 3 people in charge of fundraising make a total of $300,000 per year. This is a big-time operation. Meanwhile, the main expense item is publications, which amounted to $5,246,665. It is likely that the brunt of this went to tolerance.org that disseminated questionnaires on campus that measured intolerance with an eye to making people more tolerant. (Arrggghh!) Here is a snippet: Who do you prefer? (Please note: Black refers to a persons primarily of African descent and White refers to persons primarily of European descent.) /_/ I prefer Black people over White people /_/ I have no preference /_/ I prefer White people over Black people Somebody is obviously getting ripped off. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Marty's note and many others are right on target. Krugman does not pretend to be a lefty. During the Clinton years, people attacked him here, and for good reason. Barkeley Rosser criticized his professional behavior -- quasi-plagiarism. Krugman attacks anyone who disagrees with him, on the left or the right. Attacking the left did not distinguish him from the mass of paid hacks. Now, he can distinguish himself by knocking Bush, since so few have had the courage to do so. Who knows, someday he may think of himself as a part of the left. Stiglitz seems a bit different. He is much more of a pure academic who was offended by the political hacks -- Doug would know better than I, but this is my impression. I also do not have the impression that he is someone who craves attention, although he does not shy away from it. On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:11:35AM -0800, Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: I think the problem with the Krugman phenomenon is not so much Krugman but the broader progressive movement. Because Krugman has written columns critical of the Bush administration he gets raised to the status of intellectual leader of the progressive movement--by progresives. Krugman came through on a book tour to my city and many progressives promoted his talk as if he were one of them. The danger comes of course because he is not advancing any kind of radical vision of change. By giving him legitimacy it ends up confusing people who then continue to read his work and find out he is for the FTAA and free trade etc. There was a similar problem with the way the left treated Stiglitz. It is great to have mainstream economists raise critical points about policy, but we need to be clear that these criticisms are limited and that these economists do not share our broader vision or understanding. Said differently the problem is largely rooted in the lack of political clarity in our movement. Given that problem it is not so bad to every once in a while highlight the political limitations of these mainstream critics of mainstream economics. Marty Hart-Landsberg -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Michael Perelman writes: Stiglitz seems a bit different. He is much more of a pure academic who was offended by the political hacks -- Doug would know better than I, but this is my impression. I also do not have the impression that he is someone who craves attention, although he does not shy away from it. he was also offended by the economic hacks, the neo-liberal automatons of the IMF and elsewhere.
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
That is what I meant, but clearer than what I wrote. On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:08:20PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: Michael Perelman writes: Stiglitz seems a bit different. He is much more of a pure academic who was offended by the political hacks -- Doug would know better than I, but this is my impression. I also do not have the impression that he is someone who craves attention, although he does not shy away from it. he was also offended by the economic hacks, the neo-liberal automatons of the IMF and elsewhere. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I make my living in part defending tobacco companies, and I make a lot of money too -- not as much as Dees, but I'm getting there, if I stay here, I will someday. I must be a real scumbag. No, as a pipe smoker I must say you're serving a worthy cause. In fact, I think you should be serving in a pro bono capacity ;-) Carl _ Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
I think the problem with the Krugman phenomenon is not so much Krugman but the broader progressive movement. Because Krugman has written columns critical of the Bush administration he gets raised to the status of intellectual leader of the progressive movement--by progresives. Krugman came through on a book tour to my city and many progressives promoted his talk as if he were one of them. The danger comes of course because he is not advancing any kind of radical vision of change. By giving him legitimacy it ends up confusing people who then continue to read his work and find out he is for the FTAA and free trade etc. There was a similar problem with the way the left treated Stiglitz. It is great to have mainstream economists raise critical points about policy, but we need to be clear that these criticisms are limited and that these economists do not share our broader vision or understanding. Said differently the problem is largely rooted in the lack of political clarity in our movement. Given that problem it is not so bad to every once in a while highlight the political limitations of these mainstream critics of mainstream economics. Marty Hart-Landsberg The broader progressive movement is lacking in political clarity when it comes to the FTAA and free trade, because it is a very politically mixed bag, a dominant component of which in the USA has been protectionist officials of organized labor. If Krugman is not advancing any kind of radical vision of change, neither are anti-globalization activists and advocates of industrial policy and strategic trade in the USA, whom Krugman criticizes. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
- Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] The broader progressive movement is lacking in political clarity when it comes to the FTAA and free trade, because it is a very politically mixed bag, a dominant component of which in the USA has been protectionist officials of organized labor. If Krugman is not advancing any kind of radical vision of change, neither are anti-globalization activists and advocates of industrial policy and strategic trade in the USA, whom Krugman criticizes. -- Yoshie This, imo, has something to do with the fact that Beltway NGO's have pretty much refused to listen to many US activists once they left the environs of Seattle. Please define protectionist in a manner that doesn't concede too much to the discourse of neoclassical economics :- Krugman, of course, being one of the first to adumbrate that strategic trade under oligopolistic competition might, under certain conditions, be a justified departure from international, Ricardian, laissez-faire. Global Keynesianism Versus the New Mercantilism: International Economics after Joan Robinson by Robert Blecker, American University http://www.joanrobinsonconference.net/image/blecker-adobe.pdf A B S T R A C T This paper reviews the ideas of Joan Robinson on international economics, from her earliest work on exchange rates, the trade balance, and employment, through her mid-career critique of the theories of international adjustment and comparative advantage, to her later writings on the new mercantilism and uneven development. An emergent theme in her work was a rejection of the conventional bifurcation of international economics into separate trade (micro) and finance (macro/monetary) parts, which rests on the classical assumption of monetary neutrality. Many of her arguments are based on interactions between the trade and finance sides that are ignored in conventional theories. The paper concludes by discussing new developments in international economics that have responded to her criticisms as well as the relevance of her ideas to contemporary international policy issues.
