Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Carrol Cox: Brad is an enemy, but one can talk to him just as Chou tried to talk to Dulles one morning during the Geneva Conference. (They both arrived early one morning; Chou offered to shake hands, Dulles snubbed him.) In the present case Lou is playing a marxist version of Dulles's style, enhancing my belief that Lou is more a moralist than a Marxist.) That's true. Just an hour ago I went into the Macdonalds on 85th street and 3rd avenue and delivered a fiery sermon against cheeseburgers. If one does respond to a post by Brad, one should think of the reader not as Brad himself but of lurkers on the list. Lou's post treats those potential friends as enemies by the style of his attack on Brad. As I have often stated, my model is Charles Bukowski. That being the case, I could be less interested in friends. As a matter of fact, just last week after a fellow programmer invited me out to lunch, I stepped on his toe. (If Brad ever does change his mind, he'll do it on his own, not on account of what anyone on this list might say. If you enjoy arguing with him, fine. I have nothing against having fun. If you think arguing with him will have a political impact on bystanders, fine. That is a fairly important tactic that can take many forms. But not even in theory (principle) does it make sense to argue with him in order to change his mind. This is a very substantial post. It certainly helped to clarify my thinking on the plight of corn farmers in Mexico. But you should try to provide some footnotes next time. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > > > True enough, but it's an odd model of dialogue that will admit only > people in fundamental agreement with each other. I guess it's the > left version of Richard Feinberg's wonderful comment that democracy > only works when there's fundamental agreement on the nature of > property. I have no objections to Brad on the list, and it is silly to call him a troll. (I would say the border between trolldom & simple obnoxiousness is marked by Pugliese. Many of his fwds can have no purpose but to create disorder.) But you don't believe what you just wrote here. No one from Pericles, Protagoras, Plato, & Aristotle to the present has believed it. It is very close to the first principle of rhetoric that one can only argue with someone on the basis of some fundamental premise shared in common. See for example Cornford's introuction (or note, I forget which) to the Socrates-Thrasymachus episode in the _Republic_. Plato of course cheats there. In writing dialogue for Thrasymachus he has Thrasymachus express the enemy's fundamental premise disguised as his fundamental premise. But in any case, if the divide is fundamental, there cannot be fruitful argument. Neither you nor Lou seems ever to have grasped this fact, hence the extent to which you are contually turning secondary disagreements into antagonistic ones and treating primary disagreements either as deliberare evil (Lou) or as secondary disagreements which should be discussable (you). Lou is continually turning friends (or potential friends) into enemies, and you are continually trying to treat enemies as friends. It fucks up conversation. (Incidentally, it is possible for political enemies to be personal friends -- at least under present circumstances, since we're quite a ways from actual civil war.) Brad is an enemy, but one can talk to him just as Chou tried to talk to Dulles one morning during the Geneva Conference. (They both arrived early one morning; Chou offered to shake hands, Dulles snubbed him.) In the present case Lou is playing a marxist version of Dulles's style, enhancing my belief that Lou is more a moralist than a Marxist.) If one does respond to a post by Brad, one should think of the reader not as Brad himself but of lurkers on the list. Lou's post treats those potential friends as enemies by the style of his attack on Brad. (If Brad ever does change his mind, he'll do it on his own, not on account of what anyone on this list might say. If you enjoy arguing with him, fine. I have nothing against having fun. If you think arguing with him will have a political impact on bystanders, fine. That is a fairly important tactic that can take many forms. But not even in theory (principle) does it make sense to argue with him in order to change his mind. Carrol > > Doug
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
- Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > all of what you said made total and utter sense except the last word. Hobbes > is the one who presented the "public goods" argument first. He wasn't not > the "might makes right" sort of the Bush administration. Instead, he saw > the Leviathan as being good for everyone, by providing lawnorder, so people > wouldn't grow up nasty, brutish, & short. > Jim == I was using him in the latter sense, his description not his prescription. The Realists seem far more comfortable without a global Leviathan than the Neoliberals. A Leviathan gets in their way. The Neolibs see the Leviathan in Kantian terms; history from a cosmopolitan pov and perpetual peace. Ian
RE: Re: RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32724] Re: RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial I said: > It's > > not the same as the self-perception and self-justification of > imperialists > > that I described. Ian writes: > Right, except that I think they're no longer worried about the fables of > "international public goods" and the like which were previously seen as > constituting the vocabulary of self-description and self-justification > which served their goals. That's the difference between the Neoliberals > and the Realists in IR discourse. The whole recent discussion emanating > from the Beltway regarding imperialism is, to my mind, Realism's [and the > Realists] coming to full self-consciousness regarding the terms of their > self-description/self-justification. "Ok, we're imperialists, we might as > well get good at it" and "what are you going to do about it, beat us up" > type rhetoric is symptomatic of this self-consciousness. They see > themselves as so powerful now they don't *care* whether they are seen as > imperialists. Hobbes. all of what you said made total and utter sense except the last word. Hobbes is the one who presented the "public goods" argument first. He wasn't not the "might makes right" sort of the Bush administration. Instead, he saw the Leviathan as being good for everyone, by providing lawnorder, so people wouldn't grow up nasty, brutish, & short. Jim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Dialogue requires a certain degree of courtesy that was often absent from his posts. On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:22:32PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: > > >Lou is correct on several points. Brad typically supports neo-liberal > >policies abroad and, at least to my mind, he is more often than not wrong. > >Also, the 3 people he mentioned did leave in disgust about Brad's > >behavior. I thought that it would have been healthier to have dialogued > >with Brad, but he often did behave arrogantly. > > True enough, but it's an odd model of dialogue that will admit only > people in fundamental agreement with each other. I guess it's the > left version of Richard Feinberg's wonderful comment that democracy > only works when there's fundamental agreement on the nature of > property. > > Doug > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32719] Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial Ian: > Not long after 9-11 there was a "town hall" type meeting in Europe > featuring a woman from the Council on Foreign Relations [if I remember > correctly] that was broadcast on late night radio in Seattle. Anyway, she > brought up the US as the world's cop [strange how the imperialists see > their role] while the cost of doing so fell on US taxpayers, Europe, Japan > Canada etc. reaped the benefits in terms of social safety net expenditures > that didn't have to go to weapon systems. She asserted that over time, > those countries standard of living would simply surpass the US, if they > haven't already because the weapons systems etc. were only going to get > more and more expensive and this could, in turn lead to a resentment on > the part of US taxpayers vis a vis those countries and that when that day > comes, watch out. this is the standard way that the US imperialists see it: the US provides "international public goods" from which the other countries -- including the totally dominated ones -- benefit. The countries that don't go along (e.g., deGaulle's France, Schroeder's Germany) are "free riders." As in the usual public goods story, if the state (read: the US) doesn't get some payment from the beneficiaries (the other countries), the public good is not just under-produced but can go away altogether. So coercion (taxes) are justified. Jim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Michael Perelman wrote: Lou is correct on several points. Brad typically supports neo-liberal policies abroad and, at least to my mind, he is more often than not wrong. Also, the 3 people he mentioned did leave in disgust about Brad's behavior. I thought that it would have been healthier to have dialogued with Brad, but he often did behave arrogantly. True enough, but it's an odd model of dialogue that will admit only people in fundamental agreement with each other. I guess it's the left version of Richard Feinberg's wonderful comment that democracy only works when there's fundamental agreement on the nature of property. Doug
