Re: [PEN-L] a false dichotomy: economic vs. political issues [was:Darwin's God]
On 3/10/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the Paris Commune, there have been at least three moments when the possibility of transition to socialism was on the political horizon: the Spanish Civil War, France of 1968, and the Meidner Plan. Two of them were anarchists in fact (in Spain) or spirit (France) -- both held back by the largest current of the Marxist tradition then -- and the last was social democratic. some might deny that the CPs were truly Marxist. In fact, I feel that way. (NB: I will not defend this proposition, since it gets into a silly debate about what true Marxism is.) So, when and where movements existed in the West to which intellectuals could attach themselves, Marxism as understood by many Marxists then ironically played the role of a brake or had a little role to play. Could it be because many Marxists by then had ceased to think about transition to socialism in the North (while still hoping for it in the South)? I don't know. Unfortunately, empiricism is usually the dominant vision, so when the actual movement shuts down or bureaucratizes, then the empiricists say it can't happen here. There are things that are theoretically possible, really happen sometimes, but are nonetheless very unlikely: e.g., winning big money in lottery. Recognizing that doesn't make one an empiricist. Taking a sober look at the USA, we have to also admit that we are beginning with less than zero. Vehicles-- a center-left electoral party and trade unions -- through which leftists traditionally worked toward social democracy in other countries are actively opposed to social democracy here, to say nothing of anything like socialism. The working class people mostly aren't members of unions, and even those who are union members are seldom involved in any politics through their unions, except maybe contract bargaining, and political parties here are mainly fund-raising and PR machines, which simply seek to get the votes of workers, without getting them involved in any party activity. What sort of political activity makes sense in this context? Yoshie: I basically wish to highlight the fact that the entire theoretical debates on such question petered out (without making judgement about this or that participant's theory in the debates); and in a similar fashion, the Marxist/socialist feminist debate on domestic labor faded. could it be that the discussion of domestic labor was (a) solved or (b) deemed to be unimportant? In this case, as in the other, the debate died because the political context of the debate -- women's movement in which left-wing women had a niche in this case -- disappeared. The domestic labor debate was actually not so much a debate on domestic labor as one on gender and social reproduction. Seen this way, the question remains. Even if you look at socialist and social democratic countries, care-giving labor is still mainly performed by women, at home or through welfare-state institutions or both. It is now also a question of migrant labor, as the North ages rapidly, and women from the South migrate here to take care of native-born children and old people and staff many service-industry jobs that meet some of the needs of social reproduction. This aspect of the question was raised again recently, for instance, by Barbara Ehrenreich in her well-received Nickel and Dimed. And it should be also mentioned that remittances from those migrant women from the South are huge, one of the major factors in sustaining economies of countries like the Philippines. So, this question is actually linked to the question of imperialism, too, On a separate note, one of the old demands of some feminists -- criticized as conservative by other feminists -- involved in the old domestic labor debate, however, actually became a reality in Venezuela: Article 88 of the Bolivarian Constitution states that The state recognizes work at home as an economic activity that creates added value and produces social welfare and wealth. Housewives are entitled to Social Security in accordance with law. If the old debate had continued, this might have been one of the issues that feminist women could have discussed. Marxists and other leftists have little to say about the political economy of Iran, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Middle East in general, etc. either, empirically or theoretically. MERIP used to carry Marxist takes on such questions, but it basically has gone in the direction of NACLA*, much more liberal, much more empiricist than before. for relatively limited questions such as the political economy of Iran, empiricism isn't all bad. You don't need much theory to figure out that the mullahs rule there and use oil revenues for their own benefit, allowing them to slowly (or in some cases rapidly) join the capitalist class. But, if you had been watching Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, would you have said to yourself, In Iran, it will be clerics who will lead a
[PEN-L] No mention of US occupation
A UN report fails to mention US occupation in Iraq as the casue of decline... Instaed it had this to say: Impact of Conflict on Unemployment in Iraq Damages caused by insurgents and the lack of new investment affected adversely most productive sectors, particularly in high violence regions. Iraq faces serious socioeconomic problems as a result of growing unemployment. The loss of jobs, low rates of investment, and internal displacement lead to instability in the Iraqi labor force. 4. The cause-effect relationship between unemployment, poverty, and violence creates a vicious circle. Unemployment leads to delinquency, which in turn decreases investment. This leads to less demand for labor, causing more unemployment, and consequently further increase in delinquency. Such a situation has direct effect on the general psychology of the average population. A feeling of uncertainty hovers above the country, creating a growing inactive class. Most ominously, this inactive class has disregarded the idea of seeking a job for three main reasons: the political-sectarian situation, the lack of security, and psychological disturbances. Psychological disturbances have a major impact on the non-working class, especially among the youth. Many youngsters are not attending schools anymore, and adolescents are not seeking higher education. This issue is very critical since it has a major impact on the nature of the future labor force in Iraq. If this trend persists, the reduction in illiteracy rates witnessed over the past two decades would reverse. This will eventually lead to more poverty and more delinquency, leading to an economic crisis. Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
[PEN-L] Output Falling in Oil-Rich Mexico, and Politics Get the Blame
In reply to Yoshie's questions: Obviously, crude oil is a finite resource, in Mexico and the planet. Current oil extraction and consumption rates, if extrapolated, must exhaust the resource at some point in the future. But this kind of extrapolation is pointless, economically and politically. Models predicting the end of oil are flawed, even if the geology underpinning them is sound. Historical rates of extraction and consumption don't reflect technical geological possibilities alone. They respond mainly to economic conditions. Economic conditions result from people's behavior and, in turn, shape such behavior. As a result, predicting future oil consumption rates is -- fundamentally -- self-referential. In the jargon of economists, the mechanism that generates the time-series data on extraction or consumption rates is not stationary. With non-stationary systems, models can be consistent with historical data but useless as predictive devices. That's why I'm not impressed with peak-oil models, even if they have been adequately back-tested or calibrated to historical data. The future is not a replica of the past. But even if we assumed stationarity in the economic conditions, there is grounds for skepticism. Markets are not necessarily wise; they are just people buying and selling stuff. Markets can only be as smart as the people in them. And we know from history how foolish people with money at stake can be. But markets have also proved to be adaptive. And we know prices are based on expectations. (Marx's theory of value is based on expectations about the social labor-time requirements for the production of a given commodity.) So, one has to wonder: Why hasn't those theories persuaded big money (which can buy the best available geological and economic expertise) to hike the price to levels consistent with the peak-oil story? In the Dubai or NY mercantile exchanges, one can take positions on oil for delivery in the spring of 2013. Aside from having a margin account, futures are free. The premia of options with strikes near current prices are cheap. What's keeping peak-oil theorists from smarting up the market? Or have they already, in which case the price already reflect the probability that peak oil stories may be right? Of course, one can flip the argument. It may well be that big money is acting stupid, something we'll only be able to see after the fact. That is not implausible. Also, people have only recently become more active in dealing with the effects (and hopefully the causes) of global warming. So, only recently it has become likely that the large external costs of oil consumption will start to get internalized ex ante. And perhaps markets haven't incorporated this information into the prices yet. But I really have no idea. That's why I merely register my skepticism. In the case of PEMEX, short of learning more about the geology of the Gulf of Mexico, I'm convinced that the reasons why PEMEX extraction rates are facing immediate limits are corruption, incompetence, cronyism, and starve-the-beast policies. People who know the inside have been saying that, in PEMEX, prospection and maintenace (two basic forms of investment in any extractive industry) have been neglected for decades. Corruption, outsourcing, duct leakages, and like practices are rampant. When predators of this kind can't just appropriate public wealth, they allow it to go to waste. It is in their interest to weaken PEMEX. The industrial layer sitting on top of mere extraction, which adds value to crude oil and gas, is decaying. But the real prize for them is the resource underneath. The industrial layer can be rebuilt with capital. And the availability of capital depends on the price of oil.
[PEN-L] individual selfishness
[though this essayette is extremely idealist in method, it's got some interesting points.] This cynical ideology of individual selfishness is a relic of the cold war The idea that we are like billiard balls bumping into each other without any common interest has created violent chaos Madeleine Bunting Monday March 12, 2007 The Guardian What will define the 21st century? When the question was put to a wide range of thinkers by Prospect magazine, the answers read like the horsemen of the apocalypse - disease, disaster, mayhem. Not cheerful bedtime reading then. The comments of philosopher, Jonathan Rée seemed to sum it all up: at the beginning of the 20th century, the main emotion behind most people's politics was hope: hope for science, for free trade, for social democracy, for national efficiency, for world government. That sentiment has now been replaced, he argued, by indignation. People are more interested in bearing witness to their personal moral righteousness than in engaging in open-minded debate. Optimism and a belief in progress are now the implausible preserve of Labour party apparatchiks who are regarded as at best deluded, at worst as cynically trying to preserve their own legitimacy. The rest of us have little faith in the capacity of human beings for self-sacrifice or cooperation to avert climate change or any of the other predicted catastrophes that fill the media. Gloomy thoughts for a Monday morning. Last night the BBC television series The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom began, claiming to explain how we have managed to land ourselves in this miasma of misery. Its director, Adam Curtis, has built a reputation on tracing how ideas shape political and social trends. This series, though his most dense, could be his most important yet. Ultimately, its message is optimistic - better understanding of the trap we're in will help us find a way out. The central tenet of the argument is that during the cold war an understanding of human nature as suspicious, distrustful and always operating out of self-interest came to dominate political thinking. From that emerged a narrow definition of freedom as giving people the ability to get whatever they wanted. This kind of freedom has become the central political idea of the past 25 years, but it's a corrosive form of pessimism rooted in a bleak, simplistic view of human nature. It all goes back to the bizarre world of cold-war strategists in America developing sophisticated ways to achieve the delicate balance of terror. They seized upon game theory that originated in poker playing as a way of rationally calculating your opponent's moves and therefore your own. How many Soviet cities would you have to nuke to deter the Soviets from nuking New York? The theory was that the suspicious distrustfulness of both sides in the cold war created a kind of stability. [doesn't market competition encourage individualistic selfishness more strongly than such GT ideology does?] If that was the case for nuclear weapons, perhaps the model could be applied elsewhere? John Nash, a mathematical genius at the US thinktank Rand and subject of the film A Beautiful Mind, took game theory further and developed the Nash equilibrium, which argued that the rational pursuit of self-interest by human beings could lead to a kind of social order. Selfishness didn't have to lead to social breakdown. [but isn't mutual defection -- and mutual destruction -- the Nash equilibrium in a Prisoner's Dilemma game?] For the economist Friedrich von Hayek (Thatcher's inspiration) this was vindication of his belief that individual selfishness creates, spontaneously, a self-directed automatic system. He told an interviewer, altruism doesn't come into it; just free up people's ability to pursue their self-interest and that will ultimately benefit everyone. By the 70s, these ideas were being applied to politics by theorist James Buchanan, who argued that the notion of public duty was a sham used by bureaucracies and politicians to mask their own self-interest. There was no such thing as public good, he claimed, because that meant shared goals based on self-sacrifice, when what motivated people was their self-interest. The TV comedy series Yes Minister was based on Buchanan's public-choice theory, revealing a world of politics as pure calculation, spin and self-interest - which we now take for granted. Initially, Buchanan's ideas offered politicians a new legitimacy. Three British prime ministers have used them to promise their electorates an illusion of more freedom. They have all offered to sweep away the self-interested elites who govern the country. Blair described Labour's goal in one conference speech: To liberate people from old class divisions, old structures, old ways of working that will not do in this new world of change. This anti-elitism was seductive, the promise of individual freedom tempting - greater choice and greater autonomy have become the lodestar of
[PEN-L] Gambling for Empire
Why did the White House invade Iraq? Why are the Democrats boosting the war funding (cf. http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070305/004823.html)? There are lots of theories that attempt to answer the questions out there, but the most compelling may be found in studies of addiction and gambling: In brain-imaging studies of drug users, as well as healthy adults placing bets, neuroscientists have found that the prospect of a reward activates the same circuits in the brain that the payoffs themselves do; and Likewise, studies of stock traders have found that, when behind late in the day, they are more likely than usual to make risky bets, and take heavier losses, in an attempt to get out of the red. 'The point is that, psychologically, we think of a loss as a loss, big or small,' said Dr. Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 'And once you're into it, you think: Well, why not take a bigger loss, if there's some chance I can turn it into a gain?' (Benedict Carey, Lotto Makes Sense, Even for Losers, 11 March 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/weekinreview/11carey.html). At this stage, it's the idea of why not take a bigger loss, if there's some chance I can turn it into a gain that keeps Washington politicians going. It's especially easy for them to do so, since they are gambling with other people's money. -- Yoshie What Are the Odds? http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/10/weekinreview/11carey.graphic.450.jpg http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/weekinreview/11carey.html March 11, 2007 Ideas Trends Lotto Makes Sense, Even for Losers By BENEDICT CAREY AT least poker tables have some atmosphere, a jingle of highball glasses, a hint of 1990s menthol smoke in the armchairs, the sweet musk of nearby cash. The same goes for playing the horses: there are characters, scandals, competition, not to mention real payoffs. But who, exactly, wants to stamp their frozen feet waiting in line outside a corner store for an infinitesimal shot at winning the lotto? The answer, of course, is millions of Americans, who last week pushed the 12-state Mega Millions total to $390 million, half of which was claimed on Wednesday by Ed Nabors, a Georgia truck driver. A 2002 nationwide survey found that lotteries are by far the most popular form of gambling, with some 66 percent of United States adults having played in the previous year, and 13 percent on a weekly basis. The question is why. Mega officials put the odds of winning the next big score, $12 million, at 1 in 175,711,536, and anyone with a semester of high school math can see what a fool's bet that is. Generally, experts say, state lotteries return players about 50 cents on the dollar. And there are many people who seem to compound their folly by buying hundreds of tickets at a time. Addiction researchers and some economists struggle to explain this behavior, describing it at best as an irrational fever, and at worst a pathological addiction to a regressive, government-run numbers game. But researchers spend little time in corner-store lines. The people who denigrate lottery players are like 10-year-olds who are disgusted by the idea of sex: they are numb to its pleasures, so they say it's not rational, said Lloyd Cohen, a professor of law at George Mason University and author of an economic analysis, Lotteries, Liberty and Legislatures, who is himself a gambler and a card counter. Dr. Cohen argues that lottery tickets are not an investment but a disposable consumer purchase, which changes the equation radically. Like a throwaway lifestyle magazine, lottery tickets engage transforming fantasies: a wine cellar, a pool, a vision of tropical blues and white sand. The difference is that the ticket can deliver. And as long as the fantasy is possible, even a negligible probability of winning becomes paradoxically reinforcing, Dr. Cohen said. One is willing to pay hard cash that it be so real, so objective, that it is actually calculable — by someone, even if not oneself, he said. The mundane simplicity of the lottery only reinforces the attraction. Casino card tables can be intimidating, an opaque world of rules and hard-to-master strategies; ditto for the track. Because it is pure luck, the lottery is easy to grasp and allows for plenty of perfectly loopy — and very enjoyable — number superstitions. Your birthday digits never won you a dime? Try your marriage date; your favorite psalm verse; the day your bullying father-in-law died. Or, perhaps, reverse the order. In studies, psychologists have found that ticket holders are very reluctant to trade their tickets for others, precisely because they have an illusion of control from having picked magical numbers. This sense of power infuses the waiting period with purpose. And the hope of a huge payoff, however remote, is itself a source of pleasure. In brain-imaging studies of drug users, as well as healthy adults placing bets,
Re: [PEN-L] Output Falling in Oil-Rich Mexico, and Politics Get the Blame
On 3/12/07, Julio Huato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The future is not a replica of the past. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Right. But the question is, will global capitalism stay in business? If the answer is yes, it is safe to bet that oil consumption at the global level will continue to rise into the foreseeable future: the idea that global capitalism won't stay in business in the foreseeable future seems irrelevant. It's possible we'll have a world depression and/or a break-up of the world into competing nationalisms, but even the latter (which seems less likely) doesn't involve global capitalism ending or shutting down. one major possibility is that a world depression would put a major damper on efforts to move away from fossil fuels. First, it would drive down oil gasoline prices, discouraging private efforts to economize on them. Second, it would squeeze national government budgets, threatening funds allocated for replacing and/or economizing on fossil fuel. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
[PEN-L] Salvador strategy
from SLATE's daily news summary: The Los Angeles Times leads with word that military planners are working on designing a new strategy for Iraq, in case the increased military presence fails to achieve its goals or Congress intervenes. The plan would be based in part on the U.S. experience in El Salvador in the 1980s and involves a decrease in troops and an increase in training efforts The LAT says the planning for the new fallback strategy is only beginning and could change depending on what happens on the ground. The U.S. military efforts in El Salvador are still controversial but some argue that a small number of advisers can be more successful than big military operations such as in Vietnam or Iraq. The paper waits until nearly the end of the piece to quote some people who think military planners should not be using El Salvador as a model for Iraq because the two situations have little in common. The LAT also spends some time discussing how this new planning is occurring in a divided Pentagon where tensions are rising. While a group supports Gen. David Petraeus and his strategy to concentrate on protecting neighborhoods, others believe the U.S. military should switch immediately to an advisers-only role, a strategy some believe is a recipe for failure. since some people on the left think that the US already has a Salvador strategy in Iraq, it's useful to remember a major difference between El Salvador back in the 1980s and Iraq now. While ES had a unified domestic ruling class, Iraq does not. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] Salvador strategy
The plan would be based in part on the U.S. experience in El Salvador in the 1980s and involves a decrease in troops and an increase in training efforts The New York Times, May 1, 2005 Sunday The Way of the Commandos By Peter Maass. Peter Maass, a contributing writer, is the author of ''Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War.'' He has reported extensively for the magazine from Iraq. Getting to Know the General In a country of tough guys, Adnan Thabit may be the toughest of all. He was both a general and a death-row prisoner under Saddam Hussein. He favors leather jackets no matter the weather, his left index finger extends only to the knuckle (the rest was sliced off in combat) and he responds to requests from supplicants with grunts that mean ''yes'' or ''no.'' Occasionally, a humble aide approaches to spray perfume on his hands, which he wipes over his rugged face. General Adnan, as he is known, is the leader of Iraq's most fearsome counterinsurgency force. It is called the Special Police Commandos and consists of about 5,000 troops. They have fought the insurgents in Mosul, Ramadi, Baghdad and Samarra. It was in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad in the heart of the Sunni Triangle, where, in early March, I spent a week with Adnan, himself a Sunni, and two battalions of his commandos. Samarra is Adnan's hometown, and he had come to retake it. As the offensive to drive out the insurgents got under way, the only area securely under Adnan's control was a barricaded enclave around the town hall, where he grimly presided over matters of war and peace, but mostly war, chain-smoking Royal cigarettes at a raised desk in the mayor's office. With a jowly face set in a permanent scowl, Adnan is perfectly suited to the grim realities of Iraq, and he knows it. When an admiring American colonel compared him to Marlon Brando in ''The Godfather,'' Adnan took it as a compliment and smiled. Early one evening, I was sitting in his office when an officer entered with a click of his heels -- an Iraqi salute of sorts. He reported to Adnan that a rebel weapons cache had been discovered, and Adnan congratulated him -- but issued a warning. ''If even one AK-47 is stolen,'' he said, ''I will kill you.'' After a pause, he smiled and refined the threat. ''No,'' he said, ''I will kill your'' -- and he used a coarse word that referred to the officer's most private body part. There was nervous laughter. Everyone seemed certain that not a single gun, or single anything, would go missing. Not long ago, hard men like Adnan, especially Sunnis, were giving orders to no one. Six weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the Coalition Provisional Authority dismissed the Sunni-led Iraqi Army, and the United States military set out to rebuild Iraq's armed forces from the ground up, training new officers and soldiers rather than calling on those who knew how to fight but had done so in the service of Saddam Hussein. By late last year, though, it had become clear that the new American-trained forces were not shaping up as an effective fighting force, and the old guard was called upon. Now people like Adnan, a former Baathist, have been given the task of defeating the insurgency. The new strategy is showing signs of success, but it is a success that may carry its own costs. A couple of hours after Adnan issued his AK-47 threat, I sat with him watching TV. This was business, not pleasure. The program we were watching was Adnan's brainchild, and in just a few months it had proved to be one of the most effective psychological operations of the war. It is reality TV of sorts, a show called ''Terrorism in the Grip of Justice.'' It features detainees confessing to various crimes. The show was first broadcast earlier this year and has quickly become a nationwide hit. It is on every day in prime time on Al Iraqiya, the American-financed national TV station, and when it is on, people across the country can be found gathered around their television sets. Those being interrogated on the program do not look fearsome; these are not the faces to be found in the propaganda videos that turn up on Web sites or on Al Jazeera. The insurgents, or suspected insurgents, on ''Terrorism in the Grip of Justice'' come off as cowardly lowlifes who kill for money rather than patriotism or Allah. They tremble on camera, stumble over their words and look at the ground as they confess to everything from contract murders to sodomy. The program's clear message is that there is now a force more powerful than the insurgency: the Iraqi government, and in particular the commandos, whose regimental flag, which shows a lion's head on a camouflage background, is frequently displayed on a banner behind the captives. Before the show began that evening, Adnan's office was a hive of conversation, phone calls and tea-drinking. Along with a dozen commandos, there were several American advisers in the room, including James Steele, one of the United States military's top experts on
Re: [PEN-L] Output Falling in Oil-Rich Mexico, and Politics Get the Blame
On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Julio Huato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The future is not a replica of the past. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Right. But the question is, will global capitalism stay in business? If the answer is yes, it is safe to bet that oil consumption at the global level will continue to rise into the foreseeable future: the idea that global capitalism won't stay in business in the foreseeable future seems irrelevant. It's possible we'll have a world depression and/or a break-up of the world into competing nationalisms, but even the latter (which seems less likely) doesn't involve global capitalism ending or shutting down. one major possibility is that a world depression would put a major damper on efforts to move away from fossil fuels. First, it would drive down oil gasoline prices, discouraging private efforts to economize on them. Second, it would squeeze national government budgets, threatening funds allocated for replacing and/or economizing on fossil fuel. That is certainly not impossible, but if you were running Saudi Aramco or the National Iranian Oil Company or PDVSA or PEMEX or a similar entity, you wouldn't take what's incalculable into your investment plan, nor would you if you were leading an organization of the Left seeking to take state power so you would be in a position to run it better. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Gambling for Empire
On 3/12/07, Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why did the White House invade Iraq? Why are the Democrats boosting the war funding ...? At this stage, it's the idea of why not take a bigger loss, if there's some chance I can turn it into a gain that keeps Washington politicians going. It's especially easy for them to do so, since they are gambling with other people's money. there's also the matter of sunk costs: we invested trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq, so we should continue with the folly. Basic economic theory tells us that the past investment is irrelevant to decisions about what we should do in the future.[*] But real-world human beings don't act that way. Of course, mere psychology doesn't help very much with the understanding of socio-economic forces and structures. [*] If there are any successes in Iraq that resulted from the past investment, then those are relevant. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
[PEN-L] they FINALLY found those Iraqi WsMD!
from SLATE:The LA [TIMES] mentions that a pawn-shop owner in Florida got quite a surprise when he opened a box of rocks from an estate sale and saw one labeled uranium. Emergency workers confirmed the container had about an ounce of yellowcake uranium. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] Gambling for Empire
On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why did the White House invade Iraq? Why are the Democrats boosting the war funding ...? At this stage, it's the idea of why not take a bigger loss, if there's some chance I can turn it into a gain that keeps Washington politicians going. It's especially easy for them to do so, since they are gambling with other people's money. there's also the matter of sunk costs: we invested trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq, so we should continue with the folly. Basic economic theory tells us that the past investment is irrelevant to decisions about what we should do in the future.[*] But real-world human beings don't act that way. Of course, mere psychology doesn't help very much with the understanding of socio-economic forces and structures. It would be interesting if someone attempted a theory of imperialism that mediates socio-economic forces and structures with psychological structures of the ruling class and the power elite. I think Sartre once criticized Marxist theory for neglecting to provide such a mediating link. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
[PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It would be interesting if someone attempted a theory of imperialism that mediates socio-economic forces and structures with psychological structures of the ruling class and the power elite. I think Sartre once criticized Marxist theory for neglecting to provide such a mediating link. I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). While individual psychology can be important, it's easy to go too far. If George Bush -- arguably the most powerful person in the world -- were to change his mind on something important, it would immediately unleash forces from the coalition that backs him to push him back to their perspective. The most likely bad event (from the coalition's perspective) would be a collapse of the coalition itself. After all, Bush, Rove, Cheney (not in that order) are important because of their role in holding a coalition together that currently controls the US state. But it's also possible that the coalition could dominate the mind-change. Further, only some types of people are able to rise to the top of the power pyramid. There are a lot of filters. Dennis the K. will never make it, nor will that guy from Iowa, Tom Vilsack. An individual has to be willing to serve big money to make it to the top. They also need to be able to unite actually-existing social forces to form a coalition to get them into office. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
I agree On 3/12/07, Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
Dear Friends, I am not so sure about the link between psychology and marxism but there is growing literature on the intersection between psychoanalysis and marxism from the side of the psychoanalysis. With my co-author Ceren Ozselcuk, we have recently embarked upon bridging the gap from the side of the political economy. Our first effort found its venue in Psychoanalysis, Culture Society that is frequently a venue for critical analyses of capitalism from the perspective of psychoanalysis. The article is downloadable for free from the link below. I also paste below the abstract. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/pcs/journal/v10/n1/abs/2100028a.html Warmest, Yahya Madra -- *Psychoanalysis, Culture Society* (2005) *10,* 79–97. Psychoanalysis and Marxism: From Capitalist-All to Communist Non-All Ceren Özselçuk and Yahya M Madra Abstract: Current influential attempts to bring together psychoanalysis and Marxism turn on the question of how to critique and move beyond capitalism without reverting to a utopian notion of communism. Taking this question seriously, the article explores the implications of psychoanalytic categories such as the real, fantasy, *jouissance*, and the formulae of sexuation, for Marxian economics and politics. Rethinking Marxism in conjunction with Lacanian psychoanalysis, the article aims to formulate a post-phantasmatic relation to the economy of surplus, and from there, to offer a new ethico-political stance around exploitation and communism. On 3/12/07, Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have long criticized Marxism for ignoring psychology (though such worthies as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse should be mentioned). Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright lists are always incomplete, but surely juliet mitchell and, much more recently, victor wolfenstein, deserve mention... michael hoover I think there's quite a bit of literature concerning Marxism and psychoanalysis, except that this genre of writing tends not to pay much attention to the ruling classes and power elites (how they are socialized, why they do what they do, etc.), more interested in the working class or oppressed groups among the working class. Strange as it may seem, the Marxist tradition has not paid much attention to the ruling classes and power elites as they actually exist. Probably it's in part because they are harder to study than intellectuals and laboring classes, who are more available for participant observation. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On Mar 12, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Strange as it may seem, the Marxist tradition has not paid much attention to the ruling classes and power elites as they actually exist. A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. Doug
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
On 3/12/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 12, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Strange as it may seem, the Marxist tradition has not paid much attention to the ruling classes and power elites as they actually exist. A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. I can think of one: Hanna Batatu, _The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq_ (London: Saqi Books, 2004, first published by Princeton UP in 1978). Really an extraordinary achievement (but it's sociology rather than psychology -- with very little Vanity Fair, needless to say :-). I'd love to read something like this about other countries in the Middle East and the Triad (the USA, the EU, and Japan). -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
don't you man the ruling elite, not the ruling class? how about G. William Domhoff? Tom Bottomore has a nice little book on _Elites and Society_, BTW. The original elite theories came from folks like Pareto and Mosca, who were pretty conservative. On 3/12/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Re: [PEN-L] Gambling for Empire
On 3/12/07, Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be interesting if someone attempted a theory of imperialism that mediates socio-economic forces and structures with psychological structures of the ruling class and the power elite. I think Sartre once criticized Marxist theory for neglecting to provide such a mediating link. -- My $.02: That is the description of activist thinking, but generally, they are too busy 'activisting' to write it down, and someone who ISN'T busy 'activisting' is either hopelessly out of the loop or writing about history. Leigh
Re: [PEN-L] psychology Marxism [was: Gambling for Empire]
G. William Domhoff http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ On 3/12/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: don't you man the ruling elite, not the ruling class? how about G. William Domhoff? Tom Bottomore has a nice little book on _Elites and Society_, BTW. The original elite theories came from folks like Pareto and Mosca, who were pretty conservative. On 3/12/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few months ago, when I told Bertell Ollman that I was working on a book about the ruling class, which I described as a hybrid of C. Wright Mills and Vanity Fair, Bertell looked pained, and asked, Mills? No Marx? I said Marx would always be there, but he didn't have much to say about the ruling class. I then asked him if there were any Marxist writers on the r.c. he liked. He replied, No. They mostly think of it as self-evident. -- Jim Devine / The truth is more important than the facts. -- Frank Lloyd Wright
[PEN-L] sacco and vanzetti film information
Here is an announcement from Peter Miller, who made this fine film. I met Peter in Santa Fe, and he is a great guy. He works for Ken Burns and does independent films on his own. He did the fillm on The Internationale. Michael Yates SACCO AND VANZETTI A film by Peter Miller Opening March 30 Quad Cinema 34 W. 13th St., New York filmmaker will be present Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings Opening April 6 Laemmle Music Hall 3 9036 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills filmmaker will be present Friday and Saturday evenings The untold story of Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti - anarchists whose trial for murder divided the nation and stirred the conscience of the world. Featuring the voices of Tony Shalhoub and John Turturro reading Sacco and Vanzetti's powerful prison writings. A wonderful film, as timeless as the struggle for human justice, as relevant as today's headlines. - Ken Burns Finally we have a superb and thorough documentary that gives light to the facts and feelings about this most important example of the miscarriage of American justice. Bravo Peter Miller for doing it right. This documentary needs to be viewed by all students of American culture, and is especially relevant in the terror-driven atmosphere that surrounds all of us today. - Fred Gardaphe, Stony Brook University Miller makes his film soar by keeping our attention focused on the defendants. Sacco and Vanzetti make us proud to be human beings and prouder still to be radicals. They also force us to recommit ourselves to the struggle for human liberation. For if their agony was their triumph, it can and must be ours as well. SACCO AND VANZETTI is a must see. - Michael D. Yates, MRzine. org NYC show times and advance tickets available at http://quadcinema.com/ LA show times and advance tickets available at http://www.laemmle.com for more information, visit www. willowpondfilms. com
[PEN-L] Hotel where Bush will spend the night
You can see the roof, behind the armored fence: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/campeche1.JPG/image/image_view_fullscreen
Re: [PEN-L] Hotel where Bush will spend the night
Julio Huato wrote: You can see the roof, behind the armored fence: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/campeche1.JPG/image/image_view_fullscreen . A, It's GOOD to be the king! Leigh
[PEN-L] Democrat Bill On Iraq Won't Choke-off Bush's War On Iran
Talking Points Memo House Dem Leadership's Bill On Iraq Obtained By Greg Sargent We've just obtained a copy of parts of the long-awaited House Dem leadership's bill on Iraq -- the one that's been the subject of days and days of behind-the-scenes battling among House Democrats. You can view excerpts in our TPM Document Collection http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/2007-03-12-defense-supplemental-iraq/?resultpage=1;. The key points about the bill you need to know for now are as follows: First, though the bill mandates withdrawal by Fall 2008 at the latest, it's going to be at least partly a disappointment to some House liberals. That's because language that was in earlier drafts that would have clipped funding after the deadline -- as opposed to merely declaring the war illegal -- has been taken out. House leaders will argue that the bill does do its job, because it declares the war illegal beyond a certain date. But liberal House sources say this removed language was critical in ending the war in practice, because it would enforce the war's end with the power of the purse rather than requiring a trip to court to force an end to the war should Bush insist on keeping it going in defiance of the legislation. Second, in another disappointment to House liberals, key language mandating that Bush get Congressional approval before going to war with Iran has been taken out. This was a concession to Blue Dog Dems who fear that if they vote for any measure tying the Commander in Chief's hands in any way, it will make them vulnerable in their moderate districts, a House staffer says. Despite these two disappointments, a liberal House Dem says that the bill is nonetheless a positive. It's a positive thing that the Dem caucus has set a date to end the Bush administration's failed policy, this source says. That said, the political sausage making, the calculations that are required to keep more moderates on board, could make this ultimately less enforceable, and that would be unfortunate. If this all sounds half-baked, that's because it is -- we only just got a chunk of the bill sent to us, and it's pretty dense stuff. Maybe you can help us out -- you can view the key part of the bill here http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/2007-03-12-defense-supplemental-iraq/?resultpage=1;. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/12/house_dem_leaderships_bill_on_iraq_obtained
Re: [PEN-L] Hotel Redux
Tipped by: John Brown's Public Diplomacy Blog Review http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/johnbrown_detail/070312_pdpbr/ BUSH, A NONSENSE TRIP TO LATIN AMERICA Published by Juan Antonio Giner March 10th, 2007 Security. Controls. Helicopters. Police. Guns. Body guards. Traffic problems. Angry citizens. Almost all the time inside dark glass limousines. No human touch. An invisible visit… Except for protests and demostrations. Millions of dollars for what? Public diplomacy must be done in other ways. Visits like this are nonsense. --30--
[PEN-L] DOE's Energy RD
The USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal in reserves: The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use (Coal -- A Fossil Fuel, http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html#WhereWeGetCoal). The US ruling class, left to their own devices, would sooner re-invest in coal than in cleaner technology like solar and wind: DOE's budget authority for energy RD, when adjusted for inflation, fell 85 percent from its peak in fiscal year 1978 to fiscal year 2005. . . . [T]he nation's dependence on conventional fossil fuels remains virtually the same as 30 years ago (Advanced Energy Technologies: Key Challenges to Their Development and Deployment, GAO-07-550T, 28 February 2007, http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-07-550Taccno=A66355). -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
