Inspired by Harry Cleaver's excellent piece on the Chiapas uprising, I
think it is appropriate to remind of a discussion we had here on pen-l in
September 1993.
Tom Weisskopf defined the two main sides in that "Global Economic
Integration discussion" as the "progressive internationalist
Trond,
While I appreciate the PNP/PIP distinction, it is always interesting how
that leads to support for the same actions even with expectations that
are sharply different.
Chiapas is a perfect movement for PIP; the Zapatistas are not pure
isolationists even if they are resisting
Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Sat, 19 Feb 1994, Michael Lebowitz wrote:
In Message Sat, 19
IMHO, the Monthly Review folks can't be criticized be x
simply because they don't pledge ak allegiance to some qy
quotes in Marx's unpublished manuscripts. They can claim
(reasonably enough) that they use the word "crisis" in
a different sense than did Marx. Or they can quibble about
how long
From:IN%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: World Bank accused of too much secrecy (fwd)
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:08:29 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: World Bank accused of too much secrecy (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups:
In Message Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:28:06 -0500 (EST),
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
Doug
The answer, I suppose, is that it leaves MR firmly in a Marxian
Dear Pen-Lers: With this note, I am sending you an advance copy of
the Table of Contents from a new publication by Dollars Sense,
REAL WORLD INTERNATIONAL -- a collection of 17 of our best
articles and short pieces on international topics. If you teach a
course for which you would consider
While fidelity to the gospel should not be the measure of
the truth of any statement regarding crisis, I too find
the notion of permanent crisis to be somewhat ridiculous.
There's the Luxemburg variety, which asserts that capitalism
survives only by dumping unrealized surplus on regions
external
Dear PEN-L subscribers:
Just a note to remind you that the next issue of The Review of
Radical Political Economics, Vol 26 No 1 March 1994 is about to
hit your local progressive newsstands or if you're an URPE member
to show up in your mailbox (we hope). The contents of this issue
include:
Inspired by Harry Cleaver's excellent piece on the Chiapas uprising, I
think it is appropriate to remind of a discussion we had here on pen-l in
September 1993.
Tom Weisskopf defined the two main sides in that "Global Economic
Integration discussion" as the "progressive internationalist
Trond,
While I appreciate the PNP/PIP distinction, it is always interesting how
that leads to support for the same actions even with expectations that
are sharply different.
Chiapas is a perfect movement for PIP; the Zapatistas are not pure
isolationists even if they are resisting
On Feb. 21, Trond said:
(PNP = progressive nationalist and PIP = progressive internationalist)
Myself, I belong to the PNP faction. During the discussion, it was
made clear that f.inst. Jim Devine's and Nathan Newman's strategy for
socialism was to first let capitalism globalize into the end
Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Sat, 19 Feb 1994, Michael Lebowitz wrote:
In Message Sat, 19
Dear Pen-Lers: With this note, I am sending you an advance copy of
the Table of Contents from a new publication by Dollars Sense,
REAL WORLD INTERNATIONAL -- a collection of 17 of our best
articles and short pieces on international topics. If you teach a
course for which you would consider
Some six months ago, one of my psychology colleagues came into work looking
very troubled. He'd just heard some DJ give the data on Nike, Michael Jordan,
and Indonesian footwear workers. He was perplexed as to how to make any sense
of the statistic that it would take 5,000 years of wages for
From:IN%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: World Bank accused of too much secrecy (fwd)
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:08:29 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: World Bank accused of too much secrecy (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups:
IMHO, the Monthly Review folks can't be criticized be x
simply because they don't pledge ak allegiance to some qy
quotes in Marx's unpublished manuscripts. They can claim
(reasonably enough) that they use the word "crisis" in
a different sense than did Marx. Or they can quibble about
how long
In Message Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:28:06 -0500 (EST),
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
Doug
The answer, I suppose, is that it leaves MR firmly in a Marxian
While fidelity to the gospel should not be the measure of
the truth of any statement regarding crisis, I too find
the notion of permanent crisis to be somewhat ridiculous.
There's the Luxemburg variety, which asserts that capitalism
survives only by dumping unrealized surplus on regions
external
Dear PEN-L subscribers:
Just a note to remind you that the next issue of The Review of
Radical Political Economics, Vol 26 No 1 March 1994 is about to
hit your local progressive newsstands or if you're an URPE member
to show up in your mailbox (we hope). The contents of this issue
include:
Trond asks what is the difference between an economic
and a political determination of interest rates?
He says that we have a ruling class that benefits from high
interest rates and has a long tradition of arguing for that.
This is all true, but it does little to explain why interest
rates
21 matches
Mail list logo
