Title: Re: [PEN-L:20109] Re: Re: As the fetish implodes
Greetings Economists,
Rob Schaap writes,
I just don't get this stuff, Doyle. To say obsessive-compulsive disorders are bad is not to say that people stricken with it are bad. If I call brand-marketing a cancer in society, I'm hardly
I got this useful history of the US green written by Lou Proyect on the day
that the ASGP's Annie Goeke unsubbed from the CrashList, seemingly because
the ongoing discussion there about capital accumulation and its limits was
overloading her inbox. Pity; I'd planned to ask her about the necessity
Doug Henwood wrote,
Hmm, Klein says brands appeal to utopian impulses, and also leave
companies extremely vulnerable to political agitation (if they
traffic in image, tarnishing that image can really get their
attention). But I don't recall the resistance-in-submission argument.
First, I
I wrote,
Camouflaged fish that swim blythly into the maw of the predator on the
pretext that their camouflage gives them immunity are indeed "something
else altogether . . ." A meal.
Correction: I should have said a snack.
Tom Walker
Doyle
Needless suffering is key to your excluding a person with a
disability from your concept of able bodied participation in the
social whole. Every worker needlessly suffers, but disabled people
are the ones that need to change. Your comment is almost Victorian
in patronizing tones
Following the usual pattern, once the notably-short US public attention
span has elapsed, after popular support for the air-war is no longer
needed, history gets rewritten:
Questions Surface Over NATO's Revised Take on the War in Kosovo
Balkans: Official accounts have been rewritten or
In a message dated 6/10/00 5:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My reading of the discussion of the waterfall -- and Marx's theory of rent
in general -- is that the waterfall "creates" surplus-value _for the owner
of the waterfall_ but not for society as a whole. One
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:54:54 -0400
From: Mine Aysen Doyran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Long Twentieth Century
Review, Giovanni Arrighi, _The Long Twentieth Century_
(Verso, 1994)
by Immanuel Wallerstein
The waterfall reduces the value of the goods. The quantity of labor in each good
produced with the waterfall is lower. Whether it produces extra surplus value
would depend on what happens next. If competition drives prices down toward the
new values, then presumably the workers will exchange a
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20114] Re: Re: Re: Re: As the fetish implodes
Greetings Economists,
In response to my comments on anti-disabled thinking in Tom Walkers recent posting Brad DeLong writes,
Brad DeLong,
Do you think it's fun to have an obsessive-compulsive disorder, or to
have major
The Subject line could also be, Back to Nike and Microsoft
Timework Web wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote,
Furthermore, (and this speaks to Doyle
Saylor's comment also) I see nothing remotely emancipatory in the above
passages' exhaltation of "psychotic" as something which "keeps us intact
and
Carrol Cox wrote:
Those who suffer from hallucinations generally know that the hallucination
is one even when they cannot resist having it. Friends who suffer from
"voices" speak fairly casually of attempts to ignore them. They never
believe that the "voices" are "out there." I asked one woman
Doug Henwood wrote:
Oh it might. I think people are semi-conscious that advertising does
strange things to their desires, and feel vaguely guilty or defensive
about being consumed by shopping. Witness the whole discourse of
"addication" around consumption ("shopaholic").
Now, now. You may
Hi Chris:
The problem for the guests at Ohio State University was they were a
small minority
Yes -- perhaps only about 50 graduating seniors walked out, while
about another 30 held up red placards ("Struggle, Not Surrender,"
"Watts -- Act Affirmatively," "Watts' 'Diversity'?" "OSU Powered by
At 12:25 PM 06/11/2000 -0400, you wrote:
In a message dated 6/10/00 5:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My reading of the discussion of the waterfall -- and Marx's theory of rent
in general -- is that the waterfall "creates" surplus-value _for the owner
of the
Book reviewed:
Gary Gereffi and Miguel Korzeniewicz, eds.
COMMODITY CHAINS AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger, 1994. xiv + 334 pp. ISBN
0-313-28914-X, $59.95 (hardcover); ISBN
0-275-94573-1, $22.95 (paper).
Reviewed by
Wilma A.
In a message dated 6/11/00 2:14:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The waterfall reduces the value of the goods. The quantity of labor in
each good
produced with the waterfall is lower. Whether it produces extra surplus
value
would depend on what happens next. If
Not quite, Jason. The waterfall does not create value on its own. It only
amplies the productivity of labor.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. If we define value as
embodied labor, this is correct. But perhaps we shouldn't. What the waterfall
example shows is that not all profits come from
I think I am out of my depth in this. Five or six years ago I thought I had
thought through a lot of this stuff (and maybe I had), and even published a
bit on it, but I am running on hazy memories; it's not quite as bad as when I
got down my old books on quantum theory and statistical
Both labour and nature can produce things of value. But it is society that gives
a value to things. It assigns a value to things appropriated from nature and to
transformations made to those things by labour.
Marx claims that the value of a thing will be proportional to the labour socially
Tom: You might find George Lakoff to be an interesting kind of guy for a
linguist / semanticist. Try these links:
specific paper: http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
General info: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rsauzier/Lakoff.html
Tom Walker wrote:
All this talk about "appropriating
21 matches
Mail list logo
