The thing about you Mine, is you are just so SMART!
Steve
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sometimes, it is interesting to follow the "orientation" of discussion
> taking place in this list. The intellectual ranks of _Analytical Marxism_
> include people like Cohen,
I suppose that many of you know this already, but when the Soviets took
over, they had no practical idea of economic planning. The closest
guidence they could find in Marx was his discussion of Quesnay's Tableau.
This gave rise to input output type models, on which Leontief worked until
he left
>Doyle
>What is dogmatism?
Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that
there are people who are not sceptics. If they all were, they would
be wrong.
Pascal, _Pensees_
Yoshie
Marx in volume II shows that capitalist equilibrium with growth is possible,
but that it is unlikely because of the co-ordination problems between the
sectors of the economy.
Arrow and Debreu using neo-classical modeling techniques show something
similar. That static equilibrium is possible. But
Justin wrote:
>If you view "the theory" as a toolkit that doesn't involve substantive
>commitments, it wonm't have the defects of orthodox Marxism, but it also
>won't have the inspiring message that gave orthodoxy its power. I doubt that
>substantce and method can be prised apart in the way you s
Sometimes, it is interesting to follow the "orientation" of discussion
taking place in this list. The intellectual ranks of _Analytical Marxism_
include people like Cohen, Elster, Przeworski, Roemer and Olin Wright.
It is increasingly becoming hard for me to understand how one criticizes
Cohen's
At 07:57 PM 06/21/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>see Daniel Little, the Scientific Marx, who explains how Marx's analysis
>in Capital depends on many rational choice presuppositions. It's not
>surprising, since he was analysing a market systrem where those
>presuppositions are more valid than not.
I
Greetings Economists,
Doug Henwood asks if I give my permission to use the word "Wanker". I
grant Doug Henwood permission to use the word Wanker. He must first follow
the conditions put out here. His useage must be run by a committee
consisting of Bill Clinton, Max Sawicky, and Alan Greensp
Dear Doyle, in polemics concerned with red-baiting Marxism, the term
"jerk" is used in a way to stigmatize the people on the Marxist left.
Additionally, it serves the religious purposes of classifying them as
dogmatic. The term dogma refers to religious convinction or faith.
Associating Marxism w
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20521] "Jerks", was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel
Greetings Economists,
Carrol Cox brings up my wanting a definition about Jerk,
Carrol,
Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term "jerk" (which used to
be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp on
Justin writes:
>Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think Cohen was right that
>historical materialism is basically functional explanation,a nd I approve of
>historical materialism.
Cohen's version of historical materialism may be totally based on
fallacious functionalism, but his
Doug Henwood asked,
> Can we still use "wanker," or does that offend Onanists?
I always thought jerk *meant* wanker.
Tom Walker
At 07:45 PM 06/21/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>If you view "the theory" as a toolkit that doesn't involve substantive
>commitments, it wonm't have the defects of orthodox Marxism, but it also
>won't have the inspiring message that gave orthodoxy its power.
I don't view Marxian dialectical method as a
Jim Devine wrote:
> If growth is democratically planned, then it's hard to imagine that
> growth of "output" would be the only criterion. There would be much more
> attention to issues of quality -- and issues such as the definition of
> what in heck is meant by "output."
Economic _growth_ is, b
At 10:04 PM 06/21/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Doyle Saylor wrote:
>
> > Doyle
> > What is a Jerk? Is that a term
>
>Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term "jerk" (which used to
>be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp one) is because of
>the partially successful effort t
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term "jerk" (which used to
>be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp one) is because of
>the partially successful effort to eliminate sexist, racist,
>heterosexist, etc.
>language. "Jerk" is one of the few nasty name
Doyle Saylor wrote:
> Doyle
> What is a Jerk? Is that a term
Actually, Doyle, the current popularity of the term "jerk" (which used to
be a rather mild epithet but has become a rather sharp one) is because of
the partially successful effort to eliminate sexist, racist, heterosexist, etc.
lang
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20472] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel
Greetings Economists,
The content about dogmatism in the writings of Jim Devine and jks caught my attention. For example this snippet from jks,
jks,
The style of orthodox Marxism is of course a guarantee that no on
Mine,
Thanks for the Tucker citation. I'm heartened to see everyone has their Marx
anthologies close at hand. As I've said before I was loose with the use of
the word "utopian." For a moment I forgot how the word makes the true
Marxist cringe.
joe smith, former PhD student, SUNY-Binghamto
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
history.
Rod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> James Mill was indeed
okey,I have to respond to this. I did not say that Marx personally
debated with James Mill.I know that James was dead before Marx was up.
Merci. I said that Marx wrote a short article called _On James Mill_,
which you can find in in McL's Marx: Political Writings...
Mine
>the Philosophical Rad
>While I've not read "Looking Forward" I have participated in ZNet & can say
>that Hahnel & Albert's anti-Marxism is more anti-Leninism. Trotsky's warm
>remarks regarding increasing management power quoted by Louis are precisely
>the kind of centralized control rejected in participatory econom
The other problem with functionalism is the implicit tendency to homeostasis.
Whatever happens serves the function of maintaining the whole. Functionalist
conceptions of welfare in capitalist society focus solely on its
system-maintaining characteristics, when actually between the partial
decommo
James Mill was indeed a classic Benthamite utilitarian, and a very close
friend of Bentham's to boot. You are mistaken, though, if you think that John
Stuart Mill, the son of James, was opposed to making pleasure the sole good.
He just had a more nuanced conception of pleasure, or to use his wo
In a message dated 6/21/00 1:02:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< funny, like other religious followers of neo-classical bourgeois ideology,
Elster, in _Making Sense of Marx_, attempts to demonstrate that Marx was
indeed a founder of rational choice. I am sure Ricardo w
Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think Cohen was right that
historical materialism is basically functional explanation,a nd I approve of
historical materialism. You mistake functional explanation for teleology if
you think it involves reference to the "purpose" of events in a
Recall in the McLibel trial that Coke insisted that it was a nutritious
drink since it contained water.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you view "the theory" as a toolkit that doesn't involve substantive
commitments, it wonm't have the defects of orthodox Marxism, but it also
won't have the inspiring message that gave orthodoxy its power. I doubt that
substantce and method can be prised apart in the way you suggest. Lukacs,
Pat Devine is a market socialist. Market socialism is an attempt to
establish socialism in a capitalist economy. It is an attempt to reconcile
the irreconcilable. Market socialists treat market ahistorically,
abstracting it from its capitalist and historical content. Recently,
market socialists
Some virus has struck our campus. I can only read files via telnet, which
does not give me easy access. I will only be able to skim a few of the
posts.
I have a large accumulation of unread notes. If you want to get ahold of
me, I can be reached, but please put OFFLIST in the heading.
--
Mic
Joe wrote:, >Regarding utopianism, I thought regaining some semblance of
vision was >all >the rage on the Left these days. I realize there remains
a great deal of >self-consciousness regarding these speculations.
Immanuel Wallerstein >actually invented a new word, "Utopistics," to
provide cover
At 06:28 PM 6/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Jim,
>Thanks for the citations. I'll try not to be so loose with terminology in
>the future. Still, I'm not sure Robin & Hahnel's LOOKING FORWARD is in quite
>the same camp as Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD,
Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD is a classic -- or _the_
<> M. Hoover wrote:
> >18th century Scottish political
> >economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart.
> >Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_
> >Marx. who *critiqued* political economy,
> >refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and
> >unde
Jim,
Thanks for the citations. I'll try not to be so loose with terminology in
the future. Still, I'm not sure Robin & Hahnel's LOOKING FORWARD is in quite
the same camp as Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD, as was originally charged by
Louis. There is quite a bit more political substance to partic
There goes your grant, Brad. But not all MacA fellows are famous. I had a friend from
college who got one shortly into his career as a prof; he crashed and burned. Another
college friends who got one is now a Stanford stat prof, a former colleague of yours
(Dave Donoho), and famous only among m
was: Re: [PEN-L:20499] Re: RE: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel (fwd)
At 05:36 PM 6/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Regarding utopianism, I thought regaining some semblance of vision was all
>the rage on the Left these days. I realize there remains a great deal of
>self-consciousness regarding these spe
> M. Hoover wrote:
> >18th century Scottish political
> >economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart.
> >Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_
> >Marx. who *critiqued* political economy,
> >refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and
> >unders
You too can be a much-reviled pundit.
On June 8 the House repealed the Federal
Estate and Gift Tax, our most progressive
tax. Repeal is now up for consideration in
the Senate. Everything you need to know
aobut it is in the links included herein.
Any questions, feel free to drop me a
line. If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Just to open a small parenthesis here. I was in fact criticizing Dorman
>and Hahnel against the claim that they were progressive.
Excuse me for jumping in here but I just signed onto the list and didn't have
access to this discussion earlier. I just wanted to say a few
I wrote:
>>I think it's best to judge someone by her or her own work rather than on
>>the basis of the funding. I was asking about MacArthur funding not
>>because I wanted to trash Matthew Rabin but because I was curious,
>>wondering why anyone would give money to "geniuses."
Brad writes:
>I'm
>I think it's best to judge someone by her or her own work rather
>than on the basis of the funding. I was asking about MacArthur
>funding not because I wanted to trash Matthew Rabin but because I
>was curious, wondering why anyone would give money to "geniuses."
I'm a cynic about the MacArthu
Strict neo-classical models can not handle "concern for others". If it is
included, (i.e., if utility functions are not independent) then there is no
unique equilibrium position. Not enough independent equations for the number
of variables. Rod
I don't think so. Suppose A's utility depends
on
What debate? I said I agree with you, RC is a fine progressive thinker. I
then added I think JD is also. I wasn't debating anything with you.
I would also add that trees are known to grow leaves.
Steve
Mine wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't think that we should contin
I don't think that we should continue this unproductive debate about who
is who. Ronald Chilcote is well known to be an _established_ Marxist
scholar. Actually, in his book, he _vehemently_ criticizes mainstream
social theories, including game theory and rational choice as well as
those who dist
Actually, I was thinking of someone else, I'm mistaken in my
characterization of Chilcote. In addition to agreeing that Chilcote is a
fine progressive thinker, I might add that I think Jim Devine's a real
sharp thinker who makes very insightful use of Marx in his writing btw...
His web page is gr
M. Hoover wrote:
>I had grad school prof who thought it'd be really good idea for me to
>read, in addition to Smith, some other 18th century Scottish political
>economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart. If memory serves,
>Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_ app
>By this sort of definition, there must be about 347 "progressives" in
>the U.S., and 5,132 around the world. But as Lenin said, better fewer
>but better.
>
>Doug
Actually, what Lenin was referring to in this, his final article, was the
need to pursue a less breakneck pace in developing sociali
Doug Henwood wrote:
> . But as Lenin said, better fewer
> but better.
And he said it at a time when membership in the battered Communist
Party (B) was very tempting to those whose motives were strictly
careerist, when its best cadre had died in the Civil War . . . .
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Just to open a small parenthesis here. I was in fact criticizing Dorman
>and Hahnel againist the claim that they were progressive.
By this sort of definition, there must be about 347 "progressives" in
the U.S., and 5,132 around the world. But as Lenin said, better fewe
Please don't forward me anything unless it really concerns me. My e-mail
system can't download many files. This litterslly puts me out of work for
days!
All the best,
Boris
-Original Message-
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL
I am sorry, please don't forward anything unless it is really something
very, very, very important. My e-mail cannot download more than 5-10 mails
at a time. If I get too many messages I can't be properly connected and this
means putting me out of work for days.
Please, please, don't forward me an
There is also a 19th century American tradition in this vein. People like John
Commons of the Wisconsin Progressive School wrote books with "Political Economy"
in the title. Of course, all this is before the rise of 20th century American
"Political Science," which by splitting economics from polit
> Quoth Mine:
> > Although originally the concept [of political economy] was
> >invented by Marx and his contemporaries,
>
> Quoth Justin:
> >I made this mistake once early in grad school, and my political theory
> >teacher humiliated me in front of everyone.. Pol econ was the term for
> >what we
At 09:44 AM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > there's a big difference between "economic growth" _per se_ and the
> > neo-liberal view that _marketized_ (profit-led, corporate-run) growth is
> > good in and of itself. Economic growth _might be_ democratically planned
> > to be con
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Coca-Cola
Co. (KO.N) said on Wednesday it had sent a
shipment of soft drinks into
North Korea, becoming one of the first U.S.
companies to crack open the
ec
funny, like other religious followers of neo-classical bourgeois ideology,
Elster, in _Making Sense of Marx_, attempts to demonstrate that Marx was
indeed a founder of rational choice. I am sure Ricardo was the father of
socialism then... No No Marx was indeed a spy..
Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany
>June 21, 2000 / New York TIMES
>RECKONINGS/ By PAUL KRUGMAN
>The Pig in the Python
>... The "financial" problem [arising from the ageing of the "baby
boomers" in the US] is how to pay for Social Security. This problem is a
legacy of Social Security's pay-as-you-go past: because the baby
Nancy works for me at the National Cancer Institute. See
http://www-dccps.ims.nci.nih.gov/ARP/economics.html
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20477] Re: Re: GT
At 08:57 AM 6/21/0
Jim Devine wrote:
> there's a big difference between "economic growth" _per se_ and the
> neo-liberal view that _marketized_ (profit-led, corporate-run) growth is
> good in and of itself. Economic growth _might be_ democratically planned
> to be consistent with the preservation of the natural bal
>Ron Chilcote has edited a new volume titled "The
>Political Economy of Imperialism: Critical Appraisals"
>Boston: Kluwer Academic (1999), 260 pp. isbn
>0-7923-8470-9.
>The table of contents & contributors:
>Part I. SImperialism: Its Legacy and Contemporary
Significance
>M.C. Howard and J.E.
At 08:57 AM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Nancy Breen (Do you remember, Nancy?) and I once met at Davis where we went to
>a talk by Elster. I had never read anything by him, but understood that he
>was important. The only thing I recall from the talk was the appalling number
>of errors about Marx
Nancy Breen (Do you remember, Nancy?) and I once met at Davis where we went to
a talk by Elster. I had never read anything by him, but understood that he
was important. The only thing I recall from the talk was the appalling number
of errors about Marx that he propogated with absolute convictio
Jim Devine wrote:
> there's a big difference between "economic growth" _per se_ and the
> neo-liberal view that _marketized_ (profit-led, corporate-run) growth is
> good in and of itself. Economic growth _might be_ democratically planned to
> be consistent with the preservation of the natural b
Justin wrote:
>Functional explanation is legitimate, but Cohen's account of it in terms
>of "consequence laws" is wrong; you need a mechanical account of
>explanation, i.e., one that regards explanation as exposing the causal
>mechanisms
functional explanation isn't the same as seeing the feed
Quoth Mine:
> Although originally the concept [of political economy] was
>invented by Marx and his contemporaries,
Quoth Justin:
>I made this mistake once early in grad school, and my political theory
>teacher humiliated me in front of everyone.. Pol econ was the term for
>what we call economic
Justin wrote:
>It's probably both a problem with the theory and the style. The style of
>orthodox Marxism is of course a guarantee that no one will talk to you
>who is not already a true believer. But the two are linked. The theory
>appears to be defective, and retaining a defective millinaria
At the risk of tooting my own horn, I wrote a piece on MI called "Metaphysical
Individualism and Functional Explanation," Philosophy of Science 1993, that I still
think is quite good. In the context of the Cohen-Elster debate, I argued that:
1. Functional explanation is legitimate, but Cohen's
By mistake, I've been sending pen-l my wrong web-page address, the one that
refers to the support group for parents of kids with Asperger's Syndrome
(mild autism) that my wife and I run. However, if you're interested, click
away. (Hey, it's my life away from pen-l!) The URL appears below. FWIW
It's probably both a problem with the theory and the style. The style of orthodox
Marxism is of course a guarantee that no one will talk to you who is not already a
true believer. But the two are linked. The theory appears to be defective, and
retaining a defective millinarian theory in the fa
Although originally the concept [of political economy] was
invented by Marx and his contemporaries,
* * *
I made this mistake once early in grad school, and my political theory teacher
humiliated me in front of everyone.. Pol econ was the term for what we call economics,
mainly, but also pol
> > The ideology most responsible for promoting a vision of economic growth
> > >as good in and of itself has also shaped development discourse and policy
> > >choices among key international institutions since the late 1970s.
> > >Historically, this ideology has been known under various names:
G'day Jim,
>that is, is the problem with the _theory_ or is it with the theory's
>adherent's style?
I don't think it's the theory, Jim. The way I understand said theory, we
find out what we should do now by reflecting on what's happening in light
of our past practice. Any advocate of that theo
At 04:02 AM 06/21/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>At the risk of sounding somewhat Hegelian. The problem can be looked at like
>this. Both the individual and the group exist with equal ontological status.
>Methodological individual gives priority to the individual, while some
>forms of
>sociology (includ
The shadowy think-tank Stratfor also made this
>analysis and threw China into the mix. Some of this seems plausible in
>light of the Nato bombing of the Chinese embassy.
Amusing to here you call Stratfor a shadowy think-tank as it really is
neither. Essentially Stratfor.com (as opposed to its m
At 11:43 PM 06/20/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>the price of orthodoxy is political irrelevance, and having the people you
>purport to support regard you, if they think of you at all, as deluded
>fanatics.
is it political irrelevance the price of theoretical orthodoxy, or is it
the price of dogmatic
forwarded by Michael Hoover
> --- Robert Rabin - Nilda Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques
> >
> > Box 1424Vieques, Puerto Rico 00765
> >
> > Telefax (787) 741-0716 cel 375-0525
> >
> > Vieques Update
> >
> > 19 June, 2000
> >
>
note that below report includes couple instances of 'parentheses'
editorializing that may folks may/may not agree... Michael Hoover
> (en) US, Boston: Albright speech disrupted at Northeastern U graduation
>
> >From "Matthew Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:19:57 -0400
Michael Hoover wrote:
>hahaha, teeheehee, yuckyuckyuck...tomato, tomawto, potato, potawto,
>just call the whole thing off Michael Hoover
Let's not be too rash. My understanding is that the North Korean dictator
is a playboy with mood swings who likes to drink Scotch out of the bottle
while
Hi Steve:
>Thanks Yoshie. Yeah, i see where it mentions Graham's bragging, but it
>isn't the author stating that, it's the victim of his rape stating that he
>had bragged about it to her. The article seemed to give pretty fair play
>to the supporters of a new trial.
Yes, fairer than Wojtek, Kell
hahaha, teeheehee, yuckyuckyuck...tomato, tomawto, potato, potawto,
just call the whole thing off Michael Hoover
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2619/pl/usa_rogues_dc_1.html
>
> 19 June 2000
>
> State Department Drops 'Rogue State' Tag
>
> By Jonathan Wright
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuter
forwarded by Michael Hoover
> --- Robert Rabin - Nilda Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Subject: Vieques bombardeo Vieques bombing
> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 0
> >
> > Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques
> > PO Box 1424Vieques, Puerto Rico 00765
> > Tel.fax 787
> Isn't altruism a dialectical twin of individualism? The concept of
> "altruism" emerged in the English language in the mid-19th century,
> according to the OED.
> Yoshie
Hegel (a liberal conservative) rejected social contract theory of state
as means of protecting citizens from one another
forwarded by Michael Hoover
> >Common Courage Political Literacy Course -
> http://www.commoncouragepress.com
> >+-+
> > C O M M O N C O U R A G E P R E S S'
> >Political Literacy Email Course
> >A backbone of facts
G'day Sam,
I've a (confused) quibble with this bit:
>One of the problems of trying to bring aspects of rat choice theory into
>Marxism is that the meth individualism and the more wholistic approach
>of most Marxists cannot both be true simultaneosly. For example, in MI
>social outcomes are expla
Thanks Yoshie. Yeah, i see where it mentions Graham's bragging, but it
isn't the author stating that, it's the victim of his rape stating that he
had bragged about it to her. The article seemed to give pretty fair play
to the supporters of a new trial.
The momentum around the death penalty issue
At the risk of sounding somewhat Hegelian. The problem can be looked at like
this. Both the individual and the group exist with equal ontological status.
Methodological individual gives priority to the individual, while some forms of
sociology (including some varieties of of Marxism) give priority
Strict neo-classical models can not handle "concern for others". If it is
included, (i.e., if utility functions are not independent) then there is no
unique equilibrium position. Not enough independent equations for the number of
variables.
Rod
Sam Pawlett wrote:
>
>
> Altruism can be, and pres
>Can someone please comment on whether or not the following is >correct?
>The meaning of the expression "political economy", as it is used
>today, is not identical with the meaning of the expression "political
>economy", as it was used by Marx and his contemporaries.
Gert, _political economy_ i
Stephen Philion writes:
>I just went to the CNN cite and I didn't see anything that mentioned his
>bragging about the murder. In fact the article was pretty sympathetic with
>the argument that had this guy had an even half way alive lawyer he would
>have been acquitted, forget a good lawyer. What
89 matches
Mail list logo
