Michael Perelman said on 10/27/00 6:21 PM
>We have a job announcement coming out in a few weeks also. Just like
>Portland State, we are demanding -- unrealistically perhaps -- that the new
>applicants have the ability to raise money through grants. It's all part of
>the new emphasis on making t
Regarding Martin's question about the nature of University employment.
John Stuart Mill: "The proper function of an University (is) not ... to
teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining
their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilled lawyers, or
physicians, or
We have a job announcement coming out in a few weeks also. Just like
Portland State, we are demanding -- unrealistically perhaps -- that the new
applicants have the ability to raise money through grants. It's all part of
the new emphasis on making the universities run like businesses. Martin, I
Michael Perelman said on 10/27/00 4:27 PM
>Assistant professor opening for candidate with teaching fields that
>include international economics (trade and finance), economic
>development, and macroeconomics. Capacity for generating a promising
>publication record in international economics or eco
The term "proletariat" derived from a Latin word coined for the
statistical purposes of the Roman census to describe a category of
Roman citizens "who had nothing but their children to enter in their
returns as their contribution to the common weal," according to
Arnold J. Toynbee.
It's a tho
>>Yoshie:
>>Lou says there are merely a few sentences on slavery in Wood's book
>>on the origins of capitalism. There usually is _zero_ sentence on
>>gender in a serious Marxist scholar's serious discussion (clip)
>>
>>LP: This is a bogus argument.
>
>Why so? While I don't agree with Maria Mie
>Yoshie:
>Lou says there are merely a few sentences on slavery in Wood's book
>on the origins of capitalism. There usually is _zero_ sentence on
>gender in a serious Marxist scholar's serious discussion (clip)
>
>LP: This is a bogus argument.
Why so? While I don't agree with Maria Mies (who c
Writes Paul:
> Rob raises an interesting question. If, due to subcontracting
> labour, wage labour becomes a minority of workers in developed
> "capitalist" countries, does that mean they are no longer capitalist?
Absolutely.
Not to mention lots of subcontracting and putting-out in the 3W.
No
Yoshie:
Lou says there are merely a few sentences on slavery in Wood's book on the origins of
capitalism. There usually is _zero_ sentence on gender in a serious Marxist scholar's
serious discussion (clip)
LP: This is a bogus argument. We are not dealing with neglect or inattention. We are
de
PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY, Portland, OR
F0 International Economics
O1 Economic Development
E0 Macroeconomics
Assistant professor opening for candidate with teaching fields that
include international economics (trade and finance), economic
development, and macroeconomics. Capacity for generating
Don't you think that if Al Gore had much of a chance to win that
Lieberman would drop out of the race for his Senate seat?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
>Listen Mr. Grouchy, it is not a matter of Ellen Meiksins Wood
>meeting a content
>quota. She wrote a book called "The Origin of Capitalism", it is published by
>Monthly Review, it enters into a debate that has a long history in Marxist
>thought, and raises issues that a
From Charles to Jim D.:
> >Accumulation necessarily entails creation of slave-labor, in the
>>metaphorical sense, as you put it. Non-wage or "slave" labor is a
>>necessary condition or feature of capitalism.
>
>I don't accept the "metaphorical sense" of slavery (as in "wage-labor =
>wage slave
I got a wicked poke in the eye. Even though I saw the finger coming, I
could not shut it in time. As a result, I'm unable to read all the
notes coming across from the pen-l.
I still reading for stuff about what Ellen Wood might say. She is
irrelevant to the list. Please stop it.
Feel free to
Charles wrote:
>Marx specifically talks about capital, not "the capitalist system". He
>says nothing that would contradict the fact that capital or
>wage-labor/capital is combined in a system with slave bondage. The
>capitalists need only some doubly free ; and some free of means of
>productio
{was: Re: [PEN-L:3645] Re: Re: incomplete abstraction vs. empiricism}
>Charles wrote:
> > As far as what Rob said, if there was wage-labor without accumulation,
> > it would not be capitalism.
I answered:
>During the 1930s in the US, there was little or no accumulation for a few
>years (for th
Listen Mr. Grouchy, it is not a matter of Ellen Meiksins Wood meeting a content
quota. She wrote a book called "The Origin of Capitalism", it is published by
Monthly Review, it enters into a debate that has a long history in Marxist
thought, and raises issues that are at the very heart of Marxist
The 'logic of capital accumulation' does not mean that profits or investment are
always positive. Crises are still part of the 'logic of capital accumulation.'
Jim:
During the 1930s in the US, there was little or no accumulation for a few
years (for the economy as a whole). Does that mean that
Ricardo:
>Yoshie, let's you leave at that; I just don't see anything in what you
>cited from Brenner which goes against what I said Wood says. If
>you think Brenner has to be combined with Wallerstein, that's fine
>too. But I can assure you that Wood in particular would never
>combine them (neith
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 02:11PM >>>
>I really don't understand the point of all this. Is Ellen Wood an
>insufficient enemy of capitalism because her book doesn't meet some
>sort of content quota? How does all this really matter? Maybe it
>does; I'm all ears.
>
>Doug
Another thing that
> then
> what do we call all those people in the earlier centuries in the italian
> city states who hired people for wages, built forts, farms and ships, grew
> produce, traded goods and slaves all around the Mediterranean, bought and
> sold for themselves and for the Near East and Western Europ
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 02:51PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: There is also a lot of falsehood in books, probably as much
>falsehood as truth. Many books mislead many people.
Yes. That's why it's best to keep certain titles locked up,
accessible only to those who have passed rigorous
>From Jim D. to Paul:
>Paul writes:
>>Rob raises an interesting question. If, due to subcontracting
>>labour, wage labour becomes a minority of workers in developed
>>"capitalist" countries, does that mean they are no longer
>>capitalist? (Which is the implication of accepting Jim's position
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 02:20PM >>>
Charles wrote:
> As far as what Rob said, if there was wage-labor without accumulation,
> it would not be capitalism.
During the 1930s in the US, there was little or no accumulation for a few
years (for the economy as a whole). Does that mean that t
Yoshie, let's you leave at that; I just don't see anything in what you
cited from Brenner which goes against what I said Wood says. If
you think Brenner has to be combined with Wallerstein, that's fine
too. But I can assure you that Wood in particular would never
combine them (neither would Co
>I really don't understand the point of all this. Is Ellen Wood an
>insufficient enemy of capitalism because her book doesn't meet some
>sort of content quota? How does all this really matter? Maybe it
>does; I'm all ears.
>
>Doug
Another thing that bothers me is that _neither Wood, nor Brenne
Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: There is also a lot of falsehood in books, probably as much
>falsehood as truth. Many books mislead many people.
Yes. That's why it's best to keep certain titles locked up,
accessible only to those who have passed rigorous tests of
ideological soundness, kind of like
[was: Re: [PEN-L:3625] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Capitalism as slavery and
colonialism ]
Mikalac Norman wrote:
>someone out there please help me with the official definition of "capitalism"
There is no official definition of capitalism, or if there is an official
definition it would be the one that
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 02:02PM >>>
>CB: There is also a lot of falsehood in books, probably as much falsehood
>as truth. Many books mislead many people.
I find that one can learn from falsehoods. When Al Gore pretended to be
Ronald Reagan in the first debate with George W. [sighing r
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 11:29PM >>>
At 09:27 PM 10/26/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Economists have termed this dilemma a 'high-level equilibrium trap'. The
>inputs and outputs of the early modern agrarian system had reached a
>balance that could be broken only be heavy capital investment and
Charles wrote:
> As far as what Rob said, if there was wage-labor without accumulation,
> it would not be capitalism.
During the 1930s in the US, there was little or no accumulation for a few
years (for the economy as a whole). Does that mean that there was no
capitalism? Accumulation is one
Net migration (c. 1820)
African European
British W. Indies 1,600,000 210,000
French, 2,235,000 254,000
Danish,
Dutch
W. Indies
Brazil 2,942,000 500,000
Spanish America 1,072,000 750,000
(excluding P
>I deny that the Arab slavery and slave trade in the 10th c. was anything like
>the European Atlantic Capitalist Enslavement from the mid-15th c.
>The structural
>relation of the European Capitalist Atlantic Enslavement Industry to
>capitalist
>production, industry, finance, generalized commodit
>CB: There is also a lot of falsehood in books, probably as much falsehood
>as truth. Many books mislead many people.
I find that one can learn from falsehoods. When Al Gore pretended to be
Ronald Reagan in the first debate with George W. [sighing rather than
saying "there you go again"], tha
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 12:15PM >>>
Charles,
How else can I say it: the issue is Wood's book *The Origin of
Capitalism*, and her interpretation of Brenner (which she has
made it her own as well). I repeat, the issue is Wood. If you or
anybody here think my reading of this little boo
Ricardo writes:
>she simply ignored my question (except for a few more &'s)
>when I asked her how she came came to the view that Brenner
>was writing about Africa and colonialism in the passages she
>cited from him.
That's because I had already posted the passage shortly before I
wrote the
I was hoping that we could put the personal aspect of this debate away. I agree with
Doug. Brenner and Wood are irrelevant as personalities. There is good reason to
think about the way early capitalism was formed. People have been debating this for
more than a century without coming to any
Anyone familiar with Wood's writings will know how much she has
hammered this distinction between extra-economic and economic
forms of surplus extraction, a distinction which is however common
knowledge to every Marxist. What is not so common (what is in
fact missed in most interpretations of
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 12:06PM >>>
I wrote:
>To conclude that because the Enslavement played a big role in promoting
>the development of capitalism (something no-one on pen-l denies, BTW) it
>therefore was "necessary" is to assume that what's real is rational, that
>what existed _had
I really don't understand the point of all this. Is Ellen Wood an
insufficient enemy of capitalism because her book doesn't meet some
sort of content quota? How does all this really matter? Maybe it
does; I'm all ears.
Doug
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 11:55AM >>>
Charles writes:
>CB: What is lesser known is the the truth cannot be found in a million
>different books either - unless one selects the right ones.
I've found that I can learn from almost any book, even the campaign
autobiography of George W. Bush.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 11:58AM >>>
Charles wrote:
>... check this out. Marx uses the actual word "slavery" in one of his most
>succinct, (and actually most famous, when you see the concluding words)
>statements of this "necessity" within his theory.
>
>When Marx says, toward the end of
This is not what Brenner and Woods were talking about. Capitalism existed
in the English countryside in the 15th century, not some kind of preview of
coming attractions. If you can find anything in Marx that remotely
resembles the analysis in Woods' book, I'll eat a dead dog's *.
---
[was: Re: [PEN-L:3617] Re: Re: incomplete abstraction vs. empiricism]
>Rob Schaap wrote:
> > Could even be that's the direction in which we're going ... I know quite a
> > few people whose lives as employees are behind them. Now they're
> > 'subcontractors' or 'small-business people'. Good news
At 09:48 AM 10/27/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I deny that the Arab slavery and slave trade in the 10th c. was anything
>like the European Atlantic Capitalist Enslavement from the mid-15th c. The
>structural relation of the European Capitalist Atlantic Enslavement
>Industry to capitalist production, i
Charles,
How else can I say it: the issue is Wood's book *The Origin of
Capitalism*, and her interpretation of Brenner (which she has
made it her own as well). I repeat, the issue is Wood. If you or
anybody here think my reading of this little book is wrong, then
show it. All this talk abou
Charles writes:
>CB: What is lesser known is the the truth cannot be found in a million
>different books either - unless one selects the right ones.
I've found that I can learn from almost any book, even the campaign
autobiography of George W. Bush. It may give me more insights in
psychopathol
At 07:37 AM 10/27/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Jim Devine:
> >it's important to realize that for Marx, agrarian capitalism can be
> >"industrial capitalism."
>
>This is not what Brenner and Woods were talking about. Capitalism existed
>in the English countryside in the 15th century, not some kind of prev
I wrote:
>To conclude that because the Enslavement played a big role in promoting
>the development of capitalism (something no-one on pen-l denies, BTW) it
>therefore was "necessary" is to assume that what's real is rational, that
>what existed _had to be_ functional for capitalism, and that th
Charles wrote:
>... check this out. Marx uses the actual word "slavery" in one of his most
>succinct, (and actually most famous, when you see the concluding words)
>statements of this "necessity" within his theory.
>
>When Marx says, toward the end of the following passage
>
>"Along with the con
On 28 Oct 00, at 1:42, Rob Schaap wrote:
> Could even be that's the direction in which we're going ... I know quite a
> few people whose lives as employees are behind them. Now they're
> 'subcontractors' or 'small-business people'. Good news for a couple of 'em
> - but just like being an emplo
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2000
RELEASED TODAY: The Employment Cost Index (not seasonally adjusted) for
September 2000 was 149.5 (June 1989=100), an increase of 4.3 percent from
September 1999. The Employment Cost Index (ECI) measures changes in
compensation costs, which include wa
There are two issues here. First, were Brenner and Wood wrong. That
thread is over. I don't think many people care about it. Whether they
were right or wrong is inconsequential.
Second, there must be a stop to all personal digs in this discussion.
Third, try to follow Yoshie's lead in attempti
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 12:39AM >
The only thing you need to do in order to accept this synthesis is to
regard the _process_ of social property transformation in England &
the simultaneous _transformation_ of the nature of the slave trade &
slavery as _dialectical twins_: the two sides
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 05:34PM >>>
I wrote:
>I didn't say that capitalism didn't play a crucial role at the early
>stages. It's unclear -- without a lot of counter-historical speculation --
>whether or not slavery was "necessary."
Charles writes:
>CB: The same is true of what happened
I deny that the Arab slavery and slave trade in the 10th c. was anything like
the European Atlantic Capitalist Enslavement from the mid-15th c. The structural
relation of the European Capitalist Atlantic Enslavement Industry to capitalist
production, industry, finance, generalized commodity produc
Bullshit.
Tom Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Bowen Island
I'm with Jim, Chas.
Slavery is undeniably part of the capitalist story, and probably had a lot
to do with the geographical dynamics, maybe even the genesis, of the
process. But, at a formal level, I'd have thought you could remove slavery
from capitalism and still have capitalism, whereas you
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 05:37PM >>>
To conclude that because the Enslavement played a big role in promoting the
development of capitalism (something no-one on pen-l denies, BTW) it
therefore was "necessary" is to assume that what's real is rational, that
what existed _had to be_ functio
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 05:05PM >>>
Charles wrote:
>... briefly, the logical argument is that capitalism has always needed
>non-wage labor forms simultaneous with wage-labor forms in order to keep
>the wage-laborers, well, consenting, if that is ok. It needs to divide its
>total body o
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 04:15PM >>>
Ian wrote:
>It really, really helps to read Wood alongside Christopher Hill's "The World
>Turned Upside Down". Problems for the landlords [and the Parish System in
>general] began with the reign of Henry the VIIIth. Nor should we avoid the
>fact the ris
Yoshie wrote:
>Why does Lou take issue with Brenner & Wood?
If I ever do something like write a 120 page book on the origins of
capitalism that has TWO sentences on slavery, I give permission to Yoshie
to tie me down and to Doug to work me over with a bullwhip.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing lis
Yoshie:
>At most, the only thing you can say from Ellen Wood's remarks on the
>English countryside is that, there, the _process_ of the
>expropriation of direct producers -- & _transformation of social
>property relations_ -- _began_ in the late fifteenth century: the
>beginning of the drawn-o
Jim Devine:
>it's important to realize that for Marx, agrarian capitalism can be
>"industrial capitalism."
This is not what Brenner and Woods were talking about. Capitalism existed
in the English countryside in the 15th century, not some kind of preview of
coming attractions. If you can find an
Why does Lou take issue with Brenner & Wood? I think it's because
when Brenner & Wood _theoretically_ emphasize the primacy of class
struggles, class relations, & class formations as the crucial
determinants in the emergence of a new mode of production, Lou thinks
that they are (each in his o
65 matches
Mail list logo
