At 01:20 PM 5/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I want to thank Jim Devine for his exception[al] post. I might add one minor
>point: by freeing capital to move to the places with the lowest standards for
>the environment or for labor, it removes the incentives to improve technology
>by making it more labo
I want to thank Jim Devine for his exception post. I might add one minor
point: by freeing capital to move to the places with the lowest standards for
the environment or for labor, it removes the incentives to improve technology
by making it more labor saving or environmentally friendly.
--
Micha
>But when you support quotas against imports of textiles from Africa, that
>is exactly the choice that you are making...
but if the "free market" (and its supporters) insists that the costs of
increased import competition be borne by the least-skilled (and least-paid)
of manufacturing workers
Brad, you are correct in a restricted sense. However, I am fully convinced that
integration into the global economy will make it more difficult to for Africa to
make independent decisions in the long run.
Brad De Long wrote:
> >Also, I'm not defending a romantisized version of the traditional
>
>The actual sweatshop employees will have to build their own
>struggles from within their own conditions -- and what we
>think about sweatshops is irrelevant. So to some extent this
>whole debate, on both sides, as been academic trivializing.
>
>Carrol
Oh not at all. It is very real. Whether or n
>Also, I'm not defending a romantisized version of the traditional
>farm. I would
>like to see progress, but I do not believe that the sweat shop is
>the appropriate
>agency for development. As long as the choice is between the traditional farm
>and the sweat shop, the case for the sweat shop
>>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/09/00 12:33PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: It is the classically Marxist view of capitalism as far as you
>take it. But the classically Marxist view of capitalism goes beyond
>seeing the life of a proletarian as an improvement over the life of
>a peas
I did read the section on virtual materialism -- is that to which you refer?
Gene Coyle
Louis Proyect wrote:
> At 10:39 AM 5/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Why would we make clothes if we are going to walk around naked?
>
> Pish-posh. Clearly you haven't read Stalin's lectures on dialectical
> mater
Doug, I did not accuse you of limiting the choice to the sweatshop or the peasant
farm.
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Well, gee, of course not. Did I ever say those were the only two
> choices? Or that sweatshops are pleasant, soul-enriching places to
> work? My point was that lots of workers may not
Doug Henwood wrote:
> My point was that lots of workers may not see maquiladoras as
> the unmitigated hell we think of them as. That matters a lot for
> union and political organizing, doesn't it?
I tend to agree -- except. Looking at it from the perspective of
Jim O'Connor's recent posts on
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Again, let me return to the Lowell analogy. Wages might be enough to give a
>young, single woman a better standard of living then she could have
>on the farm,
>but not enough to support many children. A good number of the horror stories
>concern women with children.
>
At 10:39 AM 5/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Why would we make clothes if we are going to walk around naked?
Pish-posh. Clearly you haven't read Stalin's lectures on dialectical
materialism, especially the third which deals with the negation of a negation.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://ww
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Sweatshops, like traditional peasant agriculture (and the vast majority of
> pre-capitalist modes of production), are very patriarchal. And
> paternalistic. The freedom of the women at Lowell was highly restricted.
> They were not that different from indentured servants, th
Michael P. writes:
>Again, let me return to the Lowell analogy. Wages might be enough to give
>a young, single woman a better standard of living then she could have on
>the farm, but not enough to support many children. A good number of the
>horror stories concern women with children.
Sweats
Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: It is the classically Marxist view of capitalism as far as you
>take it. But the classically Marxist view of capitalism goes beyond
>seeing the life of a proletarian as an improvement over the life of
>a peasant , in general, to the position that capitalism must be
At 12:11 PM 5/9/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hmm, in journalism we call those interviews. But on scholarly
> >matters, of course I defer to you.
> >
> >Doug
>
>Why, thank you. And when it comes to journalism, I defer to you.
after you, my dear Alphonse.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberala
>Hmm, in journalism we call those interviews. But on scholarly
>matters, of course I defer to you.
>
>Doug
Why, thank you. And when it comes to journalism, I defer to you.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Louis Proyect wrote:
>Naw, that ain't the problem. It's just that you rely on anecdotal testimony
>when something like Mine Doyran's analysis is required.
Hmm, in journalism we call those interviews. But on scholarly
matters, of course I defer to you.
Doug
18 matches
Mail list logo
