Some of the criticisms seem well-informed and at least partly valid, but
I have to admit that I think there are bigger enemies out there than
Vandana Shiva, and a lot of what she has written seems to have merit to
me.
Vikash, Ulhas, and others--would Wangari Mathai be subject to similar
criticism
> The only way to make India less poor is to industrialize somehow.
On that we agree. Insofar as Shiva fans are indicating that there might
be radically different patterns of industrialization that might be better
than the dominant one, especially when it comes to farming, for the
welfare of th
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
> So women should stay at home and mash lentils rather than having this
> process industrialized? How many lentils does Shiva mash, in between her
> visits to Japan and San Francisco? Or is there one rule for educated
> professional women, and another for
Title: RE: Vandana Shiva
Doug: > So you agree [with V. Shiva] that women rather than machines should grind flour?<
isn't this a false dichotomy (perhaps coming from Shiva)? Isn't there a spectrum of different techniques for grinding flour, with some more "capital inten
Most of what she says in the piece Lou posted is correct, except Cargen is
really Cargill. She does have a tendency to romanticize and exaggerate, but
this piece seems pretty good.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-532
Vandana Shiva wrote:
>These advanced technologies are not about feeding a hungry world.
>They are about seeking control over the natural world, over people,
>and taking away the productive capacity of women. The McKinsey
>Corporation, a large international consultant firm, recently
>produced
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Grinding flour is a synecdoche for a society characterized by a large
> pesantry producing very low-tech goods in households and small
> villages. That style of production is inconsitent with being nonpoor.
Calling it a synecdoche assumes what is to be
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
> How can you have electricity or hospitals (presumably with drugs and
> equipment) without large-scale production, and how can you improve
> the productivity of small-scale agriculture without the kinds of
> inputs made in factories?
You can't. But you
At 2:16 PM -0400 7/27/02, Michael Pollak wrote:
>But you can have an extensively settled countryside and big
>cities in the same country.
>
>You don't need to
>depopulate the countryside in order to produce the goods it needs.
Where do urban and suburban wage workers come from, then, if not from
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> > But you can have an extensively settled countryside and big cities in
> > the same country. You don't need to depopulate the countryside
> > in order to produce the goods it needs.
> Where do urban and suburban wage workers come from, then, if n
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Michael Perelman wrote:
> Regarding the other Michael P.'s idea about the gradual release of
> people from agriculture, in researching classical political economy in
> my book, The Invention of Capitalism, I found that the old classical
> political economists were very much
I am a little disappointed by the whole debate over the Article
posted by Louis of Shiva's speech. First of all, like Michael, I
thought most of it made a lot of sense. Anyone who has followed
the experience of the 'green revolution' (sic) knows about the
problems that it has produced and the
At 11:43 PM -0500 7/28/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyone who has followed
>the experience of the 'green revolution' (sic) knows about the
>problems that it has produced and the fact that it has exacerbated
>class problems by displacing the poor farmers and giving control to
>the rich. The deve
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
> > I don't see at all how an alternate development of the countryside
> > contradicts advanced industrial production. This seems like a false
> > dichotomy.
>
> Michael, I am not sure this is true of industrial crops such as cotton,
> oilseeds, sugar
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
> > France preserved its peasant economy along with industrial advancement
> > in the 19th century. Marx said in the 18th Brumaire those peasants
> > were at a cul-de-sac of history. But they were still around a century
> > later. And then they won
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
> You could be right about cotton production in Mali. My point is not about
> cotton production for exports. My point was about textile industry
I don't think that changes the basic equation, Ulhas. The question still
is, how best to produce cotton o
Michael Pollak wrote:
>Again, the village mill model could work for that too. And it is true
>when you grind things fresh they taste a lot better. It's certainly true
>for coffee and spices.
Grinding flour is a synecdoche for a society characterized by a large
pesantry producing very low-tech
Michael Pollak wrote:
>Hey, Shiva sets off my bullshit detectors too, but this is an unfair hit.
>Mashing lentils isn't industrialized in Manhattan either. It's something
>that happens after cooking, like mashing potatoes. And it's not hard.
Ok then, grind flour.
>One could reconcile Shiva's
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
>Some of the criticisms seem well-informed and at least partly valid, but
>I have to admit that I think there are bigger enemies out there than
>Vandana Shiva, and a lot of what she has written seems to have merit to
>me.
Of course there are bigger enemies out there. But
Title: RE: Vandana Shiva
Isn't this kinda related to a question I think
should be put to US citizens, ie, who decided that it was a good idea to get rid
of all those industrial jobs for better higher-value jobs. Isn't that the
argment and rational behind GATT, WTO and the w
Devine, James wrote:
>Doug: > So you agree [with V. Shiva] that women rather than machines
>should grind flour?<
>
>isn't this a false dichotomy (perhaps coming from Shiva)? Isn't
>there a spectrum of different techniques for grinding flour, with
>some more "capital intensive" than others, so-
Doug Henwood wrote:
> I swear, sometimes she reads like Marie Antoinette in a sari.
Doug could see my pen-l post number 26813 "Why India needs transgenic
crops".
Ulhas
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> So women should stay at home and mash lentils rather than having this
> process industrialized? How many lentils does Shiva mash, in between her
> visits to Japan and San Francisco? Or is there one rule for educated
> professional women, and another for uneducated peasan
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Most of what she says in the piece Lou posted is correct, except Cargen is
>really Cargill. She does have a tendency to romanticize and exaggerate, but
>this piece seems pretty good.
So you agree that women rather than machines should grind flour?
Doug
>So women should stay at home and mash lentils rather than having this
>process industrialized? How many lentils does Shiva mash, in between her
>visits to Japan and San Francisco? Or is there one rule for educated
>professional women, and another for uneducated peasant women?
Socialists are
Michael Pollak wrote:
>>The only way to make India less poor is to industrialize somehow.
>
> Insofar as they think
> industrialization in any form is by definition bad for poor people, they
> are so stupid they're evil.
>
iran, iraq, libya and now vandana shiva and those who might have a
diffe
Michael Pollak wrote:
>Calling it a synecdoche assumes what is to be proven: that it is
>impossible to make small scale farming more productive if capital, science
>and technology were devoted to that end.
>
>There are a million things that need to be built in the countryside:
>homes, road, elect
Regarding the other Michael P.'s idea about the gradual release of people
from agriculture, in researching classical political economy in my book,
The Invention of Capitalism, I found that the old classical political
economists were very much concerned that the dispossession of the people
in the c
Yes, they were for dispossession, but Steuart especially wanted to pace
the process.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 05:55:27PM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > Regarding the other Michael P.'s idea about the gradual release of
> > people from agricult
Michael Pollak:
>>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > How can you have electricity or hospitals (presumably with drugs and
> > equipment) without large-scale production, and how can you improve
> > the productivity of small-scale agriculture without the kinds of
> > inputs made in factories?
>
> You can't.
Thanks, Paul. Your point is first class. Technology is not an abstact
subject. We need to look at it in context.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Why not fight holders of class power and patriarchal power instead?
Because Western NGOs and foundations wouldn't like you so much, and
fly you around the world to preach the virtues of rootedness.
Doug
Michael Pollak :
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, but there is a viewpoint which attributes the relative backwardness
> > of French industry to the presence of French peasant economy.
>
> I'm not sure I follow. By 1970 France had certainly reached the point
> every de
Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> Maybe not. It's perfectly possible that some crops are better
> industrialized and some not. Or it's possible that all are better
> industrialized. I'd just like to see some reliable figures and causal
> explanations of why this is so.
>
> But just to take your first e
Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>
>
> The second is whether GM crops should be admitted to the fields of India.
> And specifically in this case, whether Bt cotton use should be expanded.
> The argument for as I understand it is that it's cheaper because you can
> spend less on pesticides. The ar
At 05:12 PM 07/26/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Grinding flour is a synecdoche for a society characterized by a large
>pesantry producing very low-tech goods in households and small villages.
>That style of production is inconsitent with being nonpoor. If people want
>to stay poor, that's their decis
-
From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:28543] Re: Re: Vandana Shiva
>
> >So women should stay at home and mash lentils rather than having this
> >process industrialized? How many lentils does Sh
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>Doug could see my pen-l post number 26813 "Why India needs transgenic
>crops".
Thanks. I missed that first time around. Do you agree?
Doug
Louis Proyect wrote:
>Socialists are not in favor of industrialized farming. Karl Marx wrote:
and
>No, she reads rather like the average Frankfurt-influenced leftist
>who blames the world's problems on Descartes, industrialization, etc.
I thought the problem was capitalist farming, not "indus
ravi wrote:
>so what is wrong with sitting at home and mashing lentils? isn't the
>point that the choice be available? as for shiva's point: it's
>unimportant whether its men who are doing it or women (she says
>women because they are doing it today). the point she makes is that
>it is preferable
I did not pick up on that. I was looking at what she said about
agriculture rather than processing.
It would be hard for me to make the time today to defend what might seem
undefensible, but I would say that my understanding is that people used to
make a celebration of certain harvest activities
Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>
> Socialists are not in favor of industrialized farming. Karl Marx wrote:
>
>
I doubt that socialists as socialists either support or oppose, in
principle, "industrialized farming." It depends on ..[all sorts of
things]
Carrol
Doug Henwood wrote:
> I completely agree with that. But to do all these things, you need
> more industry, and more industry means transforming the division of
> labor and socializing production now done in the household. You can
> do the good things that Kerala did, but Kerala is still poor. The
Perhaps she (Shiva) simply has wrong ideas. And if the ideas are wrong,
it is best, I should think, to simply critique the ideas rather than
speculate on her conscious or unconscious motives.
I think it in general a bad idea (allowing for bursts of temper & other
personal idiosyncracies) to chara
A few more days have given us a chance to think about some of the
other aspects of the brief Vandana Shiva discussion that bothered
us. We must agree with Jacqueline Romanow that Shiva's ideas tended
to be dismissed with alarming haste and vehemence.
What is apparently not fully grasped by m
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, S. Charusheela and Colin Danby wrote:
> If we may
> respectfully take issue with Peter Burns' thoughtful essay, the
> expansion of the urban informal sector in much of the third world is
> not caused by the magnetic draw of urban culture, but by events which
> have den
We wrote not so much to advocate all of Vandana Shiva's ideas as to protest
the edge of sneering disrespect that sometimes emerges when someone like
Shiva is discussed. There is an unfortunate tendency among some to try and
silence through ridicule and caricature.
Peter Burns grasps the poin
On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Colin Danby wrote:
> > Henwood's reply ("Vandana Shiva Again"), which simply repeated his prior
> assertions at a heightened level of rudeness, is a good example of the kind
> of arrogant insularity that our last post took exception to.
I don't see Henwood's questioning of
At 10:44 AM 1/17/96, John William Hull wrote:
>Unlike Henwood, however, I'm not so sure how seriously to take
>all the Shiva-esque hoopla. I'm not at all convinced that many
>of her sort of ideas of anti-scientific rural romanticism have much
>influence in practical political circles. I see it
On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote:
> I find them to be influential, in pure or diluted form, in anti-development
> NGO circles and among funders. Though deep ecology and ecofeminism are
> reported to be at odds - DE being seen as macho (living proof: Dave
> Foreman) - Shiva has been embrace
At 5:53 PM 1/17/96, John William Hull wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> I find them to be influential, in pure or diluted form, in anti-development
>> NGO circles and among funders. Though deep ecology and ecofeminism are
>> reported to be at odds - DE being seen as macho (liv
> I once had to read a book by Vandana Shiva, _Staying
> Alive: Women, Ecology and Development_. It is the
> worst book-length piece of writing I have ever had to
> read. I'm afraid that this kind of rubbish gives both
> feminism and environmentalism a bad name.
>
> Peter Burns SJ
> [EMAIL PROT
The best critical review I know of Shiva's work is Meera Nanda, "Is Modern
Science a Western, Patriarchal Myth: A Critique of the Populist Orthodoxy",
South Asia Bulletin, vol. XI, nos. 1 and 2, 1991:32-61. It has been years
since I read this review or Shiva's *Staying Alive* and *The Violence of
I haven't read anyone of her books, but I at least think
a lot of what she says below makes sense.
Trond Andresen
- Begin Included Message -
16. September 1995 - from New Scientist
THE SEEDS OF AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE
Andy Coghlan talks to an Indian who is fighting the
I have read both books cited by fellow PEN-L subscribers and have
attended a lecture given by Ms. Shiva as well. Correspondingly, I feel I
must respond to the wholesale dismissal of her work.
Ms. Shiva is not so nieve to assume a broad "all that is rural is good"
thesis. Instead she picks
At 9:30 AM 1/5/96, Jacqueline Romanow wrote:
>Instead she picks up the key threads of rural-based sustainable
>production and heralds them as central to an egalitarian and sustainable
>economy.
Is this a fair representation of actually existing or recently existing
rural production? What social
Jacqueline said:
>
[deletions]
>
>She is highly critical of the notion that all that is termed "progress"
>is good simply because it is "progress". Industrialism has done
>irreparable damage to our environment, and because it was instilled by
>the hands of men it was done so in such a way a
Doug wrote:
>I thought the problem was capitalist farming, not "industrial" farming.
I think this is something that needs to be thought through carefully.
There is a long debate between those who take the position that
technology itself is for the most part "neutral" with the problem being
only
>As I read this it just says that small private ownership or large scale
>private ownership of land both are barriers to development of agriculture
>i.e. insofar as they are capitalist forms of agriculture.. His point is that
>arguing for industrial versus small scale agriculture is pointless. Yo
Doug Henwood :
> Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>
> >Doug could see my pen-l post number 26813 "Why India needs transgenic
> >crops".
>
> Thanks. I missed that first time around. Do you agree?
Yes, I do !
Ulhas
>I thought the problem was capitalist farming, not "industrial" farming.
>
>Doug
No, I meant exactly what I said. It is a function of what John Bellamy
Foster calls the "metabolic rift". It doesn't matter particularly where you
put a factory. The same thing is not true about farms. Right now
Doug Henwood :
> I notice that Shiva's biggest fans are in the West, among people who
> shop at (organic) supermarkets.
I also notice that some Western Marxist sermons are usually meant for
Indians (or Indonesians and Egyptians). The official "Marxist-Leninists"
states can get away with anything.
>I doubt that socialists as socialists either support or oppose, in
>principle, "industrialized farming." It depends on ..[all sorts of
>things]
>
>Carrol
Carrol, industrialized farming historically has meant one thing and one
thing only: the introduction of chemical fertilizers, monocultur
At 04:38 PM 7/26/2002 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>I completely agree with that. But to do all these things, you need more
>industry, and more industry means transforming the division of labor and
>socializing production now done in the household. You can do the good
>things that Kerala did, but
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Perhaps she (Shiva) simply has wrong ideas. And if the ideas are wrong,
>it is best, I should think, to simply critique the ideas rather than
>speculate on her conscious or unconscious motives.
>
>I think it in general a bad idea (allowing for bursts of temper & other
>personal
Doug Henwood wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>
>> so what is wrong with sitting at home and mashing lentils? isn't the
>> point that the choice be available? as for shiva's point: it's
>> unimportant whether its men who are doing it or women (she says
>> women because they are doing it today). the point she
day, July 26, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:28596] Re: Re: Re: Re: Vandana Shiva
>
> >As I read this it just says that small private ownership or large scale
> >private ownership of land both are barriers to development of agriculture
> >i.e. insofar as they are capitalist fo
TED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:14 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:28575] Re: Re: Re: Re: Vandana Shiva
>
> >I thought the problem was capitalist farming, not "industrial" farming.
> >
> >Doug
>
>
> No, I meant exactly what I said.
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>
>
> some Western Marxist sermons
"Some X is Y" is almost always a true statement, and for that reason is,
usually, either utterly trivial or unprincipled or both. From the fact
that some X is Y nothing whatever of interest about X follows.
Carrol
>I also notice that some Western Marxist sermons are usually meant for
>Indians (or Indonesians and Egyptians). The official "Marxist-Leninists"
>states can get away with anything.
>
>Ulhas
Marxism has no country. It is the world outlook of the international
working class.
pigs to where the feed is than vice versa.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:14 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:28575] Re: Re: Re: Re: Vandana Shiva
>
> >I thought the problem w
ubject: [PEN-L:28702] Re: Kerala (was Re: Vandana Shiva)
> At 04:38 PM 7/26/2002 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >I completely agree with that. But to do all these things, you need more
> >industry, and more industry means transforming the division of labor and
> >socializing prod
Ben Day wrote:
> Well, Kerala was also the only Indian state, to a great extent, to
> successfully implement land reform.
Land reforms have taken place in West Bengal (Pop. 75 million), where the
CPs are in power for last 25 years without a break. Land reforms have taken
in other parts of
India,
ken hanly wrote:
>Metabolic Rift. Is that Gaia with Gas from too much hog manure? No doubt
>the stink will drift over to some obscure
>journal such as Capitalism Socialism, Nature.
>
>
No, it is Karl Marx's concept. Let me try this one more time:
V. 3 of Capital, "The Transformation of Surplu
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:28582] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vandana Shiva
>
> >I also notice that some Western Marxist sermons are usually meant
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>What was the population of say, Germany, when Germany began to develop
>industrially in later half 19 the Century? Compare that with the population
>of China, India and Indonesia at the corresponding stage economic
>development. Elimination of poverty of 2.5 billion people
-
>From: Ben Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:18 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:28702] Re: Kerala (was Re: Vandana Shiva)
Thanks for the reply, Ulhas - I'm interested in drawing out the
implications of the figures you give us here:
At 11:13 PM 7/28/2002 +0530, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>Land reforms have taken place in West Bengal (Pop. 75 million), where the
>CPs are in power for last 25 years without a break. Land r
And don't forget Paul Burkett's fine book.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 06:36:01PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> Furthermore, you won't find anything about this in James O'Connor's
> journal. He has his own interpretation of the environmental crisis that
> has many useful insights but is not real
Ian Murray :
> > Marxism has no country. It is the world outlook of the international
> > working class.
> >
> ===
>
> It is?
Marxism has no country, except Cuba ! :-)
Ulhas
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>In 1998, Vandana Shiva defended the BJP's rise to power as a triumph
>of a populist, pluralistic, and non-discriminatory "swadeshi"
>coalition. She may have changed her mind about the BJP by now, but
>her poor political judgment is of a piece with her ill conceived
>
81 matches
Mail list logo
