Given, then, the specifically bourgeois form of the state--and I
admit to being hardly clear as to what these structural limits on
real democracy are, but this is what I would like to
investigate--perhaps we should not be surprised by both (a) the
limits on state stabilization policy and
Hi Rakesh,
Jurriaan, I would like to read it. There is a chapter on the state in
Late Capitalism, if I remember correctly. This would have been
written after that?
Yes. Mandel was influenced considerably by Leo Kofler (1907-1995), who was a
German social philosopher/historian from Cologne.
Hi Rakesh,
Jurriaan, I would like to read it. There is a chapter on the state in
Late Capitalism, if I remember correctly. This would have been
written after that?
Yes. Mandel was influenced considerably by Leo Kofler (1907-1995), who was a
German social philosopher/historian from Cologne.
Hi Rakesh,
You said,
Now that is someone (Adler) who very much interests me.
Well I don't know, in some ways Adler is a bit obscure these days. But
what's interesting is that he asked all the questions that needed to be
asked at the time they needed to be asked, and he didn't go along with that
Interesting that while Noam Chomsky is understood to be (or
understands himself as) an anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist, he seems
to support Robert Pollin's and Robin Hahnel's attempts to specify the
essence of the rational state in terms of which the actual state is
then criticized as corrupted
While Robert Pollin's writings are not explicitly Marxist, he has an
uncanny ability to get a hearing among non-radicals. He is also able to
influence policy in wonderful ways, for example, his work on the living
wage movement.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
I agree with Rakesh's main points, including his characterization of my
work with Anwar (originally started with Anwar's unpublished 1987
manuscript on National Income Accounts and continued with my
dissertation, an article in RRPE and later with our joint book). In my
dissertation, I formulated
Typo: I meant obviously Anwar's unpublished 1978 manuscript on
National Income Accounts..
Ahmet Tonak
e. ahmet tonak wrote:
I agree with Rakesh's main points, including his characterization of my
work with Anwar (originally started with Anwar's unpublished 1987
manuscript on National Income
Ahmet, please don't mind my saying that while these findings are
indeed presented in your co-written book, that book is difficult
reading for the non economist. And it seems to me that your
dissertation with even more explicit discussion of state theory in
light of your very important empirical
oops I meant to write
If this the case ONLY in the US, then we couldn't speak of the
limits of the capitalist state.
Given, then, the specifically bourgeois form of the state--and I
admit to being hardly clear as to what these structural limits on
real democracy are, but this is what I would like to
investigate--perhaps we should not be surprised by both (a) the
limits on state stabilization policy and its
Across his 238 pages Pollin is unambiguous. It was under Clinton he
points out, that the distribution of wealth in the US became more skewed
than it had at any time in the previous forty years. Inside the US under
Clinton the ratio of wages for the average worker to the pay of the average
CEO rose
Gil seems to be saying that Clinton rode the rightward drift that had
come before -- beginning I believe in the Carter years. Clinton was very
smart. He knew what was happening. Instead of putting things right, he
shifted the Dems. even farther to the right. Sam Smith in his Undernews a
week
Gil Skillman wrote:
Clinton, in other words, was a disappointment, and certainly not a
leftist. Duh. But Bush II is an unmitigated, across-the-board disaster,
and I think that those who insist there is no real difference between
Clinton and Bush II are missing a key point.
Actually, the system
Michael writes:
Gil seems to be saying that Clinton rode the rightward drift that had
come before -- beginning I believe in the Carter years. Clinton was very
smart. He knew what was happening. Instead of putting things right, he
shifted the Dems. even farther to the right. Sam Smith in his
I don't know that I think in terms of socialist art. But I know what
you're getting at. Here's a few -- off the top of my head -- there's
nothing systematic about this list except that I read or saw everything
on the list and thought it was great. Not all these are contemporary,
but I figure 20th
Gil, thanks for the well informed post. You raise the level of discussion.
I suspect this assessment is myopic at best, and largely beside the point
when it comes to comparing the Clinton and Bush II regimes. In the US, the
trend toward greater wealth and income inequality began in the 1970s and
Oh darn I get annoyed when others submit corrections to their posts.
And now I'll have done it twice in a day. Shouldn't send things off
immediately. Since the discussion is serious and important, I should
treat these emails as attempts at communication rather than private
notes.
I obviously meant
At 9:02 PM -0800 11/17/03, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Why not just say that state can at best moderate the general
tendency towards greater intra and international inequality in
income and wealth? Bush may not be moderating it while Clinton
would have to some extent. Then ask about the limits of the
I am just reading through this discussion.
This Julio Huato seems to have a grasp of strategy and tactics... But I
don't want to damn him with my praise.
Michael P. (the closet horsetrader) wrote:
Julio is probably right, but think of how horrible
this situation is.
Well... I'd say DON'T
I honestly am not aware enough of Pollin's economic ideas to judge
them, although I am not surprised to discover that he is some kind
of left-Keynsian.
FYI, http://www.umass.edu/peri/robertpwp.html.
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
* Calendars of Events in
At 2:55 AM -0500 11/16/03, Kenneth Campbell wrote:
If you want to see what people, currently, really think about power
and money, take a look at the jury awards given to humans against
corporations. Jury awards are HUGE. Usually shot down at the
non-public appellate level.
Also, the majority of
The question is how to create a political party -- including but not at all
limited to electoral vehicles -- that is truly an effective political
expression of the already left-wing sentiments of American workers.
That is just to say that party already exists, in the sense that the leaders
and
The question is how to create a political party -- including but not at all
limited to electoral vehicles -- that is truly an effective political
expression of the already left-wing sentiments of American workers.
That is just to say that party already exists, in the sense that the leaders
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
I honestly am not aware enough of Pollin's economic ideas to judge
them, although I am not surprised to discover that he is some kind
of left-Keynsian.
FYI, http://www.umass.edu/peri/robertpwp.html.
When Bob was at Labyrinth Books in New York a few weeks ago, someone
But how does one get the ball rolling on the practical level? In the US
the system is set up to stifle any third party. The greens have gained a
little ground, but for the most part nobody pays attention to the small
parties. I think a better solution would be to infiltrate a larger party.
Here in
excellent point.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:55:53AM -0500, Kenneth Campbell wrote:
More faith in people and less preaching to people would help.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
I honestly am not aware enough of Pollin's economic ideas to judge
them, although I am not surprised to discover that he is some kind
of left-Keynsian.
FYI, http://www.umass.edu/peri/robertpwp.html.
When Bob was at Labyrinth Books in New York a few weeks ago, someone
Louis Proyect wrote:
The question is not coming up with truly progressive candidates. In many
ways, Al Sharpton is to the left of Ralph Nader. The real issue is
independence from the ruling class.
Yes, but isn't this independence most efficiently acheived by wresting the existing
I honestly am not aware enough of Pollin's economic ideas to judge
them, although I am not surprised to discover that he is some kind
of left-Keynsian.
What are the tenets of Keynsian economics?
Benjamin
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
When Bob was at Labyrinth Books in New York a few weeks ago, someone
pressed him to label himself. He calls himself a socialist.
Doug
Is he a good public speaker?
Yes. His style is fairly low-key, but he's fluent and engaging.
Doug
Benjamin:
Yes, but isn't this independence most efficiently acheived by wresting the
existing infrastructure from the hands of the ruling class. Since no third
party has been widely successful in the last hundred or so years, these
grass roots movements are in the end futile.
Wresting the existing
Louis:
Wresting the existing infrastructure? To do this would require seizing the
assets of Goldman-Sachs, Exxon, General Motors, etc. since this is
ultimately what allows the two parties to rule this country.
And why not? They've got the guns on their side, so it'd be better to fight a
Benjamin writes:
But how does one get the ball rolling on the practical level? In the US the system is
set up to stifle any third party. The greens have gained a little ground, but for the
most part nobody pays attention to the small parties. I think a better solution would
be to infiltrate a
of course Bob's a socialist. who said otherwise?
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 11/16/2003 7:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the Clinton years
Benjamin: What are the tenets of Keynsian economics?
hard question! I'll keep the answer to three simple points (partly based on Bob
Pollin's recent book).
1) a money-using market economy doesn't automatically move toward full employment of
labor (and of productive capacity) or takes a very
ion of wealth and poverty increased dramatically during the Clinton years and his "changing welfare as we know it" set the political basis for the rapid and universal acceptance of decreased wages.
This question of independence from the politics and parties of the ruling class is a historical mot
My broader vision:
*Social ownership of the productive apparatus
*Democratic control (one person, one vote) of both the
productive apparatus, the product of labour and the
distribution of goods and services
*Production based on use and need, not commodity
production for profit
*Planning based
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/16/03 7:40 AM
I honestly am not aware enough of Pollin's economic ideas to judge
them, although I am not surprised to discover that he is some kind
of left-Keynsian.
FYI, http://www.umass.edu/peri/robertpwp.html.
--
Yoshie
i've found pollin's work on living wage to be quite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/16/03 10:26 AM
The
first Democratic Party president was Andrew Jackson who is represented
in
liberal history books, such as those written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.,
as
the leader of a kind of plebian revolution.
Louis Proyect
'jacksonian democracy' and 'era of common
Schlessinger explicitly wrote to promote Jacksonian populism as an
alternative to communism.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 05:31:48PM -0500, Michael Hoover wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/16/03 10:26 AM
The
first Democratic Party president was Andrew Jackson who is represented
in
liberal history
'jacksonian democracy' and 'era of common man'...white male suffrage did
expand (only three southern states still required property-ownership in
aftermath)...of course, financial aristocracy controlled north and
slavocracy controlled south (jacksonian interests represented emergent
western
Doug Henwood wrote:
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
I honestly am not aware enough of Pollin's economic ideas to judge
them, although I am not surprised to discover that he is some kind
of left-Keynsian.
FYI, http://www.umass.edu/peri/robertpwp.html.
When Bob was at Labyrinth Books in New York a few
I sense that this Cockburn guy is important in some way to some of you
Americans for some reason... And I would like to be polite and give him
a wide berth... since he matters a lot to your culture.
But this is lousy style:
* Clichs like rubbing shoulders... that's as bad made a cool
million.
Kenneth Campbell wrote:
But this is lousy style:
I wouldn't mind his style.
What is unhelpful is his tactical misfiring.
At this juncture, you have an administration whose policies, domestic and
foreign, are exactly what the left is supposed to be against. Yet, Cockburn
is busy criticizing
Julio:
At this juncture, you have an administration whose policies, domestic and
foreign, are exactly what the left is supposed to be against. Yet, Cockburn
is busy criticizing Bill Clinton and Paul Krugman!
Well, who else is supposed to criticize the Democrats? Salon.com? The
Nation Magazine?
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My dream would be for us here to work on articulating a different
version
of the economy. Imagine that one of us were to step into a classroom,
factory, or call center and say that we wanted to speak in favor of
socialism.
Yes, that is easy. The problem is to go from there to a broader vision of
society. Instead, what we have is fragmentation. For example, the
students may not be interested in working conditions of health care and
the workers maybe not concerned about issues in higher education.
The result is
Some sort of overarching vision is, at some point, necessary.
but that would be essentialism, surrender to a Master Narrative, while denigrating
the Otherness of the Other!
Jim
oh, my god. I am in pomo hell!
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:14:33AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
Some sort of overarching vision is, at some point, necessary.
but that would be essentialism, surrender to a Master Narrative, while denigrating
the Otherness of the Other!
Jim
--
Michael
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the Clinton years
Yes, that is easy. The problem is to go from there to a broader vision
of
society. Instead, what we have
Julio:
At this juncture, you have an administration whose policies, domestic and
foreign, are exactly what the left is supposed to be against. Yet, Cockburn
is busy criticizing Bill Clinton and Paul Krugman!
Well, who else is supposed to criticize the Democrats? Salon.com? The
Nation Magazine?
The assumption would be that through left wing Keynesian management
the economy could be set on a path of a output growth with price
stability and 'acceptable' levels of income inequality. (Prabhat
Patnaik argues against the ability of any kind of Keynesianism to
guarantee accumulation and
Eubulides wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My dream would be for us here to work on articulating a different
version
of the economy. Imagine that one of us were to step into a classroom,
factory, or call center and say that we wanted to speak
In a message dated 11/15/03 9:02:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] My dream would be for us here to work on articulating a differentversion of the economy. Imagine that one of us were to step into a
you Otherf*cker!
;-)
JD
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 11/15/2003 9:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the Clinton years
oh, my god. I am
Michael Perelman wrote:
Yes, that is easy. The problem is to go from there to a broader vision of
society. Instead, what we have is fragmentation. For example, the
students may not be interested in working conditions of health care and
the workers maybe not concerned about issues in higher
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with Ian, but he does not go far enough.
You _start_ by trying to imagine the social context in which any of this
might happen -- which is _not_ the social context in which we now live.
Well I'd start
Ian writes
Welcome to the contradictions of the division of labor and bounded
rationality.
Seems to me that coaxing fellow learners to 'see' connections that weren't
apparent in their quest to improve the quality of their lives is a small
first step creating greater public discussion whereby
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
In short, Cockburn's underlying criticism seems hardly structural; it seems to
retain state fetishism.
It's not at all structural because he wants to annoy liberal Nation
readers. It doesn't seem like the most urgent political task of the
moment to me, but I'm getting soft
Joanna writes:
That is why, perhaps, art is the first weapon.
Can you suggest any good socialist art? I've heard of a socialist realism movement in
literature, but haven't found any specific authors. There are very few films that I
know of that have a pro-worker, anti-capitalist bent, and
Title: Re: [PEN-L] the Clinton years
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
In short, Cockburn's underlying
criticism seems hardly structural; it seems to
retain state fetishism.
It's not at all structural because he wants to annoy liberal
Nation
readers. It doesn't seem like the most urgent political task
At 9:01 AM -0500 11/15/03, Julio Huato wrote:
I wouldn't mind his style.
What is unhelpful is his tactical misfiring.
At this juncture, you have an administration whose policies,
domestic and foreign, are exactly what the left is supposed to be
against. Yet, Cockburn is busy criticizing Bill
PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the Clinton years
Joanna writes:
That is why, perhaps, art is the first weapon.
Can you suggest any good socialist art? I've heard of a socialist realism
movement in literature
In a message dated 11/15/03 2:34:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm no aesthete, but a lot of Russian art after the 1917 revolution was very good.("I don't know much about art, but I know the price.")Jim
Did the art - culture or development, cost as much as slavery and
been interesting in that rag during
clinton years, counterpunch readers already know the answer (or they
agree with it even if they don't know it since they're part of the
chorus)... michael hoover
against Bush's policies.
I'm willing to bet that way over fifty percent of the adults marching
against the invasion/occupation voted for Clinton at least once.
Furthermore, I also bet that they now have a much warmer, brighter,
appreciative view of the Clinton years than just before Bill left office
:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the Clinton years
Joanna writes:
That is why, perhaps, art is the first weapon.
Can you suggest any good socialist art? I've heard of a socialist realism movement in literature, but haven't found any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/15/03 9:24 AM
I think that the point of Counterpunch (and PEN-L) is to address the
necessity of transforming the system. We are facing a downward spiral in
bourgeois politics that has been going on for decades. Richard Nixon's
domestic policies were far more liberal than
I think Alexander Cockburn does a great job debunking myths about the
Clinton area, and I would not dare to dispute his points. My small criticism
about him concerns a different aspect, namely the purpose of argumentation.
Debunking myths is indispensable if myth pretends to be fact or truth, on
get a Democrat, any Democrat, back in the White House and the skies
will begin to clear again.
But suppose a less forgiving scrutiny of the Clinton years discloses that
these years did nothing to alter the rules of the neoliberal game that
began in the Reagan/Thatcher era with the push to boost
71 matches
Mail list logo
