by Doug Henwood
19 October 2001 23:32 UTC
Doug Henwood wrote:
[Here's what Callinocos says (International Socialism #92, pp. 40-41)]
Negri's reading of Marx involves in fact a systematic rewriting of
some of his key propositions. Three examples will suffice:
(1) The law of the
At 21/10/01 14:00 -0400, you wrote:
by Doug Henwood
19 October 2001 23:32 UTC
Doug Henwood wrote:
[Here's what Callinocos says (International Socialism #92, pp. 40-41)]
Negri's reading of Marx involves in fact a systematic rewriting of
some of his key propositions. Three examples will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 02:07PM
I don't see this. Why does it diminish my quality of living as a lover of
seminbars that there are opportunities as a listener to symphonies?
(
CB: I didn't say it diminishes your standard of living. I said there are diminishing
returns to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/00 04:53PM
At 09:34 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
entrepreneurship =df creation of new needsa nd ways to satisfy them.
this is an unconventional definition of entrepreneurship, using an
unconventional definition of needs. As I've said, unconventional
definitions are
Jon Elster made this sort of point. It's fair enough, but it just shows that
in rich society with a profusion of needs, we need to make choices. Is that
so bad? It will be nice when the hard choice we must make is whether to
devote ourselves to the symphony or the seminar rather than to paying
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 11:07AM
Jon Elster made this sort of point. It's fair enough, but it just shows that
in rich society with a profusion of needs, we need to make choices. Is that
so bad?
((
CB: The claim is not that it is so bad. It is that there are diminishing returns
I don't see this. Why does it diminish my quality of living as a lover of
seminbars that there are opportunities as a listener to symphonies? And
while choosing may be hard, and and the hardness a disvalue, why is it an
improvement to say, No More Seminars? There, now you don't have to choose!
it would be instructive to know more about the eventual fate of the
successful co-op cited below.
norm
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 10:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5405] unmet needs
When I
Thank you, Paul! --jks
There seems to me to be a huge gulf between what various
members on the list mean by entrepreneurship. Michael et al
seem to associate it with profit, Justin with innovations etc.
Let me try to separate it out by suggesting the, in Schumpeter's
world, the entrepreneur
Hi Michael and Yoshie,
Not exactly right. The word entrepreneur may be a red flag to
some. To others, like me, the very idea that creating new needs can
be a good thing is anathema. Whether it's a cooperative venture or
a venture capitalist producing the new not-to-be-done-without item is of
no
Michael P. wrote:
Paul, I did not mean to exclude the idea of innovation from
entrepreneurship. But I only meant to insist that the word as it is used
by most economists involves a profit making function. By using this term,
in the sense that Justin does seems to cede too much ground to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/00 12:10PM
Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian) sense
because he dropped Schumpeterian/Austrian view that "entrepreneurship"
involves aggressive profit-seeking (without telling us that he was doing so).
As I said, it's okay to use
PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5405] unmet needs
When I first came to Chico in '71, I organized an organic food buying co-op
that was very
successful. The local produce distributor -- handling quite a bit of the
produce in the
region -- thought that we would be to be bigger than his business
IL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5470] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unmet needs
Michael P. wrote:
Paul, I did not mean to exclude the idea of innovation from
entrepreneurship. But I only meant to insist that the word as it is used
by most economists invo
At 01:35 PM 12/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
Schumpeter may have "celebrated" entrepreneurship.
But, he was the one who coined the phrase, "creative
destruction." He fully understood that it was not an unmixed
blessing...
yes, Schumpeter was better than the "Austrian school" (the vons, Mises and
Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian) sense
because he dropped Schumpeterian/Austrian view that "entrepreneurship"
involves aggressive profit-seeking (without telling us that he was doing
so).
That's just not true. I told you REPEATEDLY. I am telling you NOW. So
CB: Yea ,the word for innovation with socialism should be "innovation", not
entrepreneurship. Seeesh.
Not the same thing. In my lexicon, innovation is coming up with new
techniques or products, entrepreneurship is coming up with new needs.
Of course, the significance of my
Here, scare words for socialists: markets, boo! profits, yaaah! management,
eek! efficiency, arrrggh! entrepreneurship, yikes!
That's part of why we are in the fix we are in.
--jks
What do you mean by "we", white man.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Oh, I see. The traditional revolutionary Marxist left is going from strength
to strength, buildinmg huge mass parties in the advanced countries, ruling
successfully in large parts of the third world, putting capitalsim to shame
and drawing millions of steely-eyed adherents. How foolish of me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/00 02:57PM
Here, scare words for socialists: markets, boo! profits, yaaah! management,
eek! efficiency, arrrggh! entrepreneurship, yikes!
That's part of why we are in the fix we are in.
(((
CB: Scare words for Hayekians: planning hahahahhah. efficiency
At 07:50 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian) sense
because he dropped Schumpeterian/Austrian view that "entrepreneurship"
involves aggressive profit-seeking (without telling us that he was doing so).
That's just not true. I told you
as far as I can tell, you never defined your "lexicon" (entrepreneurship,
needs), so I was forced to divine your meaning (especially since you don't
use standard meanings).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Maybe this would help:
OXFORD DICTIONARY ONLINE
: Re: Re: unmet needs
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:06:11 -0800
At 07:50 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian)
sense
because he dropped Schumpeterian/Austrian view that "entrepreneurship"
involves aggressive profit-seeking (witho
At 09:34 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
entrepreneurship =df creation of new needsa nd ways to satisfy them.
this is an unconventional definition of entrepreneurship, using an
unconventional definition of needs. As I've said, unconventional
definitions are fine, as long as you make them clear. I
You have made that clear. --jks
At 09:34 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
entrepreneurship =df creation of new needsa nd ways to satisfy them.
this is an unconventional definition of entrepreneurship, using an
unconventional definition of needs. As I've said, unconventional
definitions are fine,
.
We did not have an entreprenuer to handle our needs, but we did it
collectively. The
idea of an entrepreneur -- as used in economics -- is deeply rooted in a
profit seeking
individualism.
You were the entrepreneurs. What does an entrepreneur have to be some other
person, an individual? Why
We did not have an entreprenuer to handle our needs, but we did it
collectively. The
idea of an entrepreneur -- as used in economics -- is deeply rooted
in a profit seeking
individualism.
You were the entrepreneurs. What does an entrepreneur have to be
some other person, an individual? Why
Exactly right, Yoshi.
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 04:31:10PM -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Justin, I hear you, but it seems to me that you and the rest are
talking at cross-purposes here. While by an "entrepreneur" you name
a function of creating satisfying new needs -- the function played
The function is the same. It's part of the key argument for socialism: that
there is nothing useful and productive that capitalists do that workers
cannot do for themselves. She we say there are sociaksi schmentrepreturs,
who do what capitalist entrepreneiers do, but under socialism the
Paul, I did not mean to exclude the idea of innovation from
entrepreneurship. But I only meant to insist that the word as it is used
by most economists involves a profit making function. By using this term,
in the sense that Justin does seems to cede too much ground to the free
market school.
, a day care center, a health clinic.
We did not have an entreprenuer to handle our needs, but we did it collectively. The
idea of an entrepreneur -- as used in economics -- is deeply rooted in a profit seeking
individualism.
We all have unmet needs -- real needs that society does not fulfil. We can
31 matches
Mail list logo
