Over the years I have called attention to NACLA's depressing drift to
the right. The latest instance is a report from Venezuela on the RCTV
controversy by Eric Biewener, a young man who graduated from Harvard
University last year. His report can be found here:
http://news.nacla.org/2007/06/04/
Eric Biewener:
So the entire time I've been in Venezuela (2 months now), I've been
trying to figure out why the grocery stores I go to don't always have
chicken or beef. I thought at first that it had to do with the time of
day that I went… then I thought that maybe I was going to a crappy
grocer
On 6/6/07, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then, while reading an article about rural land redistribution, it hit
me: this IS how shit works in Venezuela. See, the rural land
redistribution works like this: some squatters go and burn down a big
rancher's crops, tell him that they own the
At 15:20 06/06/2007, raghu wrote:
EB may be an idiot, but it seems to me that he has a point about the
land redistribution. Is there infrastructure in place to train and
educate the new landowners? Are the old land-owners compensated for
the repossessed land? Do they have incentives to stay and
At 10:16 06/06/2007, jim wrote:
Eric Biewener:
So the entire time I've been in Venezuela (2 months now), I've been
trying to figure out why the grocery stores I go to don't always have
chicken or beef.
what an idiot! doesn't he know about the way in which price controls
typically lead to such
On 6/6/07, michael a. lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Go to your copy of BIN, Jim--- where I note that, of course, all
other things equal, stuff like price controls do generate effects
like shortage. Of course, as I point out, when you are trying to
build a socialist society, all other things
Michael Lebowitz explains and defends the ongoing land redistribution in
Venezuela:
>> Shame on you, Raghu! However, I confess you won't find anything in
>> the book to answer this. (In fact, only the latter parts relate
>> specifically to Vzla.) This is an area I haven't followed closely. I
>> c
I am not aware that Cubans are starving or that they
ever were even after the fall of the USSR and price
supports for key agricultural goods and also in spite
of an ongoing US embargo. In fact post-Soviet Cuban
agriculture has in many ways been progressive in its
practices and in many ways more eff
At 21:56 06/06/2007, jim wrote:
so why does Bieweiner see no chicken or beef?
Hard to say. I have 2 supermarkets close to me. In the one closer,
there's always been beef and pork and there's only one occasion I
didn't see chicken; what does tend to disappear from the shelves is
eggs (also occa
At 22:12 06/06/2007, david s wrote:
Just as it is easy money to predict without knowing any of the particulars
The only thing predictable are david s's comments.
m
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Di
>> Just as it is easy money to predict without knowing any of the
particulars that a revolutionary socialist government will find a reason to
stifle
dissent, it is even an easier prediction, without knowing any of the
particulars,
that the inevitable land redistribution will result in a decre
war is peace, ignorance is strength, etc etc etc and
freedom? Freedom is just another for the divine right of private
property.
- Original Message -
From: "michael a. lebowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] NACLA on RC
David S wrote:
>Just as it is easy money to predict without knowing any of the particulars
michael a. lebowitz wrote:
The only thing predictable are david s's comments.
But _why_ is it predictable? I would guess that it's because, as a
self-styled "libertarian," David believes in what C
On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
michael a. lebowitz wrote:
The only thing predictable are david s's comments.
But _why_ is it predictable?
Are they any more predictable than most PEN-Lers responses? And I
don't mean that as a criticism. Most people with a coherent political
Doug Henwood wrote:
Are they any more predictable than most PEN-Lers responses?
I, for one, am NOT predictable ... no, I am predictable. Maybe...
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
This is the second time in the last few days that David Shemano has made a
strong, controversial (on here) assertion without providing any evidence
or elaboration. Since he provides no argument it is difficult to
critically respond to him, but his last comment is pretty blatantly false.
There are l
Jim Devine writes:
>> But _why_ is it predictable? I would guess that it's because, as a
>> self-styled "libertarian," David believes in what C.B. Mcpherson
>> called "possessive individualism." That is, each individual is seen as
>> the proprietor of his own person, property, and capabilities, wh
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 11:32:41 (-0700) David B. Shemano writes:
>...
>Therefore, when I engage in the dialectic on this list, I try and
>limit myself to essentially utilitarian arguments and to focus on the
>consequences of decisions as opposed to the motivation or rationale
>of decisions.
Bill Lear writes:
>> Boy, you really are a lawyer: if you value freedom, then you must
>> desire private property. I see. And, that is supposed to be an
>> argument, or an expression of your religious belief? Further, to
>> insinuate that those who disagree with Friedman's (nonexistent)
>> argu
On 6/7/07, Bill Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Boy, you really are a lawyer: if you value freedom, then you must
desire private property. I see. And, that is supposed to be an
argument, or an expression of your religious belief? Further, to
insinuate that those who disagree with Friedman's (n
On 6/7/07, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
capitalism, you have freedom." The argument is not a lot of things.
The argument is that if you have a revolutionary socialist government,
it is PREDICTABLE that (1) the government will actively attempt to
restrict freedom of expression and t
Walter Byars writes:
>> This is the second time in the last few days that David Shemano has made a
>> strong, controversial (on here) assertion without providing any evidence
>> or elaboration. Since he provides no argument it is difficult to
>> critically respond to him, but his last comment is p
David wrote:
>You (the generic you) are like Pavlov's dog. Hear Friedman, spit out Chile.
>And you accuse me of lack of logic.
First of all, ALL of us should go light on the vitriol.
What follows from David, sounds very dogmatic -- somewhat out of character for
him.
>I am typing slowly t
David B. Shemano wrote:
Look. land collectivizations in Russia and China were followed by mass
starvation. Mass starvation is going on right now in North Korea.
Bengal famine of 1943:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Irish potato famine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 13:17:56 (-0700) David B. Shemano writes:
>Bill Lear writes:
>
>>> Boy, you really are a lawyer: if you value freedom, then you must
>>> desire private property. I see. And, that is supposed to be an
>>> argument, or an expression of your religious belief? Further, t
This is wrong on so many levels. When people talk about land reform, they
usually refer to policies which reduce the size of holdings and create a
more egalitarian distribution. Usually, the redistributed holdings are
still private property.
By 1952 this sort of land reform was completed in China.
David is actually right about this. Comparing Chavez to Pinochet is just
cherrypicking unless you're trying to make an ad-hom at Friedman.
>
> Yes, I hear 2+2, and spit out four, so I'm Pavlovian, and in this and
> in the case of Friedman's love of actually existing repression,
> correct. Friedman
On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:17 PM, raghu wrote:
If CNN were to show Taliban
propaganda videos, do you think they would be allowed to continue
broadcasting?
If CNN were to turn regularly to American socialists for economic
commentary, that would be news!
But since a state isn't restricting political
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 17:36:36 (-0400) Walt Byars writes:
>David is actually right about this. Comparing Chavez to Pinochet is just
>cherrypicking unless you're trying to make an ad-hom at Friedman.
Gee, I thought we were comparing actually existing freedoms under
actually existing systems,
I don't know what you are going on about. I just don't know why it is more
appropriate to compare Venezuela under Chavez with Pinochet's Chile than
with any other capitalist countries.
> Gee, I thought we were comparing actually existing freedoms under
> actually existing systems, led by actually
> Also, the point has been made before -- can you imagine if a tv network
> would advocate antigovernment policies. They don't even report very much
> on antipolitical activities, except to denounce the protestors or make
> them seem ridiculous.
>
>
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> Ca
Bill Lear writes:
>> Gee, I thought we were comparing actually existing freedoms under
>> actually existing systems, led by actually existing people. I could
>> care less about Friedman. He's a dead right-wing ideologue whose
>> brazen dishonesty helped support at least one mass murderer. His
>
I wrote:
>> But _why_ is it predictable? I would guess that it's because, as a
>> self-styled "libertarian," David believes in what C.B. Mcpherson
>> called "possessive individualism." That is, each individual is seen as
>> the proprietor of his own person, property, and capabilities, while
>> ow
I'm not sure that's a very strong argument, to be quite honest. So far all
the arguments here I've seen for Chavez' suppression of RCTV consist of
"they were undermining the government" or "advocating antigovernment
policies". Well, guess what a vast majority of people would say about
socialists a
On 6/7/07, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And you have to criticize poor dead Milton [Friedman, not John, the author of
PARADISE LOST]. If I thought you had read the pages of Capitalism and Freedom
that I referenced, let alone understood them, I would ask you to explain the flaw
Raghu writes:
>> Once again ignoring the snideness, why do you think socialism is
>> incompatible with freedom of expression? Surely you would admit that
>> freedom of expression does not give you a license to broadcast
>> propaganda that is plainly designed to sabotage and destabilise the
>> gove
On 6/7/07, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Regarding your first question, it is a large topic and I am losing energy in the
heat of my building. I really would encourage you to look at Friedman's argument
and then critique it.<
If free trade worked, I could trade some of the extr
> This is not a helpful analogy. Let's say a significant section of the
> American army began to read the Militant (I know this sounds ridiculous,
> but I can't get Vincent Bugliosi's new book "proving" that Lee Harvey
> Oswald was a socialist because he read the Militant out of my mind). And
> the
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 18:48:52 (-0400) Walt Byars writes:
>I don't know what you are going on about. I just don't know why it is more
>appropriate to compare Venezuela under Chavez with Pinochet's Chile than
>with any other capitalist countries.
I just did, did you not read? What are you g
Fair enough, but that requires proof that they played a similar role as
the bizarro version of The Militant did in your example, which in turn
would be a lot more solid ground to strip a single company of license
about than simply "undermining the government" and the like. That's all I
meant to s
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 16:00:44 (-0700) David B. Shemano writes:
>Obviously, typing slowly didn't help. ...
Gee, you are so very, very clever.
>On this list, there is a constant criticism of "capitalism" and
>countries that are allegedly "capitalist." Many of the criticisms
>are quite coge
On 6/7/07, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raghu writes:
>> Once again ignoring the snideness, why do you think socialism is
>> incompatible with freedom of expression? Surely you would admit that
>> freedom of expression does not give you a license to broadcast
>> propaganda that is
avid B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] NACLA on RCTV
> Raghu writes:
>
> >> Once again ignoring the snideness, why do you think socialism is
> >> incompatible with freedom of expression? Surely you would a
What seems to escape almost everyone in this (one-sided) debate is that
the renewal of the license of RCTV has virtually nothing to do with any
suppression of dissent or denial of freedom of expression. Allocation of
a 'lease' to a common property (bandwidth) is normally controlled by a
governmen
44 matches
Mail list logo
