[PEN-L:2632] Re: Larry Summers on globalization
Doug through Larry Summers raises two issues: Is there any qualitative change due to a) the telecommunications revolution and b) globalization in the current period. At a very basic level there cannot have been qualitative change as long as class relations are fundamentally unchanged. The question then becomes whether capitalism has been fundamentally reorganized on the level of the transition to monopoly capitalism at the turn of the century or the transition to the postWWII 'Golden Age' period. I agree with Summers that telecommunications have not changed things qualitatively. Despite all the "breathless" commentary, production is still based on human labour, not information. The increased availability of information has just raised the amount of expertise, time and energy needed to process this information. Cable TV is an historical experiment concerning this issue. The availability of dozens of channels was supposed to revolutionize our viewing. In fact its all much the same as has always been available. "Community Access" where available has been swamped by the sheer volume of relatively homogenous alternatives. If the information revolution hasn't empowered people in the simple act of television viewing, it's hardly going to make revolutionary new social analyses possible in your own home. Much of the analysis of telecommunications done by left right and center has been of the vulgar technological determinist variety and seems to me to be part of the fallout of the crisis of Marxism, at least among left analysts. (Al most all of this was available years ago in novel form in "Neuromancer" by William Gibson" coiner of the term cyberspace.) As to computerized production, this seems to me to be compatible with a number of different work organizations. It makes possible new kinds of sweatshop in the form of computer monitoring of individual productivity, de-skilling, the tending of multiple machines, centralization of production control, outsourcing, cottage production, virtual companies with Third World production facilities, intensifying the oppression of labour through reserve army effects, casualisation of employment, etc. It is also compatible with team production, QWL, blah, blah, blah. It is too early to make firm predictions about the nature of post-fordist production, but the outcome will not be determined solely or even largely by the nature of technical advance. On the topic of globalization. Here the Summers argument is on shakier ground. I think there is potenially a qualitative difference between globalization now and globalization pre-1974. Some possible sources of this difference: 1)the end of US hegemony and intensified global competition 2)the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc 3)Chinese capitalism (socialism with Chinese characteristics) 4)the end of national allegiance of the US and incipiently the European ruling classes 5)state of the art manufacturing in the Third World 6)increasing authority of international capitalist political institutions, the WTO, etc. 7)end of the capital-labour accord (truce, etc.) Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:2633] Re: Is Patrick Buchanan a fascist?
I think Barkley raises a valuable point. I've always been uncomfortable with the epithet fascism being thrown around --- Fascism has to be more than "repression as usual" by the capitalist state. One element in it, IMHO, ought to be _mass mobilization_ and _mass psychology_. In this area, it does appear that Buchanan, the Militia Movement, and the Christian Right all have the potentials of becoming fascist movements. The other element of fascism from the Mussolini model is "corporatizing" society with the state in charge. The right wing _shrinkage_ of the state envisioned by the budget balancers would seem to go against that. Just musing. I believe this point is worth following through on ... but by people who know a lot more than I do. I like asking questions ... I LOVE reading answers on PEN-L. Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2634] Re: Larry Summers on globalization
Just a brief comment on one small aspect of Terry's post. On globalization, Tim Koechlin (sp?) did some research a few years back and discovered that despite all the rhetoric about a free-flow of capital, particularly in financial form but also in the form of creation of new structures, anywhere in the world, there still remained clearly discernible "national tracks" of capital export and international flows of goods suggesting that the world had not yet homogenized into one global marketplace for international capital and was not likely to do so --- that history was still determining a lot of the flows; and that history had a lot to do with previous colonial and neo-colonial relationships of a more national nature. Now, I don't know if these findings were challenged or what Tim himself thinks of these (Hi, Tim, if you're on PEN-L, this is a BIG invitation!) issues now --- but I remember being struck with how Larry Summers' quote that Doug posted seemed to be right in the same argument that Tim had made. Anyone out there can follow up? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2635] Re: Larry Summers on globalization
If Summers is right on this (which I believe he is), i.e. that there is a lot of hype and emperor's new clothes around "globalization" and similar topics, the question is why? I see at least two reasons: 1) The need for politicians, business executives, media people and (sigh) some academics to be self-important. 2) (and this is the main reason for "globalization" being hyped up): The useful paralyzing function against union and popular activism, engendering the feeling that any local or grassroots opposition is useless when confronted with a "process" (another buzzword) that is relentless and completely uncontrollable by human intervention. Thus the powers-that-be gradually achieve their optimum world population; atomized resigned consumers of Coke, McDonalds and Satellite TV, without any feeling of community, self-confidence politically and no belief in the use of working for political change. The rhetorical and propaganda function of the "globalization" media barrage is grossly underestimated by the general public, and in academia, too. On the other hand the TNCs and their PR types are extremely conscious of its usefulness (for them). Trond Andresen Norway
[PEN-L:2636] Re: Strategy Change by Credit Card Companies
With ref. to Sid's comment on this: my Mastercard provider (Midland Bank, now part of the Hongkong Shanghai group, also charges interest of the entire credit advanced unless I pay it off entirely. My response is therefore to pay off either all, or the stipulated minimum of 5%... Hugo Radice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2637] Globalization
To Trond and others interested in globalization: I'm trying to send a short piece on globalization as an 'attachment'...if it doesn't work. my apologies. If it does, naturally all comments welcome. Hugo Radice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2638] Re: Larry Summers on globalization
Trond, You are not alone in regarding much of the talk of globalization as 'hype'. However, I believe that there IS something beneath the hype. I will try to send to pen-l a text file of a short piece which I wrote several months ago, which appeared in the Bulletin of the Centre for Industrial Policy and Performance, no.8. I am working on several longer pieces on this topic at present, and will no doubt chip in to the debate as it proceeds... Hugo Radice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2639] globalization
Trying again to send file. Hugo Radice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2640] globalization
* This message contains the file 'gmr.doc', which has been
* uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use
* the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents
* out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message
* and uudecode it manually.
begin 660 gmr.doc
MVZ4M`#%`"0@`+0``@`$``'TZ``!01P``
M``PU``#7`P```!"
M``!E``!"``!E`5"```N`)-"```D`/-"`/-"`/-"```.``%#```\
M`#U#`#U#`#U#`#U#```0`$U#```0`%U#```*`#U#`=#
M```2`WE`'E```B`)M`)M`)M`)M`)M
M`)M`)M```"`)U`)U`)U`)U`)U`)U
M+M```T`.]``!A`+M`+="```\`+M`+M
M'@`@``(``0``
M1TQ/0D%,($U95$A3($%.1"!214%,
M251)15,-"@T*2'5G;R!2861I8V4-"@T*"4ET(AAR!B96-O;64@%R="!O
M9B!T:4@)V-O;G9E;G1I;VYA;"!W:7-D;VTG('1H870@87,@82!R97-U;'0@
M;V8@=AE(EN8W)E87-I;F=L2!G;]B86P@8VAAF%C=5R(]F('!R;V1U
M8W1I;VX@86YD(5X8VAA;F=E+"!G;W9EFYM96YTR!AF4@;5SR!A;F0@
M;5SR!A8FQE('1O(5S=%B;ES:"!A;F0@:6UP;5M96YT(%U=]N;VUO
M=7,@96-O;F]M:6,@]L:6-I97,N("!(;W=E=F5R+"!A(YU;6)EB!O9B!W
MFET97)S(AA=F4@87)G=65D('-TF]N9VQY('1H870@9VQO8F%L:7-A=EO
M;B!H87,@8F5E;B!GF5A=QY(5X86=G97)A=5D+"!A;F0@=AA="!G;W9E
MFYM96YTR!AF4@W1I;P@9G)E92!T;R!C:]OV4@=AE:7(@;W=N(1E
MW1I;GD@+2!A;F0@:6X@%R=EC=6QABP@=\@861O'0@W1A=4M;5D
M('-TF%T96=I97,@86YD('!O;EC:65S('1H870@95P87)T(9R;VT@=AE
M(1O;6EN86YT(YE;RUL:6)EF%L(YOFTN("!4:'5S+"!0875L($AIG-T
M(%N9"!'F%H86T@5AO;7!S;VX"(')E8V5N=QY(]F9F5R960@82!P;W=E
MF9U;"!CFET:7%U92!O9B`G9VQO8F%L:7-T)R!A;F%L7-ERP@87)G=6EN
M9R!T:%T('1H92!W;W)L9"!E8V]N;VUY(AAR!N;W0@8F5C;VUE(UOF4@
M:6YT96=R871E9"!A8W)OW,@;F%T:6]N86P@8F]R95RR!T:%N(EN('!R
M979I;W5S(5R87,L(%N9"!T:%T('1H92!M;W-T('-I9VYI9FEC86YT(9E
M871UF4@;V8@8V]N=5M]R87)Y('=OFQD(-AET86QIVT@:7,@;F]T
M(=L;V)A;ES871I;VXL()U="!T:4@9F]R;6%T:6]N(]F(')E9VEO;F%L
M()L;V-S+B`@4VEM:6QAFQY+"!I;B!A(')E8V5N="!'=6%R9EA;B!AG1I
M8VQE`BP@5VEL;"!(=71T;VX@87)G=65D('1H870@=AE("=G;]B86QIV%T
M:6]N)R!O9B!C;VYT96UP;W)AGD@8V%P:71A;ES;2!IR!A(UY=@@8V%R
M969U;QY(-U;'1I=F%T960@8GD@=AE('-U'!OG1EG,@;V8@=6YF971T
M97)E9"!M87)K971S+"!W:71H('1H92!C;VYS97%U96YC92!T:%T('1H;W-E
M('=H;R!A9'9A;F-E($@;6]R92!PF]GF5SVEV92!A9V5N9$@*QI:V4@
M2'5T=]N(AI;7-E;8I(-A;B!B92!D:7-M:7-S960@87,@;W5T9%T960@
M;F%T:6]N86QIW1S+B`@#0H-"@E)()E;EE=F4@=AA="!G;]B86QIV%T
M:6]N(ES(5MAA=EC86QL2!N;W0@82!M71H+"!B=70@82!GFEM(')E
M86QI='D@=VAI8V@@F5Q=6ER97,@82!R861I8V%L(')E8V%S=EN9R!O9B!T
M:4@')O9W)EW-I=F4@86QT97)N871I=F4N("`@5AOV4@=VAO(1IVUI
MW,@9VQO8F%L:7-M(%S($@FEG:'0M=VEN9R!I95O;]G2!E;F0@=7`@
MV5R:6]UVQY(UIW)E861I;F@=AE(YA='5R92!O9B!C;VYT96UP;W)A
MGD@=V]R;0@8V%P:71A;ES;3L@(%S($@8V]NV5Q=65N8V4L('1H97D@
M8V]N=EN=64@=\@;F%I;"!T:5IB!C;VQO=7)S('1O('1H92!M87-T(]F
M($@=71OEA;B!A;F0@;W5T9%T960@;F%T:6]N86P@2V5Y;F5S:6%N:7-M
M+"!I;G-T96%D(]F(QO;VMI;F@9F]R($@F5A;ES=EC('=A2!O9B!C
M:%L;5N9VEN9R!T:4@9VQO8F%L(AE9V5M;VYY(]F(-AET86PN("!)
M;B!W:%T(9O;QO=W,L($D@=VEL;"!O=71L:6YE(9IG-T($@8W)I=EQ
M=64@;V8@;F5O+6QI8F5R86P@9VQO8F%L:7-M+"!T:5N('1H92!PF]GF5S
MVEV92!A;'1EFYA=EV92P@86YD(QAW1L2!S;VUE('!O;EC2!C;VYC
M;'5S:6]NRX-"@T*02!CFET:7%U92!O9B!T:4@;F5O+6QI8F5R86P@=FEE
M=PT*#0H)5AEF4@87)E('1W;R!B87-I8R!F;%WR!I;B!T:4@;F5O;EB
M97)A;"!V:7-I;VX@;V8@9VQO8F%L:7-A=EO;BX@(%1O()E9VEN('=I=@L
M('1H92!C;VYC97!T(ETV5L9B!I;7!L:65S('1H870@8V%P:71A;ES;2!I
MR!B96-O;6EN9R!G;]B86PL(AA=FEN9R!OFEG:6YA;QY(YO="!B965N
M('-O+B`@26X@9F%C="P@8V%P:71A;ES;2!H87,@86QW87ES()E96X@8V]N
MW1I='5T960@870@82!G;]B86P@;5V96PL(%S($@)W=OFQD('-YW1E
M;2L('1O('5S92!);6UA;G5E;"!786QL97)S=5I;B=S('9EGD@87!PF]P
MFEA=4@=5R;0(N("!)="!H87,@8V5R=%I;FQY(%T('1I;65S('-W97!T
M(%W87D@')E+65X:7-T:6YG('-TG5C='5R97,@;V8@=5RFET;W)I86P@
MW1A=5S(%N9"!S;V-I971I97,L(YO=%B;'D@9'5R:6YG('1H92!C;VQO
M;FEA;"!EF$N("!"=70@:6X@:71S(AE87)T;%N9"P@8V%P:71A;ES;2!A
M8V-O;6UO9%T960@=\@=AOV4@W1R=6-T=7)ER!AR!I="!R96%C:5D
M(ETR!M871UF4@:6YD=7-TFEA;"!F;W)M(EN('1H92!N:6YE=5E;G1H
M(-E;G1UGDN("!!R!A(')EW5L="P@9F]R(%B;W5T($@:'5N9')E9"!Y
M96%RR`M(')O=6=H;'D@,3@W,"!T;R`Q.3P("T@=AE('=OFQD(5C;VYO
M;7DGR!M86EN('-TG5C='5R86P@9EF9F5R96YT:6%T:6]N('=AR!I;G1O
M(1IW1I;F-T(YA=EO;F%L(-AET86QIVUS("AD;VUI;F%T960@8GD@
M=AE(UA:6X@:6UP97)I86P@]W97)S*2X@(%1H92!D:79EF=E;F-E(EN
M(5C;VYO;6EC(]U=-O;65S+"!W:EC:"!AF4@8V5N=')A;"!T;R!C87!I
M=%L:7-M(%S(%N(5C;VYO;6EC('-YW1E;2P@=]O:R!T:4@9F]R;2!O
M9B!H=6=E(1I9F9EF5N8V5S(EN(YA=EO;F%L(QI=FEN9R!S=%N9%R
M9',L(=R;W=T:"!R871ERP@97AP;W)TR!A;F0@86)O=F4@86QL('!R;V1U
M8W1I=FET2X@(`T*#0H)5AE('-E8V]N9"!F;%W(EN('1H92!N96]L:6)E
MF%L('9I97@:7,@=AA="!B;W1H(ETR!A9'9O8V%T97,@86YD(ETR!C
MFET:6-S(9O8W5S(]N('1H92!P:5N;VUE;F]N(]F($@=6YI9FEE9"!G
M;]B86P@;6%R:V5T(9OB!M;VYE2!C87!I=%L+"!W:EC:"!D96UA;F1S
M+"!O9G1E;B!W:71H('-O;64@W5C8V5SRP@=\@8F4@95T86-H960@9G)O
M;2!A;GD@;F%T:6]N86P@:G5R:7-D:6-T:6]N(%N9"!R96=U;%T:6]N+B`@
M5VAA="!H87,@F5A;QY()E96X@9V]I;F@;VX@VEN8V4@=AE(5N9"!O
M9B!T:4@]S='=AB!B;V]M(ES($@;75C:"!D965P97(@9VQO8F%L(EN
M=5GF%T:6]N(]F('1H92!M871EFEA;"P@979EGED87D@96-O;F]M:6,@
M')O8V5SV5S(]F('!R;V1U8W1I;VXL(5X8VAA;F=E(%N9"!C;VYS=6UP
[PEN-L:2641] Re: Larry Summers on globalization
Gerry Epstein just sent me a paper that seems to indicate that globalization might be taking off now, although earlier people like Tim were correct to say that many were exaggerating its importance.
[PEN-L:2642] Re: Freedom and Rig
Gwartney et al say that "economic freedom" and, say, average GDP per capita, are positively correlated. The general issue remains. A brief analogy: Children's vocabulary and foot size are highly correlated (and this is where Peter Dorman's suggestions as to good statistical practice have a place). However, what's really going on is that *older* children have large vocabularies and larger feet. My question is this: -- should I compare the "economic freedom" correlation to the vocabulary/feet example? e.g., should I say that what's *really* going on is that those govts with neoliberal policies score highly on "economic freedom" and are also likely to stress "growth" at the cost of other measures of social wellbeing? this approach is appealing but raises questions of its own... -- should I say instead that "economic freedom" is a bogus construct, at least as used by Gwartney et al (e.g., with their emphasis on property rights)? in this case, I'd like to know how we distinguish reasonable constructs from unreasonable ones Seems to me this is an important issue to resolve if we're to resist the picture we're often given of the "real world". C.N.Gomersall Luther College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2643] Re: The V-word
Andrew, here. I've been away from the net for a month + and am now beginning to wade through things. I wanted to respond to Mike Meeropol's discussion of the transitivity of value, etc. If A, B, and C are commodities, and IW is the relation "is worth", as economists use the notion of worth or value, as Mike notes, we have A IW B == B IW A which implies A IW A A IW B, AND B IW C == A IW C which implies C IW A, which implies again A IW A. Mike asks _what else_ we can say, if anything, about value? I think we can't assume the correctness of the above. If someone asks you what the value of a lb. of coffee is and you say "a lb. of coffee" s/he will not be satisfied. The problem is not that it is tautological; rather, it is wrong. The value of a thing is SOMETHING ELSE. But the above relations never arrive at a "something else," moving around in a circle. This, in essence, is the argument that grounded Marx's search for a "third thing" which commodities have in common, a noncommodity element they all have in common. Indeed the very argument I've made, in slightly different form but with the "lb. of coffee" example, is contained in TSV Part III, in Marx's discussion of Bailey and the "verbal observer," part of the section on the disintegration of the Ricardian school. I don't have the book with me here, but the above should be sufficient to locate the passage. The opening pages of Capital rely very heavily on the Bailey-critique. I hope to digest all I've misses in the next couple of days or so, and perhaps offer some thoughts. I've heard it has been interesting. Andrew Kliman
[PEN-L:2644] Re: Freedom and Rig
Gwartney et al say that "economic freedom" and, say, average GDP per capita, are positively correlated. The general issue remains. A brief analogy: In my opinion, the assertion that "economic freedom" is positively correlated with average GDP is just another version of that tired, old and long debunked claim that capitalism = democracy. Ever so often, someone resurrects the idea without bothering to look any further than some poorly constructed and arbitrary quantitative indicators. The claim neither merits nor warrants attention. - Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931USA
[PEN-L:2645] Re: Freedom and Rig
Where countries are poor, the kleptocrats have to resort to brutal repression to extract wealth. Also to extract a given quantity of wealth, the poor have to be kept poorer. So a Burmese general offers less rights than a U.S. Gingrichian. Alas, the the causality is reversed. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2646] Re: Freedom and Rig
Carl Dassbach wrote, In my opinion, the assertion that "economic freedom" is positively correlated with average GDP . . . neither merits nor warrants attention. It does merit attention if it is part of an attempt to discriminate among three different propositions: 1. democracy promotes capitalism 2. democracy has no systematic impact on capitalism 3. democracy tends to hinder capitalism (Ignoring, here, the impact of capitalism on political structure). Each of these propositions are very interesting and are worthy of being tested. I'm not sure which proposition is "true." Sloppy empirical tests of the above (if all existing tests are, indeed, sloppy) are helpful in showing that others should try to test the above propositions more carefully. Eric Nilsson .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2647] Re: globalization
Hugo,
This is how we got from you. Try it again.
Fikret.
M;VX@:7,@8V]M5L;EN9R!'97)M86X@:6YD=7-TFEA;"!A;F0@8F%N:VEN
M9R!C87!I=%L('1O(%D;W!T('1H92!N;W)MR!A;F0@')A8W1I8V5S(]F
M('1H92!!;F=L;RU387AO;G,@=VAO(1O;6EN871E(=L;V)A;"!C87!I=%L
M(UAFME=',[("!T:4@8V]S2!2:EN96QA;F0@8V%R=5LR!AF4@8G)E
M86MI;F@=7`N("!!="!T:4@V%M92!T:6UE+"`@;65E=EN9R!T:4@8V]S
M=',@;V8@1V5R;6%N('5N:69I8V%T:6]N(AAR!A=V]K96X@=AE($=EFUA
M;B!M:61D;4@8VQAW-ER!T;R!T:4@F%W(1E86P@=AE2!N;W@:%V
M92!AR!S879EG,L(EN('1EFUS(]F(EN9EV:61U86P@)V9R965D;VTG
M(]F(-H;VEC92!A;F0@F5A;"!R871ER!O9B!R971UFXN#0H-"E!O;EC
M2!I;7!L:6-A=EO;G,-"@T*"4EF(YA=EO;F%L(5C;VYO;6EER!AF4@
M8F5C;VUI;F@;6]R92!D965P;'D@:6YT96=R871E9"!A;F0@9F%C:6YG($@
M;EN:V5D+"!I9B!H:6=H;'D@9EF9F5R96YT:6%T960@9F%T92P@=VAA="P@
M9FEN86QL2P@87)E('1H92!P;VQI8WD@:6UP;EC871I;VYS/R`@5AE(9I
MG-T(EMQI8V%T:6]N(ES('1H870@;F%T:6]N86P@2V5Y;F5S:6%N:7-M
M(ES('5NF5A;ES=EC+"!N;W0@8F5C875S92!O9B!T:4@87=EV]M92!P
M;W=EB!O9B`G95T86-H960G(=L;V)A;"!C87!I=%L+"!B=70@8F5C875S
M92!T:4@:6YT97)EW1S(]F('!AG1I8W5L87(@8V%P:71A;ES=',@87)E
M(YO(QO;F=EB!C;VYF:6YE9"!T;RP@86YD('-Y;F]N6UO=7,@=VET:"P@
M=AE(EN=5R97-TR!O9B!P87)T:6-U;%R(YA=EO;G,L(%S('1H97D@
M=V5R92!D=7)I;F@=AE(-E;G1UGD@=\@,3DW,"X@(%1H:7,@:7,@8VQE
M87(@:6X@=AE(-H86YG960@;F%T=7)E(]F('1R86YS;F%T:6]N86P@8G5S
M:6YEW,N("`@5VAE;B!D:7-C=7-S:6YG(%1.0W,L('=E('-T:6QL('1E;F0@
M=\@=%K92!AR!E%MQER!C;VUP86YI97,@W5C:"!AR!;W)D+"!0
M97!S:2!#;VQA(%N9"!-8T1O;F%L9',"+B`@26UP;W)T86YT('1H;W-E('1H
M97-E('1HF5E(9IFUS(%R92P@=AE2!AF4@;F]T('1H92!M;W-T(')E
M;5V86YT('1O('1H92!IW-U92!O9B!G;]B86P@:6YT96=R871I;VXN("!4
M:5S92!AF4L(9IG-T+"!TF%D:71I;VYA;"!43D-S('=H:6-H(1E=F5L
M;W!E9"!F;W(@95C861ER!AR!54R!C;W)P;W)A=EO;G,@=VET:"!O=F5R
MV5AR`G;6EN:6%T=7)E(')EQI8V%S)SH@('1H=7,L(1EW!I=4@;75C
M:"UV875N=5D(%T=5M'1S('1O()U:6QD("=W;W)L9"!C87)S)RP@1F]R
M9"!H87,@;VYL2!A8VAI979E9"!A;GD@F5A;"!G;]B86P@:6YT96=R871I
M;VX@=VET:"!I=',@F5C96YT($UO;F1E;RP@86YD('1H96X@;VYL2!A="!V
M87-T(-OW0N("!3=6-H(9IFUS('-T86YD(EN('-H87)P(-O;G1R87-T
M('1O(UO95R;B!G;]B86QL2!I;G1E9W)A=5D(%1.0W,@;EK92!!V5A
M($)R;W=N($)O=F5R:2!OB!T:4@2]N9VMO;F@86YD(%-H86YG:%I($)A
M;FMI;F@0V]R]R871I;VXN("!396-O;F1L2P@=AE2!AF4@06UEFEC
M86X@5$Y#RP@=VAE;B!W:%T(ES(UU8V@@;6]R92!R96QE=F%N="!T;R!T
M:4@9F]U;F1A=EO;B!O9B!A('9I86)L92!PF]GF5SVEV92!A;'1EFYA
M=EV92!IR!T:4@9]M:6YA;F-E(]F($)R:71IV@@5$Y#R!I;B!O=7(@
M]L:71I8V%L(5C;VYO;7DN("!4:4@]I;G0@:7,@=AA="!G;]B86P@
M8V%P:71A;"!IR!I;G-I94L(YO="!O=71S:61E('1H92!S=%T92`M(%N
M9"!N;W=H97)E(UOF4@V\@=AA="!I;B!T:4@54LL('=I=@@;W5R(=L
M;V)A;QY+6EN=5GF%T960@86YD(]V97)B;]W;B!F:6YA;F-I86P@V5R
M=FEC97,@V5C=]R('-O(5F9F5C=EV96QY(1IW-E8W1E9"!B2!7:6QL
M($AU='1O;B!I;B!4:4@4W1A=4@5V4GF4@26XN#0H-"@E4:4@V5C;VYD
M('!O;EC2!I;7!L:6-A=EO;B!IR!T:%T(EF(YA=EO;F%L($ME6YE
MVEA;FES;2!IR!T;V1A2!A(9U;F1A;65N=%L;'D@=71OEA;B!PF]J
M96-T+"!T:5R92!AF4@:]W979EB!S=EL;"!T=V\@=F5R2!D:69F97)E
M;G0@]T96YT:6%L(%L=5R;F%T:79ERX@(%1H92!F:7)S="!IR!A(')A
M9EC86P@;F%T:6]N86QIVT@=VAI8V@@:7,@96-O;F]M:6-A;QY(ES;VQA
M=EO;FES="X@(%-O;65W:5R92!B971W965N(%-T86QI;B=S('-O8VEA;ES
M;2!I;B!O;F4@8V]U;G1R2P@86YD($YOG=A2=S(')E:F5C=EO;B!O9B!T
M:4@175R;W!E86X@56YI;VXL('1H97)E(UA2!L:64@82!V:6%B;4@9G5T
M=7)E+"!P87)T:6-U;%R;'D@9F]R($@F5L871I=F5L2!L87)G92P@F5S
M;W5R8V4MFEC:"!D979E;]P960@V]C:65T2!L:6ME(]UB!O=VXN("!"
M=70@:6X@=AE($)R:71IV@@8V%S92!T:ES('=O=6QD(')E75IF4@82!C
M;VUP;5T92!BF5A:R!W:71H('1H92!P;W=EB!O9B!C87!I=%L+"!A;F0@
MW5C:"!A;B!A;'1EFYA=EV92!H87,@;F5V97(@:%D(UOF4@=AA;B!M
M87)G:6YA;"!P;W!U;%R('-U'!OG0N($AE;F-E+"!A;'1H;W5G:"!T:ES
M(%L=5R;F%T:79E(UI9VAT()E(5C;VYO;6EC86QL2!F96%S:6)L92!I
M;B!A(YAG)O=R!S96YS92P@:70@:7,@870@')EV5N="!N;W0@]L:71I
M8V%L;'D@F5A;ES=EC+@T*#0H)5AE(UOF4@=FEA8FQE(%L=5R;F%T
M:79E(ES(')A9EC86P@:6YT97)N871I;VYA;ES;2P@;F]T(IUW0@=VET
M:EN(%=EW0@175R;W!E("T@=VAEF4@:70@=VEL;"!M97)E;'D@F5P;EC
M871E('1H92!C;VYTF%D:6-T:6]NR!O9B!N871I;VYA;"!+97EN97-I86YI
MVT@;VX@82!L87)G97(@V-A;4@+2!B=70@870@=AE(=L;V)A;"!L979E
M;"X@($ET(ES('1I;64@=\@8VAA;QE;F=E('1H92!N96]L:6)EF%L(=L
M;V)A;ES=',@;VX@=AE:7(@;W=N(=R;W5N9"P@=VET:"!A('!R86-T:6-A
M;"!V:7-I;VX@;V8@8V]L;5C=EV92P@95M;V-R871I8R!I;G1EG9E;G1I
M;VX@=\@F4MF5G=6QA=4@=AE('=OFQD(5C;VYO;7DL(%N9"!R96EG
M;B!I;B!T:4@97AC97-S97,@;V8@=AE(9R964@;6%R:V5T('=I=@@969F
M96-T:79E('!O;EC:65S(%N9"!I;G-TG5M96YTRX@(%=E('-H;W5L9"!S
M=7!P;W)T($@F5C;VYS=ET=71I;VX@;V8@=AE($)R971T;VX@5V]O9',@
M86YD(%5.(5C;VYO;6EC()O9EERP@8G5T(EN($@=]T86QL2!D:69F
M97)E;G0@9ER96-T:6]N('1O('1H870@8F5I;F@V]U9VAT()Y($%M97)I
M8V%N(%N9"!"FET:7-H(9I;F%N8V4@8V%P:71A;"X@(%1H92!U;F9E='1E
MF5D(9L;W=S(]F('!R:79A=4@8V%P:71A;"P@=\@=VAI8V@@55,@5')E
M87-UGD@4V5CF5T87)Y(%)U8FEN()E;F1S(AIR!K;F5E+"!S:]U;0@
M8F4@F5P;%C960@8GD@'5B;EC(]R('!U8FQI8VQY+7)E9W5L871E9"!T
MF%NV9EG,@=\@]OF5R(')E9VEO;G,N("!4F%D92!F;]WR!S:]U
M;0@8F4@9W5I95D('1O(QE=F5L('5P+"!N;W0@;5V96P@9]W;BP@8V]N
M9ET:6]NR!O9B!W;W)K(%N9"!PF]D=6-T:6]N('1HF]U9VAO=70@=AE
M('=OFQD+B`@#0H-"@E3=6-H(%N(%P')O86-H('=O=6QD()E('9EGD@
M;75C:"!I;B!T:4@W!IFET(]F($ME6YER=S('!O;EC2!A9'9O8V%C
M2!O9B!T:4@,3DS,',@86YD(#$Y-#!S+"!A;'1H;W5G:"!I="!W;W5L9"!N
M;W0@8F4@=V5L8V]M960@8GD@:ES(UOF4@=EM;W)O=7,@9F]L;]W97)S
M('1O9%Y+B`@0G5T(ES('1H:7,@V5C;VYD(%L=5R;F%T:79E('!O;ET
[PEN-L:2648] The Left on Crossfire ( Cohen II) (fwd)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:30:13 -0800 (PST) From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "The Left" on Crossfire ( Cohen II) To: Recipients of fair-l [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "The Left" on Crossfire ( Cohen II) CNN is giving FAIR's Jeff Cohen three more days of on-air tryouts on Crossfire soon -- Jan. 31 (Wed.), Feb. 1 (Thurs.), Feb. 2 (Fri.). Tune in if you can, and let CNN know if Jeff is the kind of person you'd like to see as a permanent co-host of the show. The following article, which will appear in the upcoming February issue of FAIR's newsletter, EXTRA! Update, has more information on the subject. Activists and groups have urged CNN to hire a bonafide progressive to represent the left on Crossfire, perhaps someone like Jim Hightower or Barbara Ehrenreich. Or folks like Jeff Cohen and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom have received on-air tests at Crossfire. To regularly receive EXTRA! and EXTRA! Update call 800-847-3993 from 9 to 5 Eastern Time. For more information about FAIR, send a blank e-mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our web site: http://www.fair.org/fair/ EXTRA! Update, February 1996: "From the Left": More Than a Figure of Speech? By Jim Naureckas For Crossfire, one of CNN's most-watched show, it's been the best of times and the worst of times. The best of times: On December 14, Robert Novak introduces his co- host by saying, "We have the rare treat of having a real leftist on the left, Christopher Hitchens, the renowned columnist for The Nation." Hitchens and Novak, along with the United Mine Workers' Richard Trumka and Reagan administration budget director James Miller, proceed to have a spirited discussion about whether the minimum wage should be increased, in which the usually taboo issue of class is front and center. The worst of times: On November 14, the representative of the "left" on Crossfire is Time's Margaret Carlson, who mainly sits on the sidelines as two Congressional representatives bickered about the budget. Occasionally she interjects a question reflecting the centrist conventional wisdom, like, "Will the bitter political attacks from both sides today make reaching a compromise anytime soon virtually impossible?" At the end of the show, she matches Novak's "from the right...I'm Robert Novak" with "from _Washington_, I'm Margaret Carlson." Carlson's sign-off pinpoints what's too often wrong with Crossfire: Although it presents itself as a debate between both ends of the political spectrum, usually it ends up as confrontation between an aggressive advocate for conservative ideology and a more tentative defender of Washington's status quo. True advocates for the left-- people who actually push for progressive change and identify with left-of-center activists--are almost invisible on TV. Since 1989, the "left" on Crossfire has been represented by Michael Kinsley, who recently described himself as "a wishy-washy moderate" (American Journalism Review, 1-2/96). With Kinsley leaving the show to launch an online magazine for Bill Gates' Microsoft, Crossfire has been auditioning replacements. The talent search has clearly gone beyond the usual circle of moderates that typically passes for the left on TV--in part because of FAIR's advocacy on this issue. Besides Hitchens, Crossfire has also tested other articulate advocates for the left, including Joe Conason, a forceful liberal columnist who edits the weekly New York Observer and FAIR's own Jeff Cohen. George Carlin used to cite "guest host" as an example of an oxymoron--like "jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence." But these guest hosts demonstrated that "left on Crossfire" didn't have to be an oxymoron. Despite Crossfire's widening its spectrum of applicants, however, the two apparent leading candidates to replace Kinsley (the two receiving the most audition time) are still pundits whose relationship to the left is tenuous at best and hostile at worst. One, Bob Beckel, is a campaign consultant and corporate lobbyist whose firm has been accused of sending bogus "grassroots" telegrams supporting its clients (Washington Post, 8/4/95). In 1993, he praised President Clinton's pledge to downsize government for forcing a "showdown" with liberal Democrats: "The unions will grumble, the left will scream," he predicted gleefully (LA Time 9/12/93). Beckel denounced Gulf War protesters as "punks." (FOX's Off the Record, 1/26/91) (Beckel did declare that he was "proud to be from the left" on a recent Crossfire appearance--1/1/96.) The other main contender, Juan Williams, sometimes seems more at home criticizing the left than advocating for it. Williams denounced Clarence Thomas' critics--"liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations"--as "so-called champions of fairness." His column
[PEN-L:2649] E; AI: Mexico Urgent Action bulletin, Jan 22 (fwd)
+--+
+ AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL URGENT ACTION BULLETIN +
+ Electronic distribution authorised +
+ This bulletin expires: 10 March 1996. +
+--+
EXTERNAL AI Index: AMR 41/02/96
UA 12/96 Threats / Fear for safety 22 January 1996
MEXICOLourdes Feiguerez (f), human right activist
Victor Clark Alfaro, human right activist
On 15 January 1996 Lourdes Feiguerez, researcher at the Centro Bi-nacional
de Derechos Humanos, CBDH, Bi-national Centre of Human Rights, received a
series of threatening phone calls at the NGO's office in Tijuana, Baja
California referring to her and Victor Clark, the head of the Centre. They
have apparently been threatened because of their work on a case involving
three members of the Polic=EDa Judicial del Estado, PJE, State Judicial
Police, accused of torture.
The anonymous caller indicated that they had been observing the two human
rights activists and were looking for Victor Clark and that they knew that
he had not been in the Centre that whole day. The caller is reported to
have said:
"Listen to me you son of a bitch, you and this fag homosexual Victor Clark
are going to bloody hell because you are defending some shameless rats"
("Oyeme hija de tu chingada madre, t=FA y ese joto homosexual de Victor Clar=
k
se los va a cargar su chingada madre, porque se est=E1m metiendo mucho en
defender unas ratas sinverguenzas".)
Since September 1995 the CBDH has been working on the case of the alleged
torture of five young people, including two minors, by three members of the
PJE in Tijuana. In judicial proceedings brought against them, the three
PJE members were found guilty of torture, and the court called for them to
be dismissed. However, in December, when the three were still in their
posts, the CBDH pressed for a meeting with the Procurador del Estado, State
Attorney in Tijuana. This meeting led to the recent dismissal of the three
agents. This is the first time that the Centre has been able to bring to
justice members of the PJE accused of torture, even though they have
documented 425 cases of torture in Baja California since 1987.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Threats and harassment against those active in promoting and protecting
human rights in Mexico are reported to be on the increase. Amnesty
International has repeatedly expressed its concerns to the Mexican
authorities about the lack of safeguards provided to protect such
activists. The organization believes that the impunity enjoyed by the
perpetrators of these threats is the main reason for the persistence of
these abuses against human right activists (see UA 09/96, AMR 41/01/96, 16
January 1996; UA 203/95, AMR 41/19/95, 18 August 1995; UA 157/95, AMR
41/14/95, 4 July and UA 105/95, AMR 41/11/95, 3 May).
+---+
+ Supporters of Amnesty International around the world are +
+ writing urgent appeals in response to the concerns+
+ described above. If you would like to join with them in +
+ this action or have any queries about the Urgent Action +
+ network or Amnesty International in general, please +
+ contact one of the following: +
+ +
+ Ray Mitchell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (UK)+
+ Scott Harrison, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (USA) +
+ Guido Gabriel, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Germany) +
+ Marilyn McKim, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Canada) +
+ Xavier Zeebroeck, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Belgium)+
+---+
[PEN-L:2650] TAX THE RICH (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: 28 Jan 1996 00:00:00 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TAX THE RICH Organization: ? ## Nachricht am 27.01.96 archiviert ## Ursprung : /misc/activism/progressive --- TAX THE RICH Nationwide Saturation Postering Campaign Contents: 1. Introduction 2. Manifesto Instructions 3. Why tax the rich? 4. Why posters? --- *Note: This TAX THE RICH packet has been formatted for electronic distribution. To receive a fully-formatted version of this packet, including a free TAX THE RICH poster and membership card, please send a self-addressed stamped envelope to TAX THE RICH, P.O. Box 8090, Middletown, CT 06457. --- 1. Introduction. --- Welcome to the TAX THE RICH Nationwide Saturation Postering Campaign. Remember as you read this packet that TAX THE RICH is not an "Organization" in the traditional sense. There are no committees, no board of directors, no corporate sponsors. Rather, TAX THE RICH is an idea, and it is everyone who is working to make that idea into reality. If you think it is a good idea, you need to do your part as well. No one else can do it for you. Remember, also, that there are no rules; you don't need to ask anyone permission for anything. If you want a local TAX THE RICH group, start one. If you want a new pamphlet or a new TAX THE RICH poster, make one. Just let us know about it afterwards, so we can share your designs and ideas with other TTRers. The only thing you must not change is the Big Day-- February 18, 1996. Sincerely, The members of TTR-Middletown --- 2. Manifesto. --- 1. ENDS. The TAX THE RICH poster campaign aims to mobilize public opinion towards making TAX THE RICH a major force in the 1996 elections. Specifically, the campaign's goals are: -- To demonstrate to political candidates and would-be candidates that a large and vocal constituency is already in agreement with the TAX THE RICH concept; -- To educate and inform voters who are unaware of the social benefits of strongly progressive taxation, or who have been misinformed by an inherently biased, corporate-owned news media; -- To demonstrate the power of loosely organized, do-it-yourself "info-activism;" -- To empower TTR campaign participants. TAX THE RICH does not aim to implement or advocate specific legislation, but rather to have a general impact upon voting patterns, candidates' behavior, and the national consciousness. 2. MEANS. The message you are reading is part of the campaign's first stage. During this stage, awareness of the campaign will spread exponentially to thousands of potential TAX THE RICH participants. Campaign growth occurs in two equally important ways: distributive mailing and localized postering. For maximum growth it is essential that each participant practice both these techniques, as detailed in Section 3 (below). On Sunday, February 18, 1996, (two days before the New Hampshire primary) the TTR campaign will enter its second stage. Throughout Sunday and the predawn hours of Monday morning, participants will engage in massive, simultaneous "saturation postering." This postering may be accompanied by stickering, chalking, banner hangings, local rallies, and such other activities as local participants see fit to organize. To maintain the mystique and surprise value of the Feb. 18 action, participants and organizers will remain anonymous. Mainstream news coverage will be delayed until Feb. 11; groups may then begin sending press releases to local and national media. 3. FIRST ASSIGNMENT. * electronic version: 1. Think of five friends (preferably in other parts of the country) who will be interested in TAX THE RICH. Send each friend one copy of this message. 2. To register for postering and receive a free TAX THE RICH poster, send a SASE to PO BOX 8090, Middletown CT 06457. If you are trusting and can spare it, please include $5 to cover office and administrative costs. (Make checks payable to TAX THE RICH; donation is optional and is not tax-deductible). * standard version: 1. Make 30 copies of the TAX THE RICH poster and five copies of this page. 2. Think of five friends (preferably in other parts of the country) who will be interested in TAX THE RICH. Send each friend one copy of the poster, and one copy of this page. 3. Put up the other 25 posters in your neighborhood. 4. To receive additional posters, updates, and instructions, send a SASE to PO BOX 8090, Middletown CT 06457. If you are trusting and can spare it, please include $5 to cover office and administrative costs. (Make checks payable to TAX THE RICH; donation is optional and is not
[PEN-L:2651] Re: Freedom and Rig
Let me condense my earlier recommendations into just two for starters. First, raw correlations across countries with no attempt to control for other variables are highly suspect. Take the data on "economic freedom" and growth and add a third or fourth variable. Try, for instance, literacy or average years of education (from World Development Report). What happens to the coefficient on "freedom"? Second, look at the error plot. Which countries seem to be doing better than the trend? Worse? Is there a pattern that comes to mind? This can be a basis for trying new variables. Perhaps the most potent approach -- but also the most difficult -- is to go into the measurement of the "freedom" index. Chances are, the criteria were selected through a trial and error process that generated the best fit. (No one admits to doing this, but I've seen too much evidence of it over the years not to suspect it.) This may make the variable vulnerable. Propose an alternative criterion for "freedom" -- even one that is still based on neoliberal philosophy. Retabulate the sample set on this new measure; what happens? The problem is, unless the original authors have provided a vast amount of raw data, this sort of reconstruction is very labor-intensive. Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:2652] Re: Freedom and Rig
How ever do they define "economic freedom," anyway? Freedom from hunger, or freedom to fire 5,000 workers? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2653] Re: Freedom and Rig
Carl Dassbach wrote, In my opinion, the assertion that "economic freedom" is positively correlated with average GDP . . . neither merits nor warrants attention. It does merit attention if it is part of an attempt to discriminate among three different propositions: 1. democracy promotes capitalism 2. democracy has no systematic impact on capitalism 3. democracy tends to hinder capitalism (Ignoring, here, the impact of capitalism on political structure). Each of these propositions are very interesting and are worthy of being tested. I'm not sure which proposition is "true." Sloppy empirical tests of the above (if all existing tests are, indeed, sloppy) are helpful in showing that others should try to test the above propositions more carefully. In the first place, who would want to promote capitalism - that is, inequality, class domination and private ownership of the means of production. Second, If anything, capitalism historically promotes democracy, not vice versa. It promotes formal equality to overcome the feudal inequalities of status which were a major hindrances to contract and to also conceal substantive inequality. . Finally, a technical question, if these propositions were interesting (and they are NOT) how would you differentiate between them - make up some indicators, crunch some numbers and prove nothing or prove what we want to prove. The quality of social life can never be measured quantitatively. It is impossible. Complaints about the imprecision of tools or sloppy methods are merely an excuse for a failure to recognize the impossibility of the task. Historical process are neither replicable nor testable - they are historically specific and therefore unique. - Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931USA
[PEN-L:2654] Re: Freedom and Rig
What's wrong with conceding the point but reinterpreting the terms and explaining their significance? It's probably true that "economic freedom"--that is, capitalist production relations--causes higher economic groiwth and tends to increase, perhaps maximize wealth--for a few. And that "causes" is a real, not a statistical concept. Of course the claim has to be qualified in lots of ways that all pen-l=ers will know. For latecomers and less developed countries, high growth has been correlated with, and partly caused by, extensive planning and state intervention, so called, in th economy. "Economic freedom" for lessd deveoped countries doesn't produce high growth in comparison to the more interventionist dragon nations and in the third tier nations is just a license too loot. In the ex-Bloc countries too. And of course growth correlates imperfectly with well-being, for the obvious reason that if a tiny minority hogs all the wealth, the vast majority has nothing. But like most ideological noncepts, the purported correlation at issue is based on a grain of important truth, --Justin My question is this: -- should I compare the "economic freedom" correlation to the vocabulary/feet example? e.g., should I say that what's *really* going on is that those govts with neoliberal policies score highly on "economic freedom" and are also likely to stress "growth" at the cost of other measures of social wellbeing? this approach is appealing but raises questions of its own... -- should I say instead that "economic freedom" is a bogus construct, at least as used by Gwartney et al (e.g., with their emphasis on property rights)? in this case, I'd like to know how we distinguish reasonable constructs from unreasonable ones Seems to me this is an important issue to resolve if we're to resist the picture we're often given of the "real world". C.N.Gomersall Luther College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2655] Re: Freedom and Rig
Doug wrote: How ever do they define "economic freedom," anyway? Freedom from hunger, or freedom to fire 5,000 workers? Don't know; guess I'll have to read the book (sigh). FYI, "The Economist" in its quasi-review feels that "[economic freedom] cannot be measured by looking at the size of public spending relative to GDP, say, or at the extent of state ownership of industry, or at the level of trade barriers. It is a combination of these and many other factors, which leaves lots of room for debate about different elements of the mix. Stripped to its essentials, economic freedom is concerned with property rights and choice. Individuals are economically free if property they have legally acquired is protected from invasions or intrusions by others, and if they are free to use, exchange or give away their property so long as their actions do not violate other people's similar rights." And so on. BTW, the issue of correlation I raised reminds me of an earlier thread started last fall, I think, by Michael Perelman (?): in that thread, someone eventually claimed that Greenspan had "caused" a number of deaths. That seemed to me then, and now, to exemplify the "sloppy" thinking Eric Nilsson has castigated w.r.t. the "economic freedom and growth" relationship ;-) C.N.Gomersall Luther College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2656] Re: Freedom and Rig
How ever do they define "economic freedom," anyway? Freedom from hunger, or freedom to fire 5,000 workers? Doug Economic freedom in the US is, of course, the freedom to fire 5000, with no questions ask, the freedom for health care providers to make huge profits and pay inflated executive salaries while denying their clients care or refusing to pay the full amount because the charges are not "reasonable and customary," it is the frredom to be deprived of poor housing, adequate nutrition and a minimal level of health care, it is the freedom to turn people away from emergencies rooms if they do have insurance. It is the 'glorious' freedom of the free enterprise system where money talks and everybody else walks. - Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931USA
[PEN-L:2657] Help
Dear FEMECON-L'ers PEN-L'ers: Natasha Desai is a senior at Vassar College who wishes to pursue research on the topic she describes below. I would be very appreciative if more knowledgeable folks than I would pass along any suggestions to her on how she might proceed. Ms. Desai writes: "I would like to study how social change is co-opted or articulated through advertising and the production of goods and services. For example, high heels, wonderbras, and memberships to fitness clubs are marketed as empowerment tools for the new woman who is in charge of herself and confident with her body. While there is a possibility that a woman wearing a wonderbra may feel extra confident, women's struggle for power and respect is just used as a tool to sell her something else. Revolutionary ideas become fetishized or turned into a symbolic item that can be bought and sold, commodified. It's already different in the case of the feminine because of the precondition of objectification; she has been consistently trained to think of herself as an object and has been used historically to symbolize the wealth of her husband. So, basically I want to look at how change or deviance is manipulated back on itself to reassert traditional cultural and economic values paying particular attention to how different social groups are manipulated." Please send any recommendations directly to Ms. Desai whose e-mail is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks is advance for any and all help! -Sandy Thompson _ Alexander M. Thompson III Professor of Economics Dean of Studies Vassar College Box 5 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 tel: (914) 437-5257 fax: (914) 437-7060 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2658] Shelters for the homeless (fwd)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 18:00:16 -0800 From: Homeless Action Coalition [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Journal of Homelessness [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re:missions,welfare,religion Missions vary in the way they treat people. Many are caring and compassionate, others are cruel and abusive and obsessive in their religiosity. The biggest problem for homeless people in our area is that there is no legal shelter available for childless people except for a Mission that falls into the latter category. (Things aren't much better for the 100 or so families with children that are turned away each week from our family emergency shelter system, due to the lack of capacity. They are forced to either live illegally on the streets, double-up with friends or relatives, camp illegally on private property, or endure the same abuses as childless people at the local Mission, with the added abuse of separating the family, as male and female residents of the Mission are allowed no contact with each other, even eye-contact, even if they are married and have children.) This particular Mission allows three free nights' lodging. Thereafter, the charge is $2.00 (or four hours of labor) per night. (Hasn't anyone heard of the minimum wage law?) The idea of having to listen to a pre-meal blessing really doesn't bother too many people; but having to endure an hour-long Fundementalist Christian religious service, EVERY DAY, is enough to make many people prefer to risk arrest, violence, or freezing to death to staying at the Mission. The one night I stayed there (as an undercover journalist) the sermon dwelt on how "the Jews are too legalistic to get into heaven" and one of the hymns was about how we would all "become white in heaven". Homeless people in our area are given the choice of putting up with this crap or being arrested for camping. Our city rationalizes it's "prohibited camping ordinance" by saying that "The Mission turns no one away". Their argument is that, while the Mission may have some "shortcomings", it is still an available option to illegal camping. Their argument is, however, based on a false premise. The Mission, in fact, does turn many people away. They turn away people who have publicly criticized them, they turn away gay couples, they turn away women with adolescent male children or men with any children (too many child molesters are paroled to the men's dorm), they turn away trans-gendered people, they turn away people who wish to practice another faith, they turn away physically disabled people (no wheel-chair access, no deaf interpretation, etc.) and they turn away people who have vehicles (no available safe parking). All of these people are made criminals when they become homeless, because there is no legal shelter available for them. (For this reason, our City's Human Rights Commission has notified the City Council that the "Camping Ban", as it is now enforced, is a violation of the Constitutional Rights of the People. This view has been echoed by our local chapter of the ACLU, as well as the Homeless Action Coalition. Our City Council has refused to even acknowledge receipt of the information, let alone discuss the issue.) The administration of the local Mission has consistently refused to allow any outreach organizations for the homeless to have access to the residents of the Mission. ie. for treatment, housing or disability assistance, or to participate in community events.(ie. Homeless Memorial Day services, City Council Hearings and meetings, etc.) The Director of the Mission even threatened to have one of our (Homeless Action Coalition) workers arrested for registering homeless voters across the street from the Mission. When it was pointed out to him that it was legal for them to vote, and we weren't on his property, anyway, he stormed off, muttering about how it SHOULD be illegal for homeless people to vote. One of our members snuck a City Councilwoman into the Womens' dorm, last summer, at lunch time. Since the weather was in the high 90's, the Councilor was wearing shorts. Upon arrival at the Mission, she was ordered to change into long pants, which were provided by the staff. (Obviously, women must be protected from the sight of other womens' legs - who knows where that could lead?) After sitting down at the communal table for lunch, she started to discuss the need for a car camp for the homeless and was told by the "Matron" that she couldn't discuss politics while she was there. About that time, the Director walked through and recognized her. He did a quick double-take and whisked her out of there, to where he could try to put on the usual "dog and pony show" that they orchestrate for visitors. So, there are Missions, and then there are Missions. Evaluating them as a group is as useless as evaluating homeless people or government officials as a group. Each must be graded as an individual. The more important issues are those that create the need for
[PEN-L:2659] Re: Freedom and Rig
Carl Dassbach wrote, 1. . . . capitalism historically promotes democracy . . ..It promotes formal equality to overcome the feudal inequalities . I agree this is a TENDENCY, although I'm not sure this is true in all cases. My concern in my last posting was not about the transition between f-ism and c-ism, but was about the impact of democracy within already existing capitalist countries. 2. if these propositions were interesting (and they are NOT) But I think they are interesting. One reason is this: one aspect of the social democratic project is to expand democracy within capitalism. The idea is that people within a democratic environment will demand things like a social wage. The hope is that as people see the social wage is kinda nice, they might be more open to socialism. But, what if democracy (or the expansion of the social wage) harms the performance of a country? Will people say a) lets dump the social wage to stimulate the economy or b) hey, this social wage seems a good thing, but capitalism can't handle it--lets dump capitalism. But if democracy stimulates the economy, what then? Other issues arise. 3. how would you differentiate between them - make up some indicators, crunch some numbers and prove nothing or prove what we want to prove. This way of looking at empirical research is very common. And, certainly some people do empirical research in this way. But many people don't. But in any case, what is most interesting in empirical research is finding something you didn't anticipate. I'm not sure that empirical research "proves" or "disproves" theoretical statements. However, empirical research can help shed light on issues that is not gained in other forms of inquiry. For instance, the simple attempt to measure something qualitative in order to "crunch numbers" leads one to more fully think about what is being measured and the various weaknesses of various different approaches. This sort of thinking is less likely to go on in other forms of inquiry. Further, if one anticipates a certain result and you don't get it, this leads you to think, "what's wrong here?--is my theory wrong, or is something else going on that I did not previously think about (interactions, etc)" Such thinking is also less likely to go on in other forms of inquiry, although it might lead to new interesting insights. I'm not a simple falsificationist, but I wonder why some people reject empirical research as strongly as they do. Yes, most empirical work is sloppy and bad and only proved what the writer set out to prove. But this is likely also true of "theorists." Eric .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2660] Re: Freedom and Rig
At 12:52 PM 1/29/96, C.N.Gomersall wrote: Stripped to its essentials, economic freedom is concerned with property rights and choice. Individuals are economically free if property they have legally acquired is protected from invasions or intrusions by others, and if they are free to use, exchange or give away their property so long as their actions do not violate other people's similar rights." And so on. Without Marxian notions of exploitation, it's very difficult to refute this sort of thing, further proof of the importance of what I called practical Marxism the other day. How do liberals (American sense) respond to this? By extending the notion of property to God- and/or Constitution-given "rights"? That leads you to the elitist dead-end of litigation and Supreme Court worship. Any liberals out there who can help me out? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2662] Re: Freedom and Rig
To Doug Henwood, One reply, developed by various sorts of historians, is to focus on the tradition of ideas about the rights or "dignity" of labor, going back at least as far as the 1820s, if not further, with echoes heard as far back as Franklin in the 1750s. Also known as "producerism," this line of argument about the "superiority of labor to capital" found advocates in what might today seem odd places, like Daniel Webster, and was a meat and potatoes idea to Lincoln and many Radical Republicans. It was derailed as a "mainstream" American idea in the late nineteenth century by the robber barons and their epigones, especially after the depression of 1873 took the wind out of progressive capitalism here (as well as in Europe, where progressive capitalists in Prussia fell behind Bismarck's cartel state after this world-wide scare]. By the famous railroad strike of 1877, such ideas are depicted by men like Pinkerton as "anarchistic" and "communistic." Producerism is the core idea of the "Commons School" [John R. Commons, Univ of Wisc 1890s-1930s] of institutional economics, for example, and he is the author of a very important study of property that rests on the idea that property is a social/legal relation, not a "god given" verity of human existence. In short, some American liberals had absorbed the so-called historical school of thinking about subjects like property before the twentieth century. The idea that property is not an abstract given of human society, but a social relation with a history, is not a distinctively Marxist idea. Much of the liberal social policy of the twentieth century, at least insofar as the so-called welfare state is concerned, has been built on liberals' appreciation of the fact that property rights must be understood in the context of the evolution of capitalism. The place of labor in such a society is not some afterthought to the property question, as it was in the late 19th century and as it may become again soon, but a question with its own legitimacy, stemming from the premise that labor is not only a factor of production, but the starting point for any serious thinking about what a good society is--hence its connection with the "producerist" tradition. Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2663] Maquilas in our midst
5 The Nation January 29, 1996 Business finds the cheapest labor of all: MAKING PRISON PAY Christian Parenti No sooner had California's tough new "three strikes, you're out" law been passed in 1994 then the RAND Corporation rolled out reams of dire financial warnings. Instead of costing $1.1 billion to $1.8 billion a year, "three strikes" would, according to RAND, cost more than $5.5 billion annually. Endless prison building would break the bank in California and nationally. But now California Governor Pete Wilson and other officials around the country think they have found a way out: Harness the vast pool of idle inmate labor in the hope that overcrowded prisons can soon pay for themselves. Since 1990, thirty states have legalized the contracting out of prison labor to private companies. In Arizona -- where, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, 10 percent of all inmates work for private companies and make less than minimum wage -- prisoners test blood for a medical firm and raise hogs for John's Meats. In New Mexico prisoners take hotel reservations by phone. In Ohio inmates do data entry; they made Honda parts as well until political pressure from labor unions forced an end to that particular arrangement. Spalding golfballs are packed by imprisoned labor in Hawaii. In Lockhart, Texas, inmates held in a private prison owned by the Wackenhut Corporation build and fix circuit boards for L.T.I., a subcontractor that pays $1 a year in rent and supplies companies such as Dell, I.B.M.and Texas Instruments. In 1994 a Chicago-area Toys R Us used a night shift of prisoners to restock shelves. The list goes on. Some of these companies pay minimum wage, but prisoners see only about 20 percent of it; the rest gets siphoned off by state governments or private prison managers -- mostly for room and board, restitution to victims, family support and taxes. "We have a captive labor force, a group of men who are dedicated, who want to work. That makes the whole business profitable," says Bob Tessler, owner of DPAS, a company based in San Francisco that three years ago sold a maquiladora in Tecate, Mexico, and opened up a data processing operation in San Quentin State Prison. DPAS is one of many firms that are taking advantage of cheap inmate labor and tax breaks under California's five-year-old Joint Venture Program. Proposition 139, approved by voters in 1990, first allowed private firms in California to use imprisoned labor to make and sell products on the open market. In the past, prison labor was confined to producing goods for government consumption; the sale of prison-made commodities on the open market had been illegal in the state since the 1890s. But since 1991, when the law was formally changed, joint ventures with private industry have made millions of dollars in profits for business and have provided the California Department of Corrections with $1.3 million in room and board from working prisoners' wages and taxes. Still small in scale -- employing 200 inmates under contracts with thirteen firms -- the Joint Venture Program touts itself as "the future of corrections." The kinds of work now contracted out to prison labor run the gamut from high-tech drudgery to shoveling hog manure. DPAS, for example, employs eighteen prisoners in San Quentin doing data entry and "literature assembly" for firms such as Chevron, Bank of America and Macy's. In Ventura, young inmates make telephone reservations for T.W.A. at $5 an hour; the same work on the outside, when unionized, pays as much as $18 an hour. In Folsom, prisoners work for a private recycler, a plastics manufacturer and a brass faucet maker. They also make steel tanks for micro-breweries. In Aveala State Penitentiary, twenty-nine inmates on minimum wage raise hogs and slaughter ostriches in a custom-built abattoir for export to Europe at $40 a pound. Incarcerated workers also make circuit boards, do telemarketing and operate a message service. In other states inmates make everything from custom limousines to underwear, from military uniforms to Salvadoran license plates. The benefits of such joint ventures to private industry are numerous, as businessmen like Tessler readily point out: "We don't have to pay health and welfare on top of the wages; we don't have to pay vacation or sick pay." DPAS also gets a 10 percent tax credit on the first $2,000 of each inmate's wages. Inmates working in the California Joint Venture Program receive minimum wage, $4.25, minus the 80 percent that is garnished. In other states, prison wages are even lower. In Colorado, ATT paid fifty inmate telemarketers $2 an hour. In Washington State, thirty female prisoners sew a thousand sweatshirts a week for prison-labor contractor Joan Lobdell, who makes deals with clothing companies like Eddie Bauer and Union Bay. The incarcerated women are paid a per-piece rate that is supposed
[PEN-L:2664] Re: Freedom and Rig
On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: "rights"? That leads you to the elitist dead-end of litigation and Supreme Court worship. Any liberals out there who can help me out? Hey, Doug, go easy on us (future) radical lawyers. Litigation isn't so bad. You got a problem with Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade, to start with? --Justin
[PEN-L:2665] Re: Freedom and Rig
There's also the response Peter Burns and I were batting around the other day with Michael Meeropol: that there's no freedom, or it has no value, without resources to use it. If workers are "free" in the sense that they must work for the bosses or die, what's the great benefit to that? Well, there is a great benefit, as opposed to slavery or serfdom. But those aren't the options most people think of as alternatives these days. A vivid but I think accurate way of understanding this is to revive the old notion of wage slavery. Wage labor is rather like slavery in that it is forced on people who have no choice: more, it is just like slavery in that it gives the boss virtually absolute control over the worker for the period of the wage contract, especially given the "real subsumption" of labor under capital. Of course bosses can't do anything they like to wage workers, but there were slave codes too. Think of wage labor as slavery by the hour. --Justin On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: At 12:52 PM 1/29/96, C.N.Gomersall wrote: Stripped to its essentials, economic freedom is concerned with property rights and choice. Individuals are economically free if property they have legally acquired is protected from invasions or intrusions by others, and if they are free to use, exchange or give away their property so long as their actions do not violate other people's similar rights." And so on. Without Marxian notions of exploitation, it's very difficult to refute this sort of thing, further proof of the importance of what I called practical Marxism the other day. How do liberals (American sense) respond to this? By extending the notion of property to God- and/or Constitution-given "rights"? That leads you to the elitist dead-end of litigation and Supreme Court worship. Any liberals out there who can help me out? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2666] Re: Freedom and Rig
A few of you may be interested in looking at pope John Paul II's 1982 encyclical "Laborem exercens", which stresses the primacy and priority of labor over capital, and while criticizing Soviet style state ownership, indicates approval for what JP calls an "authentic socialization" of the means of production, meaning something like a kind of workers' ownership and control. He also talks in this encyclical about the need for economic planning. However the whole thing is written in Vaticanese, and as usual is careful not to come straight out in favor of "socialism". A good analysis of the encyclical can be found in a book by the Canadian Catholic theologian and democratic socialist, Gregory Baum. I think it's called The Priority of Labor. Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
