[PEN-L:7256] Re: Vote for Nader
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: Merhaba Fikret, is it possible to know how you think Nader will change the present system of the financial oligarchy which effectively marginalizes and ghettoizes the broad masses of the people? Or is this not his aim? Shawgi Tell Shawgi: you didn't ask me, but I don't think Nader will change anything, since he's not going to be elected. And if he were, everything would be different and so who could say what might change in that event?! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] You say that if Nader were elected "everything would be different..." Is it possible to know how everything would be different? For example, how would the essence of a system based firmly on the dictates of the financial oligarchy change? Would sovereignty actually be vested in the broad masses of the people for the first time in history if Nader were elected? Shawgi Tell Shawgi, I didn't express myself clearly. Sorry. I meant that if it were possible that Nader could win the election, it would be because everything would already be different. Under anything like current circumstances, Nader could not win. Nader could be elected only if things were very different. I was *not* suggesting (!) that under the present circumstances Nader could win and this would make it possible to "change" things. Such a suggestion would not be much different from "after the revolution" fantasies. Is this clear? Blair P.S. Neither do I mean to suggest that if sovereignty *were* "vested in the broad masses of the people," as you put it, that they would choose to elect Ralph Nader. :) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7255] Re: It is gone to far: Tim
What I meant was that Social Text Co. were caught with their pants down and have had a lot of explaining to do. Certainly no question about that in my mind! What if anything it says about post-modern wars is another question entirely. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7257] Re: post-modern wars--Is competitive the heart of...?
At 09:58 AM 11/4/96 -0800, you wrote: On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Ajit Sinha wrote: Exploitation and accumulation is not a result of man's inherent greed or desire to better his condition, but because of the forces of competition that reduces the capitalists to a cog in the system Ajit, does this mean that you see "competition" as the essence of the capitalist exploitation and accumulation? If so, then why does Marx write "It is not our attention to consider, here [Vol. I, Part IV, Production of Relative Surplus Value, Chp. 12, about four pages in], the way in which the laws, immanent in capitalist production, manifest themselves in the movements of individual masses of capital, where they assert themselves as coercive laws of competition, and are brought home to the mind and consciousness of the individual capitalist as the directing motives of his operations". In other words, I believe that all of Capital, Volume I, takes competition as a support for exploitation and not the reverse (as you seem to have it). Paul Zarembka _ I'm not talking about "essence" of anything here. The object of knowledge for Marx is the capitalist mode of production, which is a complex structure formed by relations of various elements organized under the dominance of the relation of production; and non of the elements that constitute the structure have independent existence outside of the structure itself. Competition is an aspect of the capitalist mode of production. Without the notion of competition, the "law" of value would not make much sense. My point is that exploitation is given in the very discription of the relation of production of capitalism. Marx's problem is to explain its incessant reproduction. Now Adam Smith and most of the economists would explain it on the basis of human nature. Marx explains it on the basis of competition, which is an aspect of the capitalist mode of production. To quote Marx: "Except as capital personified, the capitalist has no historical value, and no right to the historical existence which, to use Linchnowsky's amusing expression, 'ain't got no date'. ... But what appears in the miser as the mania of an individual is in the capitalist EFFECT OF A SOCIAL MECHANISM IN WHICH HE IS A COG. ... and competition subordinates every individual capitalist to the immanent laws of capitalist production, as EXTERNAL AND COERCIVE LAW. (Capital I, p. 739). (I have made many of such points in my paper in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY VOL 15, if anyone is interested out there). Your quote from Marx. as I understand is basically alluding to the 'transformation problem': how competition implies a redistribution of surplus value and formation of equal rate of profit etc. is a problem he is not dealing at the volume one level. So, in the end, I have no problem with your concluding sentence. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:7258] Fwd: Re: It is gone to far: Tim
I agree with most of Doug's message, reproduced in full below. However, I disagree with the direction of causation. Doug correctly (imho) points out that while the right is becoming more and more organized, the left is floundering, splintered into dozens of small pieces. If I read the message correctly, this floundering or splinterism is blamed on post-modernist thought, to some extent. I think that the view should be the other way around, that post-modernist thought is a result of the splinterism of the left. Also, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a crucial discussion, so, unlike my usual cavalier email postings, I will try and make myself clear: LIMITS 1. My points here are U.S. centric -- I know little of international struggles, and, while I think they are crucial, my limited knowledge makes it impossible for me to include them in this analysis. 2. The post modernist writings I am familiar with tend to be those of U.S. feminists as they relate to marxism, gender, race, labor, and history -- so my conclusions are bounded by the geographic nature of those readings. POSITIVES OF POMO I think the history of the left in the USA has pre-determined post-modernist thought. No matter which section of history you examine, the left and the movements led by the left in this country, have been based on exclusionary policies of some type. Taking labor as an example. The American Federation of Labor (conservative) split away from the Knights of Labor (radical) over the issue of extending full voting rights to women members. Since the Knights died after the AFL split off, the tactic of excluding women from labor organizations, when they were at least half of the waged labor force, worked. It allowed the men in the AFL to create a labor aristocracy for white men with skills who did not work in factories. Along comes the CIO. It is more inclusionary that the AFL, and contains a large percentage of communist leaders. However, while the CIO was more inclusionary in that it organized unskilled laborers on factory lines, it by no means was inclusive of all of labor. By now, more and more African Americans were moving north to industrial cities. Yet, the CIO did not have a great track record with universal recruitment of black labor. Also, the CIO was no more inclusive of women members than the AFL had been, and were co-authors with factory owners of the back lash against women factory workers following world war one. Ruth Milkman points out that the Trade Union Education League (TUEL), (for those who don't know what that was, they were women trade union organizers in their own group), organized more labor into unions while the AFL/CIO was kicking out the communists than all other labor groups combined. The TUEL, unlike the afl, cio, or wobblies, organized black women tobacco workers down south, women in the garment trades, and men and women in a number of other trades as well. In fact, the fight to kick out the communists stopped both the conservatives and the communists from organzing labor for a number of years. The non-inclusionary practices of many unions in the 50s and 60s is well documented. However, this history of non-inclusion (generally of women and minorities, but of other groups as well) was not limited to labor. Moving from labor to other history, let's take a look at the from the late 50s Civil Rights movements, on up through the Vietnam war. In fact, the left was a continuum of splinter groups and there never has been one group which can be said to represent anything like a consensus amongst left groups. The victories of the 50s, 60s, and early 70s all came from temporary coalitions of groups who agreed to set aside sectarian disputes and work on issues: women's issues, civil rights issues, anti-war issues, education issues, jobs issues, etc. Anti-war groups were anti-working class, women's groups were anti-men, party building organizations excluded women's issues and some included issues of minorities (some didn't), . . The one thing almost all these groups had in common, along with the CPUSA, was espousing ideologies which were distinctly non-American. Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, Islam, all of these things are imports. Now, don't get me wrong, all these theories of revolution are crucially important, but by applying them to the usa without a systematic analysis of u.s. culture as it exists makes them less than useful. I see pomo thought as taking these foreign theories away from dogmatism and towards creating a new tool box of theories which potentially will be very useful -- at some point down the road. The left never has done a systematic study of what would actually create the grounds for revolution in the united states. I think post modernism, in the usa, is the very shaky beginnings of actually doing this. Prior to the Chinese REvolution, for a number of years, Mao did a sociological study of China.
[PEN-L:7259] Re: Marx - PoMo or systems theory?
I don't see why this must be connected with post-modernism. I would say that it is much more clearly and straightforwardly described by the language and concepts of systems theory, where outside forces play the role of only influencing what is really endogeneously given dynamics which stem from the interaction between the agents of the (capitalist) system. We have a system that is strongly interconnected with criss-crossing non-linear feedback loops, positive and negative. This explains the endogenous dynamics, and I therefore question why we need PoMo concepts for this purpose. If someone suggests Marx had a foot in the PoMO camp, I insist that he instead was a pioneer (non-mathematical) systems theorist!! :-) Trond Andresen __ I don't know "systems theory" to say anything about it. But Post-modernism may not have any problem with "systems theory". However, there is no such thing as post-modernist theory, by the way. I was indirectly refering to Foucault's THE ORDER OF THINGS where he identifies modern epistimology organized in terms of a vertical relationship. Althusser also argues in similar terms in his critique of essentialism. That's why I interpreted Marx's attempt to cut political economy from its roots as a post-modernist move. But it does not mean that I think marx was a post-modernist through and through. His distinction between science and ideology would always keep him (and Althusser, and to some extent early Foucault I might add) at a distance from Derrida and his followers. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:7260] Habermas on Foucault
Here is the greatest defender of Enlightenment and modernity critiquing a great post-modernist. I wish we at the pen-l could discuss it at the same level (at least not so low as we have gotten at times). Just one more point: Foucault was quite a political animal and his politics was quite progressive as anybody who knows Foucault knows that. Any way, here is Habermas (I hope Doug is listning): TAKING AIM AT THE HEART OF THE PRESENT: ON FOUCAULT'S LECTURE ON KANT'S 'WHAT IS ENLIGHTENMENT? The current counterpart of neoconservatism is a radical critique of reason stamped by French poststructuralism, which is meeting with a lively response, especially among students and younger intellectuals. In this memorial address for Michel Foucault ... I tried to bring out the critical impulse in this critique of reason, which occasionally slides off into Germanic obscurity. Foucault's death came so unexpectedly and so precipitously that one can scarcely resist the thought that the life and teachings of the philosopher were being documented even in the circumstantiality and brutal contingency of his sudden death. Even from a distance, one experiences Foucault's death at fifty seven as an event whose untimeliness affirms the violence and mercilessness of time--the power of facticity, which, without sense and without triumph, prevails over the painstakingly constructed meaning of each human life. For Foucault, the experience of finiteness became a philosophical stimulus. He observed the power of the contingent, which he ultimately identified with power as such, from the stoic perspective, rather than interpreting it from within the Christian horizon of experience. And yet in him the stoic attitude of keeping an overly precise distance, the attitude of the observer obsessed with objectivity, was peculiarly entwined with the opposite element of passionate, self-consuming participation in the contemporary relevance of the historical moment. ... Foucault links the 'WHAT IS ENLIFHTENMENT?' text, which appeared in 1784, with Kant's 'DISPUTE OF THE FACULTIES', which appeared fourteen years later and looks back on the events of the French Revolution. ... Foucault connects the two texts in such a way that synoptic view emerges. From this angle the question "what is enlightenment?" fuses with the question "what does the revolution mean for us?" A fusion of philosophy with thought stimulated by contemporary historical actuality is thereby accomplished--the gaze that has been schooled in Eternal Truths immerses itself in the detail of a moment pregnant with decision and bursting under the pressure of anticipated possibilities for the future. ... For a philosophy claimed by the significance of the contemporary moment, the issue is the relationship of modernity to itself, the "rapport 'sagital' a sa propre actualite." Holderlin and the young Hegel, Marx and the Young Hegelians, Baudelaire and Nietzsche, Bataille and the Surrealists, Lukacs, Merleau-Ponty, the precursors of Western Marxism in general, and not least, Foucault himself--all of them contribute to the sharpening of the modern time consciousness that made its entrance into philosophy with the question "What is Enlightenment?". I will leave it at that. I hope you enjoyed it. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:7261] Re: Fwd: Re: It is gone to far: Tim
Thanks to Maggie for an very interesting contribution, let me add my to cents, partly as a follow up to Trond Andresens earlier posting. 1) I think that in Norway the growing influence of pomo is because the traditional left, especially the stalinist and maoist, were dogmatic and anti-intellectual. The stalinist/maoists had to be - their political plattform did not stand the test of critical science. After the collapse of the *VERY* strong Norwegian maoist movement - (three tousand active members at the peak in 1975, still having a daily paper with 9000 copies, a member in Parliment etc. etc.) there was an intellectual vacuum on the academic left. It could easily have been filled by something worse than pomo. The non-stalinist left was at times a bit too academic (in the bad sense) - and that is partly why it was not such a success. On the other hand: The Norwegian maoist movement was very Norwegian in style - deliberatly building on popular cultural currents - not at all scornfull of the litterature the "masses" read - that was part of its success. The were not afraid of the traditional realist form to reach people, they did share the popular disrespect of most of modern art. I still do - not Frank Zappa of course, but the empty things that are posing as art. 2) When Maggie writes: "Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, Islam, all of these things are imports. Now, don't get me wrong, all these theories of revolution are crucially important, but by applying them to the usa without a systematic analysis of u.s. culture as it exists makes them less than useful. I agree 100%. I would add trotskyism. When I went from maoism to trotskyism (my own, critical Luxemburg/Mandel variety) I followd the SWP press (Militant) for a couple of years (1978 - 1982). I often said to myself: This is an European paper from the thirties! Its style and contents was clearly totally un-american - no trace of TV-commercials, Disney or Zappa! It would have functioned better in Norway. In Norway (and Sweden, Denmark) the culture and traditions of classical social democracy have been more influential. Mayby an anecdote could illustrate this: When there was a reshuffeling of cabinet two weeks ago, the new ministers were asked in our BBC if they knew the traditional songs of the labour movement. They did. They were tested to see if they actually remembered the text of a song that starts like this: "We are the men and women from the factories. We are building the country...etc". Could such a thing happen to a bunch of new ministers in the US? In UK? 3) One of my most critical points regarding pomo (like Doug) is the lack of "What is to be done?" questions. Beacuse if you really want all the marginalized groups to get together then you must give them an political expression, that is an alternative on the national political scene. In the US (and in the UK) an electoral reform seems to me to be the key to overcoming the eternal splitting up of the left, the endless debates over lesser evelism, the retreat of part the left into academia etc. etc. But having followed the debates on PEN-L, marxchat etc. I see virtually no initatives in that direction. Why isn't the american left the inspirator of a broad democratic reform movement? An proportional voting system, one chamber etc. Such a movement would be a practical critique of some of the negative aspects of pomo, or what? (Beside the most important: The current apathy (less than 50%) must be alarming, opening up for the far-right, or isn't it?) Look to Scandinavia and Germany in contrast to England. In the former there are left-socialist/green parties and far-left parties, in England it is virtually impossible for a left-wing third party to establish itself. The british left seems to bee eternally crushed between entryism into Labour) and sect-life outside Labour. (Let us see if Scargill can break throug the vicious circle of lesser-evelism). Much more could be said about this - I'll stop here. Regards Anders Ekeland At 00:04 05/11/96 -0800, you wrote: I agree with most of Doug's message, reproduced in full below. However, I disagree with the direction of causation. Doug correctly (imho) points out that while the right is becoming more and more organized, the left is floundering, splintered into dozens of small pieces. If I read the message correctly, this floundering or splinterism is blamed on post-modernist thought, to some extent. I think that the view should be the other way around, that post-modernist thought is a result of the splinterism of the left. Also, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a crucial discussion, so, unlike my usual cavalier email postings, I will try and make myself clear: LIMITS 1. My points here are U.S. centric -- I know little of international struggles, and, while I think they are crucial, my limited knowledge makes it impossible for me to include them in this analysis. 2. The post modernist writings I am familiar with tend to be those of
[PEN-L:7263] Re: Vote for Nader
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: Merhaba Fikret, is it possible to know how you think Nader will change the present system of the financial oligarchy which effectively marginalizes and ghettoizes the broad masses of the people? Or is this not his aim? Shawgi Tell Shawgi: you didn't ask me, but I don't think Nader will change anything, since he's not going to be elected. And if he were, everything would be different and so who could say what might change in that event?! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] You say that if Nader were elected "everything would be different..." Is it possible to know how everything would be different? For example, how would the essence of a system based firmly on the dictates of the financial oligarchy change? Would sovereignty actually be vested in the broad masses of the people for the first time in history if Nader were elected? Shawgi Tell Shawgi, I didn't express myself clearly. Sorry. I meant that if it were possible that Nader could win the election, it would be because everything would already be different. Under anything like current circumstances, Nader could not win. Nader could be elected only if things were very different. I was *not* suggesting (!) that under the present circumstances Nader could win and this would make it possible to "change" things. Such a suggestion would not be much different from "after the revolution" fantasies. Is this clear? Blair P.S. Neither do I mean to suggest that if sovereignty *were* "vested in the broad masses of the people," as you put it, that they would choose to elect Ralph Nader. :) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is clearer, but, what then, in your estimation, would be the needed changed conditions which would allow Nader to be elected? You say that under "current circumstances" he could not win. Some basic facts about current U.S. Canadian electoral process: - - citizens are prohibited from selecting their own candidates for election - citizens are prohibited from initiating legislation - citizens are prohibited from recalling elected officials, and where there is a so-called mechanism to do this, it is next to impossible to recall an elected official - bourgeois parties (e.g., democratic, republican, reform, NDP, PC, etc.) are not designed to bring the people to power. This is not their aim. - extremely large amounts of money are required to even run for elections. - there are no laws to prevent influence peddling This list of prohibitions against the members of the U.S. and Canadian polities goes on. It is quite long actually. My point is: regardless of which party emerges, if it arises under the present system of the super-wealthy, the broad masses of the people will remain effectively marginalized and ghettoized if fundamental electoral changes are not made. The bourgeoisie knows full well that it is suffering from an extremely severe credibility crisis and is doing everything in its power to usher in medievalism (e.g., rule by decree and rule according to "might makes right"). Voting, that is, legitimizing the present system of the super-rich will keep the masses from coming to power. Even Jefferson long ago was aware of the need for the propertied class to struggle fervently to keep the masses from coming to power. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7264] Re: post-modern wars--Is competitive the heart of...?
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Ajit Sinha wrote: In other words, I believe that all of Capital, Volume I, takes competition as a support for exploitation and not the reverse (as you seem to have it). Paul Zarembka _ I'm not talking about "essence" of anything here. The object of knowledge for Marx is the capitalist mode of production, which is a complex structure formed by relations of various elements organized under the dominance of the relation of production; and non of the elements that constitute the structure have independent existence outside of the structure itself. Yes, and what is that relation of production in capitalism, but a relation of exploitation of workers by capitalists? Competition is an aspect of the capitalist mode of production. Without the notion of competition, the "law" of value would not make much sense. My point is that exploitation is given in the very discription of the relation of production of capitalism. Yes and no. Yes, it is part of the capitalist mode of production. No, in the sense that Marx extracts from competition in Volume 1 (which you agree to) and there must be a reason for that more than simple expository convenience. Marx's problem is to explain its [exploitation's] incessant reproduction. Now Adam Smith and most of the economists would explain it on the basis of human nature. Marx explains it on the basis of competition, I don't agree. Marx is not explaining exploitation from competition. If he had intended that he would have been called upon in Volume 1 to make competition a center of his analysis. which is an aspect of the capitalist mode of production. To quote Marx: "Except as capital personified, the capitalist has no historical value, and no right to the historical existence which, to use Linchnowsky's amusing expression, 'ain't got no date'. ... But what appears in the miser as the mania of an individual is in the capitalist EFFECT OF A SOCIAL MECHANISM IN WHICH HE IS A COG. ... and competition subordinates every individual capitalist to the immanent laws of capitalist production, as EXTERNAL AND COERCIVE LAW. (Capital I, p. 739). (I have made many of such points in my paper in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY VOL 15, if anyone is interested out there). Your quote from Marx. as I understand is basically alluding to the 'transformation problem': how competition implies a redistribution of surplus value and formation of equal rate of profit etc. is a problem he is not dealing at the volume one level. So, in the end, I have no problem with your concluding sentence. Cheers, ajit sinha I read competition as a SUPPORT for capitalist exploitation and the quote you cite suggests such, not a transformation problem. Cheers, Paul Z.
[PEN-L:7265] Re: post-modern wars--Is competitive the heart of...?
Recently Ajit Sinha writes: Competition is an aspect of the capitalist mode of production. Without the notion of competition, the "law" of value would not make much sense. My point is that exploitation is given in the very discription of the relation of production of capitalism. COMMENT: I do not understand this. Does this imply that where one has oligopoly or monopoly within capitalism (little or no competition) there would be no extraction of surplus value, that Marxian concepts of that type would not apply? There is a tendency in capitalism to develop non-competitive means of extracting surplus. Indeed, without such tendencies capitalism would not survive. Take patent protection. This is specifically designed to frustrate competition. Without it, there would not be what Schumpeter calls dynamic efficiency within capitalism as contrasted with Walrasian static efficiency. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:7267] African American Studies Call
*Third Annual CPC Conference on African American Studies* SANKOFA (Knowing the Past, Living the Present, Building the Future): AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES IN THE CONTINUUM AND THE NEXT MILLENNIUM Saturday, April 19, 1996 Gettysburg College Gettysburg, Pennsylvania *Announcement: Call for Presentations* Proposals are invited for papers, panels, and performances of all types to be presented at the Third Annual CPC African American Studies Conference. The theme of the event is "SANKOFA (Knowing the Past, Living the Present, Building the Future): AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES IN THE CONTINUUM AND THE NEXT MILLENNIUM." The conference is intended to promote discussion and dialogue on issues related to African American Studies and African Centered education and scholarship. Proposals for entire sessions are welcome, as are proposals for alternative formats, from panel discussions and roundtables to readings and performances. Proposals for papers, panels, readings, or performances related to any or all aspects of SANKOFA: AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES IN THE CONTINUUM AND THE NEXT MILLENNIUM are invited, including but *not limited* to the following: *Visions and Re-Visions: The Future of African American Studies* *One Root, a Multiplicity of Approaches* *Enlarging the Academy, Enhancing Humanity* *Epistemologies and Methodologies of African American Studies* *The Ways Forward* *African and African American Oral and Written Literary Traditions* *African American and African Story-Telling* *African American and African Oral History* *African Roots of African American Music and Literature* *SANKOFA in African American Religious and Spiritual Traditions* *Teaching African American and African History* *African Centered Conceptions of Time* *African Centered Futurology* *Creative Freedom and Human Emancipation* *Diversity on Campus: Progress and Backlash* *Integrating African American Studies Across the Curriculum* *Research and Community Empowerment* *Political Action and Economic Development: The Role of Activist Scholarship* *African American Studies and the Traditional Disciplines* *African American Studies and Interdisciplinary Programs* *African American Studies in Primary and Secondary Education* *Pan-African Studies, African American Studies and African Studies: Linkages and Separations* Please submit an abstract of 250 words or less as soon as possible (but by February 15, 1996) to Program Subcommittee, African American Studies, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA 17325 or e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sponsored by The Africana Studies Program at Franklin Marshall College, The African American Studies Program at Gettysburg College, and The Central Pennsylvania Consortium.
[PEN-L:7269] Re: It is gone to far: Tim
At 12:01 AM 11/5/96, Blair Sandler wrote: What I meant was that Social Text Co. were caught with their pants down and have had a lot of explaining to do. Certainly no question about that in my mind! What if anything it says about post-modern wars is another question entirely. One thing it says is that people who go on about science should actually know something about science. When Stanley Aronowitz says something like this, he just has no idea what he's talking about: "I want to insist that the convention of treating natural and human sciences according to a different standard be dropped I want to treat the controversies within each domain as aspects of the same general problematic: How are the objects of knowledge constructed? What is the role of the culturally conditioend 'worldviews' in their selection? What is the role of socail relations in determining what and how objects of knowledge are investigated? ... [T]he distinctions between the natural and human sciences are not as significant as their similarities" [Aronowitz, "The Politics of the Science Wars," Social Text 46/47]. 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:7270] Re: Habermas on Foucault
Habermas says: Even from a distance, one experiences Foucault's death at fifty seven as an event whose untimeliness affirms the violence and mercilessness of time--the power of facticity, which, without sense and without triumph, prevails over the painstakingly constructed meaning of each human life. COMMENT: This is nothing but warmed up leftover Sartrean soup. Habermas: For Foucault, the experience of finiteness became a philosophical stimulus. He observed the power of the contingent, which he ultimately identified with power as such, from the stoic perspective, rather than interpreting it from within the Christian horizon of experience. COMMENT: The Stoics thought nothing was contingent, so it is hard to see how there is any Stoic perspective in Foucault. For Stoics time reveals the necessary operation of the "Logos".It is God's handiwork unfolding through necessity not contingency. Things only seem contingent to us. From the Stoic perspective Foucault just doesn't understand contingency at all. Nor does Habermas have a clue about Stoicism it would seem. How else does one explain his association of a Stoic view with contingency? Habermas: And yet in him the stoic attitude of keeping an overly precise distance, the attitude of the observer obsessed with objectivity, was peculiarly entwined with the opposite element of passionate, self-consuming participation in the contemporary relevance of the historical moment. COMMENT: In a way many Stoics thought the same. Combined with "apathy" one ought to play the role "fate" assigns to the utmost. For example, Marcus Aurelius was both a Stoic and a Roman Emperor who certainly actively "participated in the contemporary relevance of the historical moment." The opposite element is not all that opposite. Indeed one was to play one's role even if it meant death. Habermas: A fusion of philosophy with thought stimulated by contemporary historical actuality is thereby accomplished--the gaze that has been schooled in Eternal Truths immerses itself in the detail of a moment pregnant with decision and bursting under the pressure of anticipated possibilities for the future. COMMENT: Once upon a time there was an old fart named Plato. He wrote a book called the REPUBLIC. In it he outlines an educational system that streams students according to their abilities and ends up with a core of philosopher kings and queens who come to gaze upon THE GOOD, THE TRUE, AND THE BEAUTIFUL. This experience is pleasant and addictive so in order to be of any use to the multitude that they are to rule, the potential rulers must be forced to do practical administrative, crap work, in the degraded spatio-temporal world before they will be any good as rulers. The idea that theory (qua abstract truth) must be integrated with action is hardly new. Plato said it. Marx said it (praxis). The difference is that this new formulation seems to make moments into females about to give birth and it sounds as if there is urgent need for caesarian section before they kill time. What is so marvelous or new in what Habermas says? I find this quote rather untypical of Habermas. It is more "poetic" than usual. I find Habermas is very much akin to Talcott Parsons. As does Parsons, Habermas uses a great number of diverse and very abstract categories== in Habermas' case sometimes derived from other people who use similar concepts much more clearly e.g. John Searle. From time to time I get the impression he may be saying something important if one could only penetrate the thickets of obscurity produced by his multiplication of abstraction beyond necessity. I find his use of empirical data is limited and often serves to illustrate abstract categories or claims rather than test hypotheses. I wish he would imitate the writing styles of G.E. Moore, or Bertrand Russell. Russell and Moore have always been at a great disadvantage compared to many other philosophers. It is almost always evident when they say something that is clearly wrong, because what they say they say clearly. Often one doesn't have a clue if what Heidegger or Habermas say is wrong because one isn't sure what is being asserted if anything. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:7271] Re: Economics in the News
From: "James Michael Craven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:57:35 PST8PDT Subject:Economics in the News Priority: normal The tabloids reported that singer Michael Jackson is a soon-to-be father through artificial insemination. He expressed that he is hoping for a boy. Does this qualify as "vertical integration"? ;) Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * "The envelope is only defined--and * * Dept of Economics* expanded--by the test pilot who dares* * Clark College* to push it." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (H.H. Craven Jr.(a gifted pilot) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * "For those who have fought for it, * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * freedom has a taste the protected* * * will never know." (Otto Von Bismark) * * * * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION * *--* * James Craven * "The envelope is only defined--and * * Dept of Economics* expanded--by the test pilot who dares* * Clark College* to push it." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (H.H. Craven Jr.(a gifted pilot) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * "For those who have fought for it, * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * freedom has a taste the protected* * * will never know." (Otto Von Bismark) * * * * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:7272] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1996 _Nonfarm payroll employment grew by 210,000, seasonally adjusted, in October, with the largest gains in services and retail trade (Daily Labor Report, pages 1,D-4,E-5). The unemployment rate remained steady at 5.2 percent. The jobs report confirmed analysts' consensus forecasts of a rebound from September's lackluster performance In the last three months, job growth has averaged about 150,000 a month, well below the first half of the year Factory job creation was sluggish in October Automobile employment lost 14,000 workers in October. BLS Commissioner Katharine G. Abraham at a press briefing following the release said this decline cannot be directly linked to fallout from the 21-day strike at General Motors of Canada. She said, however, that published sources indicated plant shutdowns in America were related to a problem getting parts _The last major economic report due before Election Day showed the economy moving ahead smoothly with low unemployment and little inflation pressure. The nation's jobless rate remained steady at 5.2 percent in October while employers boosted their payrolls by another 210,000 workers. That brought to 10.7 million the number of payroll jobs added since President Clinton took office in January 1993. Last month, 127.6 million people had jobs while 6.9 million were seeking work but unable to find it (Washington Post, Nov. 2, page H1). _In the latest of a string of pre-election reports showing the economy on a slow but steady track, government figures indicated that the number of American jobs once again grew at a robust pace in October while wages posed no threat of faster inflation Economists who scrutinized the report for any impact from the 50-cent rise in the minimum wage that took effect Oct. 1 found little sign of change other than a 1.1 percent jump in the average earnings of those working in retail trade. The effect on overall earnings -- unchanged at $11.91 an hour after two hefty increases -- was "not more than a cent or two," Commissioner Abraham said (New York Times, Nov. 2, page 37). The index of leading economic indicators rose a slight 0.1 percent seasonally adjusted in September, after posting increases of 0.2 percent in both August and July, the Conference Board reported on Nov. 1 (Daily Labor Report, page D-20; New York Times, Nov. 2, page 39; Wall Street Journal, page A2). Both manufacturing activity and the pace of overall economic growth continued to ease in October, restrained by slowdowns in orders, employment, and inventories, the National Association of Purchasing Management reported on Nov. 1 (Daily Labor Report, page A-13; Washington Post, Nov. 2, page H1; New York Times, Nov. 2, page 39; Wall Street Journal, page A2). New orders placed with manufacturers climbed 2.7 percent in September, with almost all of the gain coming in the durable goods sector, according to figures released by the Census Bureau on Nov. 1 The September orders advance was the largest since August 1994 and more than offset a decline in August (Daily Labor Report, page D-1; New York Times, page 39; Wall Street Journal, page A2). Don't assume health benefits are forever, says The Washington Post (Nov. 3, page H1), pointing out that rising medical costs and pressure for profits are driving more and more large employers to end or sharply curtail health care coverage for retirees. Others are boosting the share of the costs retirees are expected to pick up. As recently as 1988, about 37 percent of retirees were covered by health insurance from a former employer; by 1994, that share had dropped to 27 percent
[PEN-L:7273] old left (was Pomo eruptions)
Terry McD writes: Whatever the weaknesses of the old left, they are not remotely responsible for our current condition. I disagree: many of the excesses of the 1960s/1970s New Left, it was true, stemmed from their unwillingness to listen to and learn from the Old Left. Some of that was simply a matter of being young and brash, but a lot of it is a response to the major mistakes of the Old Left, which were reproduced (second time as a farce) by many or all of the 1970s "Marxist-Leninist" movements. So the Old Left made its contribution to our current condition. The general problem with many movements (and it's not just a problem with the left) is the tendency to reject a point of view by going all the way to the opposite. (E.g.: Some anarchists overreact to the stupidity of the M-L bureaucracies, while the M-Lers overreact to the silliness of many anarchists. Some pomos react to modernist determterminism by going for indeterminism, while some modernists circle the wagons and ignore even the valid (critical) edge of postmodernism. Etc.) My response is to go classical and follow Aristotle (a well-known dead white male) to look for the golden mean, or even better, to look for the synthesis. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:7274] multidimensional value (was Re: nattering nabob [1])
Bruce R. McFarling (hi, Bruce!) writes that: One of the divisions between institutionalist economics ... and Marxian economics has been the former's insistence on multi-dimensional theories of 'value'. But Marx had _two_ kinds of value, i.e., single-dimensional value (or exchange-value) and multi-dimensional (or totally unquantifiable) use-value. IMHI (in my humble interpretation), one aspect of Marx's critique of capitalism is of its tendency to reduce absolutely everything to a single dimension, dollars and cents, which corresponds to abstract (one-dimensional) labor -- at the expense of, or contradicting, use-value and concrete labor. It's not Marx that was one-dimensional but capitalism. (However, some Marxists did take up the one-dimensionality of capitalism as a model for their own practice, as in the old USSR.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:7275] pomo and all that
Probably should avoid this, but, sigh... I happen to think that there is a middle ground here. Without doubt there is a lot of silly pomo lit around, and the Sokal Affair, whatever else it has done, has certainly exposed this, at least in relation to hard science discussions (btw, this issue has been blowing up on several post-marxism lists with some of the same participants as on this list, but triggered by a report on a public presentation by the principals in that affair). OTOH, some pomo lit is insightful and useful. I think that Derrida's _Spectres of Marx_ is such a book. Reasons why have been given by others. There is another issue which needs to be faced here. Post pomos like Doug H. insist that Marxist or radical analysis should be able to be expressed relatively simply and clearly. I have sympathy with this, and Doug is much better than most of us at doing this. But not all things can be so easily expressed. There are, unfortunately, levels of analysis. This is especially clear when we look at Marx himself. _The Communist Manifesto_ is a whole lot easier to read and to turn into political propaganda than is _Theories of Surplus Value_ or _Grundrisse_. I have seen claims in this controversy that Marx can be read by any reasonably intelligent person, etc. Maybe so, but a lot of people find some of his stuff pretty difficult and opaque and that mountainous lit interpreting his work is good evidence of this. No, workers are not going to get organized based on reading _Grundrisse_ any more than are on reading Derrida. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7276] US election gossip
Well, for those of you care... Late afternoon media gossip, based on exit polls, is that Clinton is ahead by 7 points. Dems will pick up some seats in both House Senate, but won't take control. 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:7277] Re: multidimensional value
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce R. McFarling (hi, Bruce!) [Hi, Jim!] writes that: One of the divisions between institutionalist economics ... and Marxian economics has been the former's insistence on multi-dimensional theories of 'value'. But Marx had _two_ kinds of value, i.e., single-dimensional value (or exchange-value) and multi-dimensional (or totally unquantifiable) use-value. IMHI (in my humble interpretation), one aspect of Marx's critique of capitalism is of its tendency to reduce absolutely everything to a single dimension, dollars and cents, So far, so good: for example, this corresponds to the infamous dichotomy between ceremonial and instrumental, or as in Veblen's Theory of Business Enterprise, the dichotomy between "pecuniary" (that is, financial) and and industrial. which corresponds to abstract (one-dimensional) labor Which is the divergence I referred to: financial interests "one-dimensionalize" human effort as financial control over labor, a society's technological legacy as financial control over productive equipment, a society's organization of economic activities by financial control over going concerns, and a society's material environment by financial control over "resources". -- at the expense of, or contradicting, use-value Or instrumental value, or industrial interests -- if the differences are not entirely semantic, they are primarily semantic. and concrete labor. adding the above dimensions, _pari passu_ It's not Marx that was one-dimensional but capitalism. (However, some Marxists did take up the one-dimensionality of capitalism as a model for their own practice, as in the old USSR.) Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7278] Re: Vote for Nader
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: Briefly (and crudely): there are no conditions which would allow Nader to be elected. Well, maybe there are some but I'd have a hard time conceiving of them and it's not clear why I would take the time to do so. :) I usually don't vote for presidents tweedledee or tweedledum, but I don't think voting for Nader is a vote that legitimizes the present system, or at least while it may contribute to legitimizing certain aspects of the present system it is just cantakerous enough to contribute (in a tiny way, for sure) to *de*legitimizing certain other aspects. Among other things, it acknowledges publicly and out loud (whereas not voting does so silently) that the present system is illegitimate. Speaking objectively, the present system is illegitimate. The question naturally arises: why attempt participation in an illegitimate system? Why not reject it? This would in fact represent an extremely postive development. It would be an authentic political stand, the concrete basis for the creation of the much-needed discussion and theory that will serve as a guide to empowering the broad masses of the people for the first time in history. The present economic and political system of the financial oligarchy is designed to preserve the Old, to block the emergence of the New. I agree that lesser-evilism does hurt our cause by legitimizing the present system. This said, of course there are very important local and state issues on the California ballot. Every society naturally has many issues, but addressing issues as issues does not mean that the essence of the underlying system is actually addressed. So, for example, the direction of the present society is not determined by issues or individuals or policies. It is determined by the objective laws of social development in general, and the objective laws of capitalist development in particular. If the issues being addressed do not involve investigation of their monopoly capitalist context, then the illegitimacy of the system will remain unquestioned and uninvestigated. Raising the minimum wage (also "legitimizes the present system"), defeating the racist Prop 209, preventing further destruction of public space and public lands (a variety of different initiatives in different regards), etc., are all "reformist" issues the shape the terrain on which we do battle and therefore important. Blair Yes, these are all important matters, but they are, at best, remedial policies, remedial in character, especially so long as they block investigation of their monopoly capitalist context. In order to eradicate problems, people must address the root cause, the origin of the problems plaguing society: the capitalist system, a form of class society. People must go to the heart of the matter in order to bring about the New, to end the Old. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is clearer, but, what then, in your estimation, would be the needed changed conditions which would allow Nader to be elected? You say that under "current circumstances" he could not win. Some basic facts about current U.S. Canadian electoral process: - - citizens are prohibited from selecting their own candidates for election - citizens are prohibited from initiating legislation - citizens are prohibited from recalling elected officials, and where there is a so-called mechanism to do this, it is next to impossible to recall an elected official - bourgeois parties (e.g., democratic, republican, reform, NDP, PC, etc.) are not designed to bring the people to power. This is not their aim. - extremely large amounts of money are required to even run for elections. - there are no laws to prevent influence peddling This list of prohibitions against the members of the U.S. and Canadian polities goes on. It is quite long actually. My point is: regardless of which party emerges, if it arises under the present system of the super-wealthy, the broad masses of the people will remain effectively marginalized and ghettoized if fundamental electoral changes are not made. The bourgeoisie knows full well that it is suffering from an extremely severe credibility crisis and is doing everything in its power to usher in medievalism (e.g., rule by decree and rule according to "might makes right"). Voting, that is, legitimizing the present system of the super-rich will keep the masses from coming to power. Even Jefferson long ago was aware of the need for the propertied class to struggle fervently to keep the masses from coming to power. Shawgi Tell Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7280] Re: It is gone to far: Tim
At 12:01 AM 11/5/96, Blair Sandler wrote: What I meant was that Social Text Co. were caught with their pants down and have had a lot of explaining to do. Certainly no question about that in my mind! What if anything it says about post-modern wars is another question entirely. One thing it says is that people who go on about science should actually know something about science. When Stanley Aronowitz says something like this, he just has no idea what he's talking about: "I want to insist that the convention of treating natural and human sciences according to a different standard be dropped I want to treat the controversies within each domain as aspects of the same general problematic: How are the objects of knowledge constructed? What is the role of the culturally conditioend 'worldviews' in their selection? What is the role of socail relations in determining what and how objects of knowledge are investigated? ... [T]he distinctions between the natural and human sciences are not as significant as their similarities" [Aronowitz, "The Politics of the Science Wars," Social Text 46/47]. Doug Reading the quote above from Aronowitz quickly, Doug, I think I agree with it. But I could change my mind about that with more discussion and/or re-readings. However, I reiterate my point above that it says basically nothing about post-modernism, though it may indeed say something about the specific individuals at SOCIAL TEXT. I've already made reference to, and still intend to describe briefly, three excellent science books that are more or less explicitly post-modern. There are others. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7279] Re: Economia al Pomodoro
Max: I am one of the people who have been trying to argue that post-modernism offers valuable insights Marxists cannot afford to pass by. I also consider myself a Marxist (first and foremost, perhaps only after being a Wittgensteinian, because I learned to think by reading Wittgenstein, and then when I read Marx (right afterwards), I said, "Hey, this is just like Wittgenstein," that is, I recognized my world in what he was saying. But to get to my point: My income last year was about $11,000. This is such a small percentage of my accumulated debt I am embarrassed to say just how small. I make a living, such as it is, by contract labor for local colleges, which is all the work I can get. (Real wage rate counting classroom time, prep, commuting, etc., around $6 or so per hour.) I have to believe, judging from other remarks in your post, that the comment below is intended to be sarcastic and frankly I resent it, considering my situation. I bet you make a hell of a lot more money and have far more extensive privilege of all sorts than I do. Much of my time is spent doing all sorts of unpaid political activity. So, your association of postmodernism with careerist academics is not appreciated. Of course, if I'm being overly sensitive and in fact your hopes expressed below are sincere, than I thank you for your good wishes. I would indeed appreciate a reasonable full time paid job that would enable me to get out of debt. Sincerely, Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hoping all the academics here get their desired pomotions, MS
[PEN-L:7281] Re: post-modern wars--Is competitive the heart of...?
At 06:54 AM 11/5/96 -0800, Paul Zarembka wrote: Marx's problem is to explain its [exploitation's] incessant reproduction. Now Adam Smith and most of the economists would explain it on the basis of human nature. Marx explains it on the basis of competition, I don't agree. Marx is not explaining exploitation from competition. If he had intended that he would have been called upon in Volume 1 to make competition a center of his analysis. __ I did not explain exploitation FROM competition. My point was that REPRODUCTION of exploitation by individual capitalists comes about due to the pressure of competition, which is a structural aspect of capitalism. In other words, even if all capitalists were good guys, they will be forced to produce surplus value and push for more and more surplus value. To quote Marx: "By looking at these things as a whole, it is evident that this [capitalists attempt to maximize surplus value production] does not depend on the will, either good or bad, of the individual capitalist. Under free competition, the immanent laws of capitalist production confront the individual capitalist as a coercive force external to him." (Capital I, p. 381). The logic I'm using is structural, which I think Marx also used in the name of dialectics, and not linear. The Structural logic does not start from A point but has various points to begin with and it works through the relations of these points. By the way, all my quotes are from volume one of Capital. So competition is not completely abstracted from volume one. What is abstracted is the certain 'distortions' caused by comptition at the level of appearance. As I said, the "law" of value, which is assumed all through the volume one, will not make much sense without the notion of competition. ___ which is an aspect of the capitalist mode of production. To quote Marx: "Except as capital personified, the capitalist has no historical value, and no right to the historical existence which, to use Linchnowsky's amusing expression, 'ain't got no date'. ... But what appears in the miser as the mania of an individual is in the capitalist EFFECT OF A SOCIAL MECHANISM IN WHICH HE IS A COG. ... and competition subordinates every individual capitalist to the immanent laws of capitalist production, as EXTERNAL AND COERCIVE LAW. (Capital I, p. 739). (I have made many of such points in my paper in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY VOL 15, if anyone is interested out there). Your quote from Marx. as I understand is basically alluding to the 'transformation problem': how competition implies a redistribution of surplus value and formation of equal rate of profit etc. is a problem he is not dealing at the volume one level. So, in the end, I have no problem with your concluding sentence. Cheers, ajit sinha I read competition as a SUPPORT for capitalist exploitation and the quote you cite suggests such, not a transformation problem. ___ The reference to the 'transformation problem' does not relate to the quotation I gave above. It relates to the quotation you had put in your first posting. Sorry to have confused you there. Cheers, ajit sinha Cheers, Paul Z.
[PEN-L:7282] Re: post-modern wars--Is competitive the heart of...?
At 08:06 AM 11/5/96 -0800, you wrote: Recently Ajit Sinha writes: Competition is an aspect of the capitalist mode of production. Without the notion of competition, the "law" of value would not make much sense. My point is that exploitation is given in the very discription of the relation of production of capitalism. COMMENT: I do not understand this. Does this imply that where one has oligopoly or monopoly within capitalism (little or no competition) there would be no extraction of surplus value, that Marxian concepts of that type would not apply? There is a tendency in capitalism to develop non-competitive means of extracting surplus. Indeed, without such tendencies capitalism would not survive. Take patent protection. This is specifically designed to frustrate competition. Without it, there would not be what Schumpeter calls dynamic efficiency within capitalism as contrasted with Walrasian static efficiency. Cheers, Ken Hanly ___ You are interpreting "competition" as if it was "perfect competition" of neo-classical type. The classicals, as well as Marx, had a different notion of competition than the neo-classical one. Here competition mainly refers to the movement of capital from one sector to another in search of highest profit. This is the ground on which the allocation of labor takes place in the capitalist economy. So the relevant question for you would be: will there be a capitalism and the "law" of value when all the capital would be owned and controlled by one individual capitalist; that is the whole economy becomes a gigantic factory? I must say there will not be much relevance of Marx in this world, in my opinion. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:7284] Unproductive worker REVISITED
Elections were distraction from normalcy. Now that my Nader campaign is over. I can return to my routine. Reading my e-mail I saw many comments and suggestions to my question and request about dental hygienist. First, I must thank to those who commented on my question and informed that she is neither blue-collar nor white-collar, but pink collar worker. Let me return to the other important question: is my hygienist "unproductive" laborer? I believe she is, and here are my reasons. First, I will try to provide a workable definition for productive/unproductive labor and then comment briefly on comments. We all agree that any transaction that requires human labor does not necessarily add to the social surplus value. Those labor that add to the total output from social point of view is called "productive labor," and those that do not add to the total output is called "unproductive labor." In general, labor that produces surplus value over and above its cost (i.e. labor power) is productive labor, because it contributes to the accumulation of capital. On the other hand, a labor that does not produce surplus value and does not contribute to capital accumulation is unproductive labor. One that adds to social wealth and the other just distributes/consumes it. Unproductive labor could produce a surplus value to a particular business (or capitalist), but it is unproductive from social point of view because it does not increase social wealth. Examples, an attorney employed by a law firm, a guard, a detective, an advertising person employed by the respected firms are all unproductive even though they provide surplus value to their employers. Their activities involve in distribution rather than creation of social wealth. Hence, unproductive labor distributes/consumes value rather than adds to it. Labor being important or vital or crucial does not necessarily make it productive. For example, social welfare expenditures for health, education, roads, parks, etc. are all vital, but those who work in these activities do not produce social surplus value. A scientist doing important basic research or state bureaucracy which maintains and preserves capitalist society, imperial army helps to reproduce capitalist society, or the president. These are all vital to the capitalist system, yet their labor is unproductive. These activities are very useful to capitalist society, but they do not produce social surplus value. They consume it. This does not mean that only productive workers are subject to exploitation. Unproductive workers are also exploited in same way as the productive workers. Capitalism is a society based on exploitation of one class over the other. It is a class society and workers are exploited without being differentiated as productive or unproductive. Now let us view my dental hygienist. She cleans teeth. What does social surplus value she produce? Even though she is exploited by her employer, she involves in distribution of the social surplus value. The service she provides is not a commodity that is sold for profit on the market. Just like a scientist doing a basic research, or a teacher teaching students in science and engineering. For further discussion of the subject see: K. Marx, Capital, I: 642 (Vintage ed.) B. Fine and L. Harris. Rereading Capital: Ch. 3. D. Foley, Understanding Capital, 118-22. __ , A Dictionary of Marxist Thought: 397-98. F. Moseley. Falling Rate of Profit in the Postwar United States: 34-38. A. Shaikh and A. Tonak. Measuring the Wealth of Nations. 29-31. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS: Answer to Jerry Levy: Fikret Ceyhun wrote: The other day I was at my dentist's office for checkup and cleaning. As the dental assistant was scraping my teeth I was thinking: is she blue collar or white collar worker? I know she is "unproductive" worker. Can someone care to comment? (1) The color of a person's collar (blue, white, pink) does not determine whether one's labour is productive or unproductive [of surplus value]. (2) Why do you "know" she is an unproductive worker? She's not working for the state and being paid out of state revenues (unless there are state-run dental services in North Dakota). She's not part of management, is she? Her labour isn't for the purposes of realizing surplus value (e.g. advertising), is it? Jerry My above examples of law firm, or scientist, or a detective assistant shed light on this question. For instance, Foley says that scientists and engineers working in basic research, creating fundamental knowledge which increases future standard of living are not productive workers, because they do not produce a commodity directly sold on the market. The resources (laboratory assistants, equipment and space) they use in the form of their own wages, are formally paid out of surplus value in modern corporations. Thus, their labor is unproductive. Let us be sure, capitalist society is not rationally organized society and therefore human
[PEN-L:7283] Re: It is gone to far: Tim
One thing it says is that people who go on about science should actually know something about science. When Stanley Aronowitz says something like this, he just has no idea what he's talking about: "I want to insist that the convention of treating natural and human sciences according to a different standard be dropped I want to treat the controversies within each domain as aspects of the same general problematic: How are the objects of knowledge constructed? What is the role of the culturally conditioend 'worldviews' in their selection? What is the role of socail relations in determining what and how objects of knowledge are investigated? ... [T]he distinctions between the natural and human sciences are not as significant as their similarities" [Aronowitz, "The Politics of the Science Wars," Social Text 46/47]. Doug ___ O, I had missed that. I agree with Stanley. He is being a good Althusserian there. Cheers, ajit sinha
