[PEN-L:7489] Re: more science still (just can't get enough)
At 08:38 PM 11/19/96 -0800, you, Mark Weisbrot, wrote: Haven't read that thesis, please explain if you think it is important to this discussion. ___ See Feyerabend's quote in my response to Doug Henwood. You will get the general drift. ___ But I will respond to your other question-- I will assume for now it is a serious question and not merely rhetorical. _ Of course it is. _ For me the *ground* is a whole body of knowledge about the physical universe that has been accumulated, a small part of which I have studied. ___ Will that ground contain the ancient Hindu knowledge about the cosmos and the natural world or the native American's knowledge etc. If not, why not? _ One does not need to subscribe to a positivist methodolgy, or naive conceptions of science as idelogically neutral, or be imperialist, etc. to recognize that through a process of observation, constructing theories, and using logic, that we gain knowledge about the world. (I have deliberately left out experimentation, hypothesis testing, and prediction because I believe it also possible to gain knowledge-- more tentative and with more difficulty-- in the social sciences, without being able to manipulate the independent variable, predict, etc.). Of course this knowledge is colored by ideology, limited by the historical period, and so on, and many things we believe to be true today will later turn out to be false. _ How do you know that there is an unadulterated "knowledge" beneath the "color". I would say it should be quite a simple excersise to take the color out then. Moreover, what kind of "logic" one must use to get the "knowledge". What kind of "observation" are you talking about? Is it sense perception, feeling, etc. or the gaze of a "scientist" who keeps him/herself separate from what is supposed to be observed. For Doug, body and the sense of the body are two different things, period. No more discussion allowed. What do you think? _ It is also true that people have committed great crimes against humanity, based on beliefs they held to be true. But none of these are compelling reasons to throw out the concepts of truth or falsity, however much we may want to temper our beliefs with the appropriate degree of scepticism and modesty, as well as tolerance. _ Is your "true" with a big T or a small t? By now most people on pen-l have probably tuned out this whole discussion, since most of us have long ago made up our minds at least on the epistemological questions raised here. I don't blame them. Also I'd be willing to bet than no one following this discussion will change their minds very much. I don't think they are turned off. They are reading it, and having fun. And who knows. Mind changes over a period of time. All this may somehow contribute. _ So why am I wasting my time (and yours) on this? To me the main importance is that pomo (relativist) epistemology is indeed the dominant epistemology among the academic left (in at least the humanities) today. I don't know if one could charecterise "pomo" as epistemology. Derrida seems to be mostly interested in ontological questions, and not epistemological ones. _ I share Doug's concern that this is how most young minds are being introduced to critical thinking at the universities. It is an unnecessary handicap for an intellectual left that is already marginalized. _ Isn't it a sense of a loss of control? ___ It is also very often part of the default world view that students assimilate from mass culture and journalism. _ That Doug is a part of. That is, they are very comfortable dismissing left analyses of events as just "a matter of opinion," to be chosen, --according to one's tastes, without regard to logic or historical evidence-- from among the various offerings. ___ And you want us to take it seriously? Where does post-modernism say that "it is a matter of opinion"? Deconstruction is a serious strategy of critique. Why would it call everything a matter of "opinion"? So I guess the best that could come of this discussion is that those who are teaching and otherwise participating in the academic world, and who have rejected this part of the pomo world view-- I would bet it is the overwhelming majority on this list-- might challenge it a little more often. ___ Just look at your own strategy and discourse of dominance: "majority" don't prove anything except that they could dominate the minority. Cheers, ajit sinha ___
[PEN-L:7490] Irrationalism I
--Boundary (ID zG6AZ5QlevKLZSo1kBMA7A) In science education the attack is on science itself. The "new" (irrational) view of science is that it is subjective, culturally determined, no different from non-science, and a useful tool but non-explanatory of the universe. This is in contrast to the rational view that science is objective, universally valid, different from non-science, and explanatory as well as useful. Exactly the same "new" view of science was promoted in the 1930=FEs by Germany's National socialists (see R. Brady's 1937 The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism). This "new" view, then, is not only old but is also in agreement with the views of the most backward elements of our century. Further, there are direct connections between the advocates of non-science today and those of the 1930's. Jacques Derrida, leader of post-modernism, calls himself a disciple of Nazi philosopher Heidegger and Derrida's own pupil, American Paul de Man, was a pro-Nazi journalist in Belgium. It is no coincidence that the same four characteristics of science are being attacked today as in the 1930's. They are the defining characteristics of science, wich make it science. Without them, science is reduced to a par with crystal ball gazing as a source of knowledge. Further, now anything can be elevated to become "science", including creationism, astrology, ESP, chariots of the gods and Nazi racial and biological "science". What practical purpose might the modern critique of science end up accomplishing? Certainly it will not change the actual instrumental practice of science under the direction of the ruling class. Modern weapons, for example, will still be produced by objective rational science. The key purpose served by the current attack on science is ideological. First, it negates the value of scientific thinking among the people. Second, it gives a scientific veneer and hence credibility to whatever strengthens ruling class ideology and politics. It is definitely important to keep in mind that the current assault on rationality is not only backward but dangerous. After all, it was Hitler himself who declared that "We are now at the end of the Age of Reason. The intellect has grown aristocratic and has become a disease of life." Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Boundary (ID zG6AZ5QlevKLZSo1kBMA7A)--
[PEN-L:7491] Irrationalism II
In the 1930's, British philosopher Karl Popper proposed the idea that scientific theories could not be verified but only falsified. Popper also made a career out of attacking Marxism. Popper's notion of unverifiability is often appealed to today by those who attack the reliability of scientific knowledge. Michael Polanyi's 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, which extols the value of "tacit knowledge", "intuition", etc. is now very popular in academic circles among those who are against objectivity and rationalism. The book's introduction specifically states that it was written to oppose dialectical materialism. Some more recent attacks on rationalism are launched in the name of Marxism, revolution, Lenin, etc. Thomas Kuhn's notorious attack on the rationality of science is misleadingly called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn openly declares that science cannot give us reliable knowledge of the world, as well as implies that revolution does not lead to progress. Feyerabend, a modern American anti-rational philosopher, quotes Marx, Lenin, and the "Chinese communists" to defend his anti-science, anti-rational ideas. These include that the most productive scientific method is anarchy and that science differs little from myth. Feyerabend also uses the name of Lysenko in order to slander Stalin's leadership. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7492] Pomo trucks
I wonder if it is possible to slightly change the direction of the current pomo and/or barbarism discussion. Yesterday's Business Day section of the New York TIMES reported on the new VW truck plant in Resende, Brazil. The new plant, not yet fully operational, represents a major departure form traditional vehicle mass production. The change, however, appears to be mostly organizational rather than technical. Assembly is carried out by employees of the subcontractors of subassemblies, who not only make the subassemblies on site but bolt them on to the vehicles. There are, in other words, no VW truck assemblers. According to the reporter, only about 200 of the 1000 employees work directly for VW, doing "core" jobs like quality, RD, and marketing. The TIMES article correctly stresses the organizational/political implications of the factory. VW has now effectively become the coordinator of almost wholly subcontracted work: employees work for several different companies not one. Among other consequences, it harder to unionize even if the workers are under the same roof. No surprise: wages are lower than in other Brazilian car/truck factories and the writer suggests that auto unions in traditional plants are more subdued, having seen the writing on the wall. VW has even strong armed of the contractors -- including Rockwell and Cummins -- to foot some of the plant's capital costs, squeezing vendors as well as workers (thus guaranteeing even stronger pressure on workers later on). The VW truck plant, in other words, could be seen as a "post-modern" vehicle production plant: it's decentralized (but under one roof), the are lots of "local narratives" going on (even if coordinated by VW's "meta narrative" of getting the trucks out), and it really messes around with time and space (at least according to the workflow diagram accompanying the article). Of course, little in the plant's organization is wholly new. In some ways it's a regression to the post-Civil War US steel industry. More recently, IBM has for years soldered together pc's and mainframes from subassemblies and components purchased from vendors. For at least a decade it has "rented" space in its factories to contractors to make components and for many years has been a heavy user of on-site contract assembly labor. What's important about the Resende plant is that this is being done in the prototypical mass-production industry of vehicle production -- the classic "modern" enterprise. And trucks are being made without "auto workers." Any comments? Phil Philip Kraft Department of Sociology SUNY-Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (607) 777-2585 (607) 777-4197 (fax)
[PEN-L:7496] On Marxism
In light of this whole pomo/anti-pomo discussion, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes of Marx I believe from a from letter to Kugelmann in 1871: "If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the present; I mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears conflict with the powers that be." 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 *
[PEN-L:7497] Re: On Marxism
Jim Craven's quotation is quite apropos; i have always thought that this was a side of Marx that was underrated by classical Marxism--and necessarily so to the extent that "it" thought of itself as a "system." Balibar's recent "The Philosophy of Marx," I think, initiates a new period of opening up of Marxism that can reemphasize this critical side (without making the criticism of all things existing eventually rest on some abstract philosophical humanism, something that western marxism had practically already done in counterposition to the economism of "official" marxism.) Balibar's thesis--I highly recommend the book, and Balibar will be a plenary speaker, together with Cornel west at the coming Rethinking Marxism conference--is that Marx's contribution was not "a new philosophy" (i.e., a new philosophical system--e.g. the base superstructure model, or the homo faber model) but a permanent unsettling of philosophical systems; that the contribution of Marx's ouvre as a whole was exactly to question the pretense of philosophy, or of science, to determine certitudes, either canonical or content-wise. i.e. a critique of modernism. The only thing I would add (now, after not being able to resist the temptation to write the above) is that Marx wrote the sentences Jim quotes in a letter to arnold Ruge, in 1844. In light of this whole pomo/anti-pomo discussion, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes of Marx I believe from a from letter to Kugelmann in 1871: "If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the present; I mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears conflict with the powers that be." 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 * Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:7498] Re: tatoos
Wojtek's argument about tatoos fronting on the public space which has been appropriated to the personal space of others is interesting. Is it also possible to see tatooing as the purposeful withdrawal from public space by establishing a clear artificial boundary where no such clear boundary exists with skin which has not been culturally inscribed (literally). I am thinking here of the tatooing practiced by Japanese gangsters where the withdrawal is from legitimate public space. Or the tatooing of alienated youth culture where the tatooing marks a voluntary privatisation of one's bodily space in the face of a rejected public spere. Both of these kinds of tatooing might be distinguished from the send a message to the public space kind of tatoo by the relatively large portion of the body which is tatooed as this is demanded to make the withdrawal effective. Any thoughts on the differences between male and female tatooing practice? Anyone want to own up to having a tatoo? Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:7499] child of yet more science
Ajit quotes Feyerabend:"...The knowledge that preserves the
lifestyle of nomads was aquired and is preserved in a
non-scientific way ('science' now being modern natural science).
Chinese technology for a long time lacked any Western-scientific
underpinning and yet it was far ahead of contemporary Western
technology. It is true that Western science now reigns
supreme all over the globe; however, the reason was not insight in
its 'inherent rationality' but *power play* (the colonizing
nations imposed their ways of living) and the need for weapons:
Western science so far has created the most efficient instruments
of death. ... FIRST-WORLD SCIENCE IS ONE SCIENCE AMONG MANY; by
claiming to be more it ceases to be an instrument of research
and turns into a *(political) pressure group*."
This suggests a very important distinction. That is the
distinction between _science_ (a skeptical method of inquiry, a
discipline) and _Western science_.
I for one was arguing in favor of the former, scientific
thinking. Scientific thinking does not automatically reject
hypotheses simply because they come from so-called "primitive"
peoples; it is equally skeptical of all views, no matter what the
source.
The fact is that "Western science" has been profoundly
anti-scientific; to reject a perspective or hypothesis because it
doesn't come from European males flies in the face of science.
I'd also say that even Western science has begun to clean up its
act, to a large extent because of the resistance to its use and
criticism (see the recent volumes of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN). (This
criticism partly came from postmodernists; I, for one, have never
denied the validity of many of the postmodern criticisms.)
Look at psychiatry: in its high point of its "Western science"
period, it was well described by ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
or WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, irresponsibly applying mind-
controlling drugs and lobotomies to powerless individuals,
usually minorities, women, and gays. There's been a lot of
resistance and criticism, including from those books (and people
like R.D. Laing) and the mental patients' rights movement. So
psychiatry to a large extent pulled back from lobotomies and
thorazine; more of an effort is being made to respect the
patients. My understanding is that psychiatric drugs are still in
widespread use in this Prozac nation and that lobotomies are
coming back, but that their application is more judicious these
days. (An example from personal experience: the application of
Ritalin for ADHD is no longer seen as a "magic bullet" promising
an instant cure; parents, teachers, and doctors are all involved
in constant monitoring of the drug's effects and other types of
therapy are used in conjunction.)
The last point is not to say that we should give up and go back
to totally trusting psychiatrists and other scientists! Just
having an M.D. or a Ph.D. and a white coat doesn't make anyone
scientific or moral. The pressure needs to be kept up. (This
point is reinforced by the fact that the success in fighting
irresponsible use of lobotomies and the like has been less
successful for less powerful communities.)
Ajit also says: ... I have come to the conclusion that Marxism
is not good enough for an understanding of our social world.
Marxism only provides us with an historical context of an event
(present or past), but class relation itself is not good or rich
enough a concept to explain power relation of repression. We need
Freud and Foucault to compliment Marx--and Foucaudian politics
for sure to fight repression in all forms and at all levels.
I for one have criticized the dominant version of Marxism (and
have done so over pen-l) for not having a psychology and for
thinking that Marxism alone was enough to help us understand and
change the world. On the other hand, we have to be very critical
of Freud, among other things for his sexism. There are also other
important sources of psychology, such as cognitive psychology.
(See also David Lethbridge, MIND IN THE WORLD: THE MARXIST
PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-ACTUALIZATION. Minneapolis: MEP Press 1992.) I
don't know enough about Foucault to say anything intelligent.
I repeat myself: I highly recommend Mike Lebowitz's BEYOND
CAPITAL. One of the points is that Marx, in CAPITAL, dealt only
with the profoundly inhuman laws of motion of capital. He left
the "political economy of the working class" aside, largely
ignoring the human side of capitalism, the type of stuff the E.P.
Thompson wrote about in THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH WORKING CLASS.
Unfortunately, Marx never made it clear that his analysis was
incomplete, so that many if not most of his followers have been
applying an incomplete analysis. (Worse, some Marxists have
actually admired the inhuman laws of motion of capital, trying to
imitate them to get their countries out of underdevelopment. But
that's another topic.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[PEN-L:7500] Re: On Marxism
At 9:54 AM 11/20/96, Antonio Callari wrote: Marx's contribution was not "a new philosophy" (i.e., a new philosophical system--e.g. the base superstructure model, or the homo faber model) but a permanent unsettling of philosophical systems; that the contribution of Marx's ouvre as a whole was exactly to question the pretense of philosophy, or of science, to determine certitudes, either canonical or content-wise. i.e. a critique of modernism. Didn't he also say something about transforming the world, and in a particular direction? 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:7501] Re: On Marxism
In light of this whole pomo/anti-pomo discussion, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes of Marx I believe from a from letter to Kugelmann in 1871: "If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the present; I mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears conflict with the powers that be." Jim Craven Jim, I think the quote is from Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach." There are 11 theses. I don't have the resources with me to check it. When I go home, I'll check it. Fikret. +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA +
[PEN-L:7502] NLRB rules on Yale grads' strike
Some of you may have been following the situation at Yale over the past year. If not here's the short summary. Grad students have been trying to unionize and the administration refused to recognize them. Last December TAs staged a grade strike, refusing to turn in final grades. Yale responded with Union Busting 101 tactics and the strike eventually fell apart. GESO filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board over their actions. Here's the news about what happened (this comes from a friend of mine who has been an organizer in the English department for a while). -Jeff - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:54:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Newsflash--NLRB decision ... For all you folks out there who one way or another have been following the progress of graduate student teachers' unionization efforts at Yale, a MAJOR decision has just come down from the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. After Yale's threats and reprisals in response to the GESO grade strike last winter, GESO filed an unfair labor practice suit against Yale. I, along with a number of other graduate students who had been threatened, fired, or brought up on disciplinary charges, gave testi- mony in the case. Today, the NLRB General Counsel announced his decision on the case, which is that a complaint charging Yale with unfair labor practices should be filed. In reaching that decision, he resolved four major points of prece- dent: 1) Grad student TAs and instructors at private universities are employees and so are covered by the National Labor Relations Act 2) The Grade Strike was a legal job action 3) Yale's threats and reprisals were illegal 4) The case sets precedent for private universities across the country. Yale now faces a choice. It can either agree to an informal settlement now by offering us terms we would accept, or it can appeal, beginning an appeals process that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. This decision is very good and very important. It extends workers' rights to a large group of hitherto-excluded graduate teachers. More personally, it means Yale will have to give back pay and apologies to its grad student teachers. It means we at Yale have the right to organize, to bargain collect- ively and to withhold our labor without risking our academic careers. There should be a story in the New York Times tomorrow morning, possibly with quotes from yours truly, and it will be hitting other newspapers and news forms in the next couple of days. Yh!! --Chris Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7503] Re: On Marxism
Date sent: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:30:25 -0800 (PST) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) Subject:[PEN-L:7500] Re: On Marxism At 9:54 AM 11/20/96, Antonio Callari wrote: Marx's contribution was not "a new philosophy" (i.e., a new philosophical system--e.g. the base superstructure model, or the homo faber model) but a permanent unsettling of philosophical systems; that the contribution of Marx's ouvre as a whole was exactly to question the pretense of philosophy, or of science, to determine certitudes, either canonical or content-wise. i.e. a critique of modernism. Didn't he also say something about transforming the world, and in a particular direction? 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 Response: First of all, thanks to Antonio for correcting the source of the quote. I was quoting from memory and wasn't sure of the exact source. I remember being at Marx's grave at Highgate in London in the late sixties and was taken by the inscription from his Theses on Feuerbach: "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." Absolutely Marx saw the main source and purpose of knowledge as struggle. The next question is how to acquire and apply knowledge for the purpose of revolutionary praxis and transformation. It is important to understand that sometimes what is being perceived, analyzed or struggled against may be only a caricature of the real thing or even superficial aspects of a caricature. Dogmatism can interfere with a sound understanding of the essence, contradictions and points of vulnerability of that which must be changed or eliminated; that is why Marx, Lenin and many other revolutionaries preached against ultra- dogmatism, ultra-sectarianism etc--they wanted to get the job done and understood that wisdom, understanding and effective knowledge can come from many sources--revolutionary and non-revolutionary--just as not all of those who profess "absolute truth" or to have grasped the essential aspects of some objective reality have in fact done so merely because they have proclaimed that they have done so. Ultra-dogmatism or ultra-sectarianism actually winds up serving the forces of reaction (divide and rule etc) and serves to prevent multi- dimensional, multi-conceptual-angle analysis and approximations of aspects of something that needs to be changed. This is not to accuse anyone of ultra-sectarianism or ultra-dogmatism because of any particular epistemological view or notion of an objective reality and abosulte truth, it is merely to note that there may be some what appear to be different--and yet not so different-- paths to the same place for the same purposes. Caricatures, dogmatism, ultra-sectarianism etc merely get in the way and do the work for the forces of reaction. 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 *
[PEN-L:7504] Re: On Marxism
discussion, I am reminded of Marx's favorite motto: [translation: Doubt everything] The ruthless critique of "all that is", one should add, should also be applied to Marxism itself since Marxism is part of "all that is." It would seem that the anti-authoritarian tradition, as embraced by Marx's motto, is no longer held in high regard by many Marxists who now transform Marx himself [or rather what they regard to be Marx based on their interpretations of Marx's life and writings] into the penultimate authority. Small wonder that Marx stated repeatedly that he wasn't a Marxist. Jerry
[PEN-L:7506] Re: Ctr for Democ Values
At 08:41 AM 11/20/96 -0800, you wrote: i note with interest the post on the center for democratic values. i recently heard ron aronson speak in chicago at a radical scholar's conference. i must say that i was not very favorably impressed with what he had to say. his discussion of values was pretty vague, and i know that if he had been talking to the average person his center is presumably trying to engage, he would have put them all to sleep. in fact, christopher hitchens, who also spoke, seemed on the verge of nodding off while aronson talked. in the end, aronson had some pretty mushy prescriptions, such as leftists calling talk shows and writing letters to the editors. i kept thinking that values are developed through actions, like, for example, when workers develop more radical world views through unionizing, strikes, etc. yet he had nothing to say about how values are formed or even what radical values are, except for vague things like, "we're all in this together" i'd be interested in hearing what others think about his project or what they know of it. i do have to admit that i found his rejection of marxism to be pretty weak. I am hardly one to defend Ron Aronson but he spoke at the first evening's plenary because two other speakers cancelled. It is hardly fair to criticize someone for their lack of vitality when they are essentially "pinch-hitting." Under the circumstances he did quite effectively present his perspective. I agree that his "stuffed armchair" activism was a tad soft, but overall I think that I would want to give the Center for Democratic Values the benefit of the doubt. They could quite possibly produce important and useful materials for the "community potluck" activists. Jim Westrich Institute on Disability and Human Development University of Illinois at Chicago "Cyberspace produces a culture where people are segregated more than ever before, and where the broad pluralistic society suffers increasing neglect. The world burns and cybernauts expect me to protest whether they can fiddle in front of their computer." --Stephen J. Raphael
[PEN-L:7509] Re: On Marxism
Doug, you ask: Didn't he also say something about transforming the world, and in a particular direction? Yes!, of course! but by transgressing the boundaries of philosophy (certitudes that always betray a conservativism of one form or another); or better, that in order to transform the world he found it necessary to challenge philosophy, etc.. The question here is whether Marx's critique of Pol. Econ. and philosophy aimed at replacing one "system" (of pol. econ, or of philo.) with "another," or rather aimed at a permanent critique mode. My answer is that the latter is the case, not the former; and I was applauding Craven's citation and recommending Balibar's book because, it seems to me, that they support this view. Marx did call for transforming the world in a certain direction; but his intervention was political, not philosophical, and one can read the whole of his work (i was about to write ouvre, but thought that perhaps that would sound too french) as a monument to the the act of taking political responsibility for one's choices and not hide behind the veil of philosophy (including science)--but N.B.: don't anybody, please, transform this into a statement that one can be ignorant about philosophy or science. Hope this helps clarify things. At 9:54 AM 11/20/96, Antonio Callari wrote: Marx's contribution was not "a new philosophy" (i.e., a new philosophical system--e.g. the base superstructure model, or the homo faber model) but a permanent unsettling of philosophical systems; that the contribution of Marx's ouvre as a whole was exactly to question the pretense of philosophy, or of science, to determine certitudes, either canonical or content-wise. i.e. a critique of modernism. Didn't he also say something about transforming the world, and in a particular direction? 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 Antonio Callari Professor and Chair, Economics E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
Re: [PEN-L:7492] Pomo trucks
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Philip Kraft wrote: I wonder if it is possible to slightly change the direction of the current pomo and/or barbarism discussion. Yesterday's Business Day section of the New York TIMES reported on the new VW truck plant in Resende, Brazil. The new plant, not yet fully operational, represents a major departure form traditional vehicle mass production. The change, however, appears to be mostly organizational rather than technical. Assembly is carried out by employees of the subcontractors of subassemblies, who not only make the subassemblies on site but bolt them on to the vehicles. There are, in other words, no VW truck assemblers. According to the reporter, only about 200 of the 1000 employees work directly for VW, doing "core" jobs like quality, RD, and marketing. The TIMES article correctly stresses the organizational/political implications of the factory. VW has now effectively become the coordinator of almost wholly subcontracted work: employees work for several different companies not one. Among other consequences, it harder to unionize even if the workers are under the same roof. No surprise: wages are lower than in other Brazilian car/truck factories and the writer suggests that auto unions in traditional plants are more subdued, having seen the writing on the wall. VW has even strong armed of the contractors -- including Rockwell and Cummins -- to foot some of the plant's capital costs, squeezing vendors as well as workers (thus guaranteeing even stronger pressure on workers later on). The VW truck plant, in other words, could be seen as a "post-modern" vehicle production plant: it's decentralized (but under one roof), the are lots of "local narratives" going on (even if coordinated by VW's "meta narrative" of getting the trucks out), and it really messes around with time and space (at least according to the workflow diagram accompanying the article). Of course, little in the plant's organization is wholly new. In some ways it's a regression to the post-Civil War US steel industry. More recently, IBM has for years soldered together pc's and mainframes from subassemblies and components purchased from vendors. For at least a decade it has "rented" space in its factories to contractors to make components and for many years has been a heavy user of on-site contract assembly labor. What's important about the Resende plant is that this is being done in the prototypical mass-production industry of vehicle production -- the classic "modern" enterprise. And trucks are being made without "auto workers." Any comments? Phil Philip Kraft Department of Sociology SUNY-Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (607) 777-2585 (607) 777-4197 (fax) And more importantly it is being done in Brazil! Naturally this has all sorts of implications of the diffusion of technology, capitalist development in the developing countries, and therefore labor movements, and inter-capitalist rivalry. The idea of centralized-decentralization, however, is not new. Post-Meiji Restoration (1868) in Japan demonstrated the centralized nature of coordination under decentralized economic units. In the early years the centralized authority was coexisted with decentralized feudal dominions as well. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of Washington 1103 A Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Ph: (206) 552-4462 FAX: (206) 552-4414
[PEN-L:7510] sorry
Phil, in addition to sending you new versions of the Depression and Accumulation pieces, today I was planning to (1) send you a revised version of my piece on utopia, based on the comments I've received, and (2) finish a first draft of the disequilibrium growth entry. However, I am feeling quite ill (a really bad cold), so I am giving up early today. Jim Devine (professional name: James Devine) Professor of Economics Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (work); FAX: 310/338-1950 310/202-6546 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: 20 Nov. 1996
[PEN-L:7511] Re: Pomo trucks
Philip Kraft discusses the new VW plant in Resende, Brazil. The special section on technology in the Nov. 18 WSJ includes an article on Colgate which suggests the the new intranet software connecting not only all Colgate plants and employees around the world but also suppliers, retailers, etc., challenges the notion of the enterprise and raises the question what is inside and what is outside the firm. Also: different but related: re: the struggle between Norfolk Southern and CSX to buy Conrail. Pennsylvania state law affirms that enterprises need not sell to the highest bidder but can also consider the needs of state residents, customers and suppliers (read workers) in such matters. This too strikes a blow at the notion that the firm is well-bounded and its interests well-defined as "profit-maximization." Also: the Texaco settlement with its African American employees includes the formation of a committee which comprises membership chosen half by the enterprise and half by the plaintiffs (and one person chosen by both) and is to have "unprecedented" power over personnel relations and policy, etc. A modernist notion of a firm is going to have more difficulty, I believe, integrating these kinds of developments than pomoish theories will. Blair P.S. Nike is another company with a particularly complex and bizaare structure from the point of view of modernish Marxism that can be theorized in interesting and useful ways from an overdeterminist Marxian class perspective (someone at UMass is studying Nike and I heard a talk they gave, but can offer no further details). Regards. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7512] Re: Yale grad students win one
Forwarded FYI I wanted to inform and update you all about what has been happening and will happen the rest of this week out here in the UC System. We have been striking! We are striking to gain recognition, as the UC System currently denies that we have any collective bargaining rights as we are apprentices. The idea was to having roving strikes at three UC Campus over this whole week. On Monday, the Student Assoc of Graduate Employees (SAGE) at UCLA began the strike. They will continue to strike the test of the week. If recognition was not granted by 5:00 PM on Monday the Association of Student Employees (ASE) at UC San Diego would strike. The UC did not grant recognition. We began striking yesterday and will continue the rest of the week. We also gave them a 5:00 PM deadline, which was not met. So today, Wednesday, UC Berkeley will begin striking and will continue the rest of the week. The academic student employee unions at UC Santa Cruz and UC Santa Barbara will be doing actions in support of the striking campuses. The Chancellor at UCLA has sent a letter to Grad Students at threatening to fire them if they strike this week. UCLA had about 1,000 show up to picket on Monday. I haven't about what happened yesterday. Here at UCSD the turn-out has not been as great. But the Chancellor is meeting with a group of students that represent the ASE/UAW on Thursday. It is the first formal meeting we have had with the University here. We are having a Big Rally here on campus on Thursday. There is a home page that has information about the strike. The address is http://www.nagps.org/NAGPS/nagps-hp2.html If you would like to show your support, you could call the Chancellors on the three campuses, E-mail them, or fax them. If you want to send E-Mail to them you could send it to the ASE/UAW account and we will forward it to the Chancellors. The Address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will post the phone numbers and fax numbers later in the day and try to keep you all informed about what is happening. Thanks for any support you can provide. Dan Johnston ASE/UAW Staff Member 619-454-0170 Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7513] Last reminder: conference announcement
Last reminder (I promise!). The November 23 pre-registration deadline draws nigh: ** Rethinking Marxism Presents Its Third International Gala Conference: "POLITICS AND LANGUAGES OF CONTEMPORARY MARXISM" December 5-8, 1996 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Full logistical information and preliminary schedule can be found at our web site: http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx For further information: email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 413-545-6361 "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism," the third in Rethinking Marxism's series of international conferences, will continue its commitment to present a working forum open to all traditions within Marxism and the left. The conference will include more than 180 panel discussions, workshops, films, videos, and other forms of artistic presentation. PLENARY SESSIONS AND SPEAKERS I. Thursday, December 5, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Opening Plenary: "Knowledge, Science, Marxism" Chair: Richard Wolff, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Presenters: Jack Amariglio, Merrimack College Sandra Harding, University of California, Los Angeles Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resources, Delhi, India II. Friday, December 6, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Class and Race: A Dialogue" Chair: Antonio Callari, Franklin and Marshall College Presenters: Etienne Balibar, University of Paris, X Cornel West, Harvard University III. Saturday, December 7, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Locations of Power" Chair: Andrew Parker, Amherst College Presenters: Wendy Brown, University of California, Santa Cruz Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley Wahneema Lubiano, Duke University IV. Sunday, 12:00 noon - 2:00 p.m. Closing Plenary: "Postmodern Socialism(s) and the Zapatista Struggle" Chair: Carmen Diana Deere, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Presenters: Roger Burbach, Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) Arturo Escobar, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Fernanda Navarro, University of Michoacan, Mexico THE 180 PANEL TOPICS INCLUDE OVER 500 PEOPLE PRESENTING WORK ON THE FOLLOWING PARTIAL LIST OF TOPICS . . . C.L.R. JamesClass and Mental Health Hegemony Today Performative Activism New Development Paradigms Postmodernism Derrida on Marx Communism Utopian Marxism Identity Politics and Political Subjects Globalization Black Marxism Postcolonial Theory Failure of Praxis The Labor Movement Television, News and Ideology Althusser after Althusser Multiculturalism and the University Marxism and PedagogyTheoretical Concepts of Marxism Value TheoryGreen Visions of Radical Community Identity Politics Feminist Work in Global Politics Queer TheoryOrganizing for African American Equality PERFORMANCE/FILM/VIDEOS Performance by Robbie McCauley, Friday, December 6, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. "Struggles in Steel: A Story of African American Steelworkers", a showing and discussion led by producers Tony Buba and Ray Henderson, Friday, December 6, 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. "Television Economies:" films and videos curated by Walid Ra'ad, shown throughout conference. ** PRE-REGISTRATION FORM: PRINT OUT AND MAIL TO THE ADDRESS BELOW ___ Name _ Address _ City StateZip/Postal Code _ Country __ E-mail Telephone Please check the days for which you are registering [Thurs 1 p.m.-Sun 1 p.m.]: ___ Thursday___Friday___Saturday___Sunday Checks in U.S. dollars should be made payable to AESA Conference Pre-registration Full $50 Full, Low Income $30 Two Days $40 Two Days, Low Income $25 One Day $25 One Day, Low Income $15 Total PRE-REGISTRATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 23 Please send completed form and check to: Rob Garnett, Registrar Department of Economics Texas Christian University Fort Worth, TX 76129 CHILD-CARE To obtain information on available subsidies and on providers, call (413-545-6361) or send e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). All requests for subsidies must be received by November 23. SPECIAL SUBSCRIPTION OFFER FOR RETHINKING MARXISM Guilford Publications, Inc. is happy to offer special Rethinking MARXISM subscription rates to conference registrants. Conference registrants can request a new (does not apply to renewals) subscription at the
[PEN-L:7514] Re: Ctr for Democ Values
friends, in response to jim westrich's comments on ron aronson's presentation at the midwest radical actviists confernece, i wasn't criticizing his lack of vitality, just his lack of much of anything to say. i know he was pinch hitting for another person, but he's a practiced speaker, so i don't see why he had to give such a trite and boring presentation. by the way, who are these "potluck community activists"? michael yates
[PEN-L:7515] Re: On Marxism
"If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the present; I mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears conflict with the powers that be." I believe the quote is found in a letter from Marx to the left-Hegelian Arnold Ruge (who was the oldest of the Young Hegelians if memory serves) in 1843 or 44...Michael
[PEN-L:7516] Re: On Marxism
I think the discussion on Marxism is very interesting. For one, the emphasis on ruthless critism on everything existing is I think what makes Marxism still alive since it is first and foremost a good critique of capitalism rather than a new system on its own. So long as capitalism exists, marxism will be there. I do not know whether anybody wrote the "long-duree" of the development of marxist ideas and practises. I think it should be very interesting. Let me say a few words on this: Marxism was first and foremost important for its critique and was formulated for the most part for the more capitalized part of the world. However, its faith was more and more determined in the East. It first went to Russia where it even became the official ideology of the STATE. For this reason, we have to think again and again Gramsci's characterization of the Russian Revolution as "revolution against das Kapital." In Russia, marxism was compounded with the deep historical traditions of Russian history. Particularly damaging was that it was advocated, at least, on paper by the autocratic (absolutely not the bureaucratic) and nationalist Stalinism. It did not stop there. It went to China, articulated the Chinese peasantism and again nationalism and turned out to be a "bizarre" thing. Not only it became "official", "peasantist", "nationalist" etc. but its characteristics of being "ruthless criticism" was replaced by state dogmatism. For the first time after 1917 (or say after 20s) and cold war, it looks there are som signs that it is slowly turning to the places where it was originally formulated, I mean to the "West" where it is more relevant. At least, the soil is much more easy now to conduct its "ruthless criticism." AsIm
