[PEN-L:159] Re: On the status of the pen-l list
Anthony D'Costa As for current topics in India, they are the 5 blasts, the economic sanctions, the jingoism, the effects on the IT sector, China-India-Pakistan relationship, the warm welcome given to Junoon a Pakistani pop group in Delhi, and the tough talk of the present government. ___ Hay Anthony, please expand on all the issues for all of us. Cheers, ajit sinha Briefly, the nuke story everyone knows: US sanctions, Tokyo's aid cut-off, the lack of consensus among the G-8 regarding the sanctions, etc. Important questions have arisen whether India will be able to weather the sanctions. I think so. India's external exposure is very small (the globalization debate comes to mind). At the same time the current Indian leadership has taken a war-mongering posture, being remote controlled by the hardliners of the BJP. China has now accused India of the 1962 aggression and claims India's hegemonic ambitions. Pakistan's internal politics is virtually pushing it to explode a bomb! India's relationship with the US is best seen in the software industry, whereby US MNCs are setting up hi tech centers and at the same time the US government has raised the quotas for foreign engineers to enter the US. Naturally sanctions cannot be that devastating. A friend commented that India's corruption results in billions of dollars of leakages so what kind of a havoc would a cut off of a few billions do. An American friend reported from the US: The bomb tests of course made big news here. Commentators and government officials have been trying to each out do the other in formulating expressions of outrage and condemnation. Such hypocritical bullshit. Not that I'm any fan of nuclear weapons, but I'm stunned (maybe I should be used to it by now) of the general level of stupidity in our public discourses about India. The policy moves being discussed are exactly what you'd want to do if you wanted to be counterproductive, or so it seems to me. The administration and Congress seem eager to now solidly embrace Pakistan, for re-assurance, in the name of parity, and to see if they can be promised enough rewards to dissuade them from setting off a few bombs themselves. China too is in the game, offering as yet unspecified assurances to Pakistan. I just read in the TNT today something to the effect of China's identification of India as an "enemy" and a "threat to China's national security." So with sanctions and these emerging cosy arrangements between the U.S. and its undemocratic, authoritarian, human-rights-squashing buddies, Pakistan China, India, I hate to say it, probably has more reason than ever to seek to become a nuclear power in its own right. Even though I personally wish all this nuclear busines was headed in the opposite direction, the Indian government's decision is not only understandable, it will probably pay off internationally in the long run. As China and Pakistan have both shown, the U.S. will evidently respect you and constructively "engage" you only if you are a bad boy in their eyes. Now that India has also become a bad boy, it can probably count on more respect and consideration from the U.S. in the long run. In the short run however India can probably count on more shrill, self-righteous, vein-popping rhetoric from the U.S. side. But as they say in advertising, there's no such thing as bad publicity... India has made it onto the mental map of American politics in a big way in the past few weeks. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. - Junoon is a popular Pakistani rock group who sing in the vernacular (Urdu). They are highly popular in India as well. So while bombs of all sorts were going up (and down) the young generation of the MTV culture had transcended such jingoistic postures and sought to dance themselves away. Cheers, Anthony
[PEN-L:173] Re: Musing on the Indonesian Revolution
Quoth our honorable moderator: When a dictator falls to popular forces we seem to always get the same dreary outcome. From the Philipines to South Africa to Haiti, leaders come to the fore spouting slogans of people power, only to fall in line with the forces of neo-liberalism. Indonesia is a bigger country in terms of population. Is there any way that it could resist falling into the same pattern? First of all it is we that should resist falling into an automatic expectation of this standard scenario. Indonesia is not only a bigger country but a vast archipelago whose apparent political integrity should hardly be taken for granted; separatist movements could suddenly emerge on some of the major islands, where resettlement schemes for land-hungry Javanese peasants were experienced as foreign intrusions in the '80s. What do we really know about the pre-Dutch history of this entity? It's time for some input from the world systems people. According to travellers, except for parts of Sumatra the influence of Islam is fairly shallow; we have to know more about the classical civilization that the Dutch found there and whether a resurgence of it is possible. Considering the art I've seen out of Indonesia, I doubt that it suffers from the kind of cultural/historical amnesia that Mariategui sought to dispel among the Indians of Peru. Let's not be too quick to minimize Indonesia's revolutionary options. valis
[PEN-L:176] principles
I tried to send the following to the list yesterday. For some mysterious reason, it wasn't posted even though it didn't bounce back to me as undeliverable. Strange. But, before returning to the original issue under discussion, I want to disagree somewhat with Paul Z: indeed there are certain principles for socialists, including but not limited to: solidarity, internationalism, opposition to imperialism, opposition to exploitation and oppression, etc. As for the more precise question of whether Mark Jones and Proyect are principled, I believe the following post offers a definitive answer. But, in case there are ***any*** doubts about Mark J, remember what he had to say: He wrote that: The _New Left Review_ is a "faggot-valhalla" controlled by M16! Did you hear that? I'll repeat it again ... Mark Jones wrote that: ***The _New Left Review_ is a "faggot-valhalla" controlled by M16!*** Did the significance of that statement sink in yet? So that you can't forget, let me repeat for a third time ... Mark Jones wrote that: ***THE _NEW LEFT REVIEW_ IS A "FAGGOT-VALHALLA" CONTROLLED BY M16!*** Jones sounds like Lyndon LaRouche, doesn't he? He wrote the above on a Internet mailing list (M-INT). He not only refused to apologize but even defended it afterwards to the list. You don't have to take my word for this: you can check-out the M-INT archives. Doug H was on that list at the time so he should remember as well. I think Barkley was there as well. What does the above quote say about Jones? It says that he is -- a) viciously homophobic! b) a cop-baiter! c) libelous! d) he has a conspiracy theory about _NLR_ that would make Lyndon LaRouche blush! Yet this is the person that Michael has praised! This is the Stalin-worshiper that Proyect has entered into an unprincipled combination with! On to yesterday's post ... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:37:16-0400 (EDT) From: Gerald Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Progressive Economics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: on the status of the pen-l list Michael wrote: Let bygones be bygones. The real enemy resides elsewhere. You still don't get it, do you? Re Jones: Not only is he viciously homophobic, but he also routinely calls others on the left "provocateurs", "counter-revolutionaries", "agents of US imperialism", etc. without any proof whatsoever. He has even -- on more than one occasion -- supported death threats against other leftists who don't agree with him. Should we say: "Let bygones be bygones" to Jones? Not only would this be seen as a defense of (verbal) gay-bashing, but we would also be saying that cop-baiting and death threats are OK. Re Proyect: he *is* (part of) the real enemy! He is a member of management who has threatened to seek to have other leftists fired and has even contacted mgt. to get someone silenced and/or fired. He has also -- knowinglyly, falsely, and maliciously -- accused someone of being an FBI agent. Does it matter at all if the reputation of a revolutionary is tainted forever by this charge that he was an FBI agent? If we say "Let bygones be bygones" to Proyect, we would be slapping this individual in the face again. Does it matter at all that a so-called "Marxist" has *crossed class lines* and _joined_ the real enemy by his actions? For Proyect, there is *NO* forgiving and forgetting. Moreover, it matters not one bit whether his actions occurred on pen-l or elsewhere. It matters not one bit whether he also writes posts which are not flames. What should *only* matter to us is that he has become an enemy of the working class -- a Benedict Arnold of the workers' movement. I would like to see us accomplish something. How can we expect to accomplish anything unless we can take a stand against homophobia, death threats, sexism, cop-baiting, anti-labor activism, etc? Jerry
[PEN-L:178] Toni Negri Update
Forwarded from a post by aut-op-sy moderator, Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]. For more information on Toni's legal case, see: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~forks/TNmain.htm -- Negri Update, 10 May 1998 Toni Negri remains in Rebibbia prison in Rome and his personal situation has not changed significantly since he returned to Italy almost a year ago. He has requested to begin a procedure that leads toward parole but as yet his requests have not been granted. The procedure involves a series of stages of greater freedom and the stages can vary depending on the discretion of the parole judge. In many cases, the inmate is first granted one or two furloughs of 2 days each, and if all goes well he or she can request a limited external work arrangement (designated article 21) which allows the inmate to leave the prison several days a week under strict surveillance. If that goes well and if the inmate has completed at least half of the sentence, he or she can ask for a more liberal external work arrangement with less surveillance. The final stage is parole. In January 1998 Negri's parole judge, Longo, refused his request for the first stage on the basis of the police report that claimed he posed a danger of fleeing. The appeal of Judge Longo's decision was also refused. Negri is now waiting for a decision on his second request. It appears that the police have filed no report this time and thus they pose no obstacle. The best-case scenario would be that judge Longo grants a furlough and moves quickly to the restricted external work arrangement. One complication is that Negri has just been convicted of a new charge in Milan (again relating to events in the 1970s) that could add over 3 years to his sentence. The sum of his old sentences, which originally totaled over 30 years, had over time been reduced to just over 9 years. Counting the 4 years 3 months he served before leaving for France, this past year had taken him over the half-way point. With the addition of the new Milan conviction he will have to wait an extra period before reaching the half-way point again and being eligible for the more liberal external work arrangement. The prospects for a collective political solution have not advanced significantly either. Italian politicians continue to discuss the possibility of an amnesty or an "indulto" (a reduction of the extra sentences for political crimes), but there is no sign that they will act soon.
[PEN-L:179] Barry Commoner
Last night I heard Barry Commoner speak on "The Economic Origins of the Environmental Crisis" at NYC's Brecht Forum. Although I suspect that much of the talk was a rehash of "The Closing Circle," it was useful to be reminded of his arguments, since nothing has changed basically since the book was written more than 25 years ago. For Commoner, WWII represents some kind of watershed. Before the war, there was no environmental crisis. Afterwards, there was. The explanation is that new technologies were introduced into the means of production that caused an imbalance between nature and society. The new technologies were introduced because they heightened the profit margin. Corporate greed, therefore, is the main explanation for the environmental crisis. He produced a number of examples, first and foremost among which was the automobile. He said that before WWII, smog was largely unknown but that in the 1950s it became a problem almost everywhere, the most notable example being Los Angeles. Smog is the result of the interaction between nitrogen oxide and waste gasoline products in sunlight. It produces ozone, which is hazardous to our health. The explanation for the increase in nitrogen oxide is that Detroit began making higher compression automobiles, which were necessary to power the larger automobiles that became common after WWII. The extra heat that these engines create cause nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere to react with each other. And why did Detroit decide to start making larger cars? Commoner cites John Delorean's "On a Clear Day You Can See Detroit" for the answer. Delorean says that when he was at General Motors, top management learned that while it only cost $300 more to make a larger car, that they could produce an additional $2000 in profit. So the thirst for profit had the unintended effect of producing smog. When a grass-roots movement emerged to fight against pollution in the 1970s, the corporations decided not to change their technology for the most part, but to utilize control devices. Such devices have failed to produce clean air or water, even though they do actually eliminate from 80% to 90% of the pollutants at the source. In the case of automobiles, smog continues to be a problem. Why haven't pollution control devices worked to clean up the air? The answer is that increased economic activity outweighs any improvements to the environment that such devices can produce. Since the 1950s, the huge increase in automobile ownership has meant that air pollution has continued no matter the degree to which antipollution devices have been introduced. The other important factor is that commercial transportation has become heavily dependent on trucks, rather than the more ecological railroads. The only genuine gains that have taken place is when the technology itself has been modified. For example, when the government banned lead in gasoline, the amount of lead pollution practically disappeared. The same is true of DDT. In general, however, corporate greed has acted to prevent further improvements. The case of soap versus detergents illustrates the problem. Soap does not cause water pollution, since it is based on a natural substance, animal or vegetable fats. The problem for corporations, however, is that agricultural products are subject to the ups and downs of any growing cycle, such as those involved with rainfall, temperature, crop or livestock disease, etc. With detergents, which are based on synthetics, no such problems exist. Hence, the bottom lines of companies such as Proctor and Gamble are easier to safeguard with detergent production. In his concluding remarks, Commoner raised the possibility that such problems can be eliminated if society gained *control* of the corporations, even though ownership remained in private hands. He thought that social ownership was no guarantee of ecologically sound production. He said that the former Soviet Union illustrates that perfectly. After Krushchev saw the impressive corn and wheat yields in the Midwest during his first trip to the United States, he decided that the USSR would have to produce crops in the same manner, that is, with pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. Commoner thinks that the dimensions of the crisis can very possibly force the powers-that-be in the USA to wake up and bring the corporations under control. A positive sign, in his opinion, was Clinton taking action against Microsoft. Why couldn't the same thing happen with polluters such as Exxon or Kodak? The problem is that US corporations are in an "intramural" fight over software standards and the government is coming to the aid of one faction against the other. Large corporations are wary of Bill Gates's growing power and want to be protected. On the other hand, the corporations as a whole have decided that radical changes in the means of production to overcome the environmental crisis must be resisted. This is the significance of the Clinton-Gore team
[PEN-L:182] [Fwd: [OPE-L:30] UEL occupation]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --C0DA3C24BA3BEE68039E54CA Does anyone else know about this? Massimo De Angelis wrote: Friends, this to let you know that a students occupation with strong staff support has taken place at my university against #2.4 million cuts planned by senior management. My office is in the liberated building, but for security reasons barricates prevent access to it. So please, for all private e-mail comuncation to me, send only at this address. I will shortly write a report to inform you of the incredible struggle we are engaged into, and the extremely interesting ways in which fatalism has been overcome by students struggles feeding into staff struggles and viceversa. Massimo -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --C0DA3C24BA3BEE68039E54CA Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri, 22 May 1998 04:10:48 -0700 (PDT) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) To: Ana-Esther Cecena [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Kliman [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gioacchino Toni [EMAIL PROTECTED], "M.Lane" [EMAIL PROTECTED], ope-L [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Prof." Mariarosa Dalla Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED], Silvia Federici [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Wright1 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Werner Bonefeld [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ferruccio Gambino [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Massimo De Angelis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OPE-L:30] UEL occupation Date: Fri, 22 May 98 10:52:21 +0100 ( + ) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Friends, this to let you know that a students occupation with strong staff support has taken place at my university against #2.4 million cuts planned by senior management. My office is in the liberated building, but for security reasons barricates prevent access to it. So please, for all private e-mail comuncation to me, send only at this address. I will shortly write a report to inform you of the incredible struggle we are engaged into, and the extremely interesting ways in which fatalism has been overcome by students struggles feeding into staff struggles and viceversa. Massimo --C0DA3C24BA3BEE68039E54CA--
[PEN-L:189] Re: pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subject line
On Fri, 22 May 1998, Barnet Wagman wrote: Is it possible - without a lot of work - to remove the [PEN-L:xxx] prefix from the subject line? The prefix (actually just the message number) screws up Netscape's threading, which makes reading a series of related comments much less convenient. Does anyone else feel this way? Thanks, Barnet Wagman No. I like them and had been waiting until I had something else to say to thank Michael for getting that feature restored. I wasn't the one that complained about the feature being removed when the list moved a while back, but I sure like that it has been restored. $.02 -- Joseph Noonan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:190] Re: principles
I know that Michael wants this to stop, and this will be my only post on it. But as a witness (and sometime participant) to much of what has been referred to, and in perhaps an effort to bring Jerry around to where he can stop chewing on old bones in public, I am posting this anyhow (sorry, Michael, silence on this after this). First off: Yes, let's all "take a stand against homophobia, cop baiting, sexism, death threats, anti-labor activism, etc." (not sure what is included in that "etc." but we'll let that pass). Have the accused been guilty of making statements on the internet or engaging in actions off the net that could be interepreted as fitting in with these designations? YES. They are GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY! Let me be more specific: 1) Jerry is correct that Mark Jones made his bizarre and indefensible statement about NLR on m-i. GUILTY! (homophobia, cop-baiting, and?...) 2) Jerry is correct that Louis once made inappropriate statements to Jerry's boss. GUILTY! (anti-labor activism, and?...) That particular incident has been vetted at length on this list some time ago. At the time I largely sided with Jerry, although thought and still think that he way overreacted. 3) On the original marxism list, Louis went on a vendetta against bob malecki, who was on this list for a brief period of time (remember the bad spelling?). Bob had posted his autobiography which was quite a wonder, including his tales of anti-Vietnam War activism and a lot of bizarre events that might reflect that he took enough LSD to make Hunter S. Thompson look like "Calmy and Clearly Thinking in Las Vegas." Louis decided that malecki was an FBI agent and went on a bender. In the end the best Louis could come up with was some minor factual goofs and of course some hallucinatory episodes. But he failed in his main effort. It may well have been lnp's lowest moment. GUILTY! (cop-baiting, and?...) This episode was nearly repeated recently when Louis almost sent an FOIA to the FBI and CIA about "Murray." However, this time he had the sense to back off when requested to do so by various list managers. Although it has been roundly denied, many continue to suspect that this was the straw that broke the back of Spoons support of the marxism lists, despite Louis's backing off. All right, so they're guilty as hell, Jerry, and I have just roundly denounced them for you again, public flaying and all that. So, waddayawannadoboudit? Should Michael P. purge them? Should we have serial denunciations of them in which every list participant opens by whacking them for their various awful statements and actions? It is clear that Michael P. is very uninterested and unsympathetic in any such endeavors and I support him in this. The main reason is that I think that cyberspace is evolving, that people can actually learn to behave better and that some do so (also, Michael runs a tight ship so that most participants know that major crap will not be tolerated). Mark's egregeious remarks occurred last spring on m-i. This was the period when there was all-out war over Stalin's Moscow Trials. You wanted Adolfo Olaechea removed for his death threats (oh yes, I forgot to denounce those as well: Mark, GUILTY!) Adolfo wanted various people, including a list moderator (Zeynep, long gone, whatever happened to her anyway?) removed because she opposed removing people who criticized Stalin. Mark was very frenzied back then and blew up frequently at lots of people, myself included. A bunch of them (Adolfo, Mark, some others) ran off to the LeninList until it blew up in an ideological frenzy when many of them returned. Mark has been much better behaved since his return (although he pulled some nasty pot shots on marxism-thaxis not too long ago). He has even recently been on the receiving end of denunciations by Adolfo for not being 100% supportive of old Uncle Joe. I have frequently noted that Louis P. has much improved. I think that he has learned his lesson, that flaming is a self-defeating game. When I look at the various participants in this, I can look at what we might call the flame/substance ratio. In the cases of both Mark and Louis, their flame/substance ratios have fallen dramatically. I think that they should be applauded for this and further encouraged, not continually and ritually denounced, flayed, and purged. Is this what you really want, Jerry? Jerry, you have your OPE-L with its closed archive where you can discuss pure theory. Pen-l is doing fine, even if the volume is down since the appearance of lbo-talk (which you won't go on because Doug H. is another person on your shit list: which crimes is he guilty of? (no, please don't tell us!)). So, who is it for whom the flame/substance ratio has been not only not decreasing, but increasing? I am afraid, Jerry, that it is you. It
[PEN-L:194] flame wars and what should be done
Barkeley, while attempting to cool tempers, just poured more fuel on the fire. I would love to see this list provide useful information for social change. Instead, we just claw at each other. Look, Louis had said some nasty things to me personally and on pen-l at one time. I don't care. I like 99% of what he writes and look forward to his posts. I am on Jerry Levy's list. I learn from what he writes. I have heard about his disputes. I don't care about them. I consider Bill Mitchell a good friend. He is angry with me and dropped off pen-l because I would not let myself get involved in a personal matter. The other party rebuked me because I did not come to his defense. Mark Jones may have said terrible things elsewhere. He has refrained from responding. I appreciate it. Look, I want pen-l to get involved with substantive matters. Every day, people starve or get slaughtered by brutal regimes, the powers of capital increase, and we act like clowns getting involved with petty disputes. These disputes do not sound petty to the parties involved. Indeed, real personal hurt was created. I am sorry, but I think that we have more important fish to fry. Let us see some posts that help people to get a handle on the world so that we can begin to make changes. And, quoting Rodney King, who was arrested some time ago in my home town of New Castle, Pa.: "can't we just get along?" -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:183] Re: principles
This has to stop! I contacted Louis yesterday and asked him not to respond to Jerry's last post. He graciously agreed. We have better things to do than engage in flame wars. As I understand, this is the sort of behavior that ended the marxism lists. Please, Jerry, on all other subjects you seem admirable in every respect. You have to stop this. Gerald Levy wrote: I tried to send the following to the list yesterday. For some mysterious reason, it wasn't posted even though it didn't bounce back to me as undeliverable. Strange. But, before returning to the original issue under discussion, I want to disagree somewhat with Paul Z: indeed there are certain principles for socialists, including but not limited to: solidarity, internationalism, opposition to imperialism, opposition to exploitation and oppression, etc. As for the more precise question of whether Mark Jones and Proyect are principled, I believe the following post offers a definitive answer. But, in case there are ***any*** doubts about Mark J, remember what he had to say: He wrote that: The _New Left Review_ is a "faggot-valhalla" controlled by M16! Did you hear that? I'll repeat it again ... Mark Jones wrote that: ***The _New Left Review_ is a "faggot-valhalla" controlled by M16!*** Did the significance of that statement sink in yet? So that you can't forget, let me repeat for a third time ... Mark Jones wrote that: ***THE _NEW LEFT REVIEW_ IS A "FAGGOT-VALHALLA" CONTROLLED BY M16!*** Jones sounds like Lyndon LaRouche, doesn't he? He wrote the above on a Internet mailing list (M-INT). He not only refused to apologize but even defended it afterwards to the list. You don't have to take my word for this: you can check-out the M-INT archives. Doug H was on that list at the time so he should remember as well. I think Barkley was there as well. What does the above quote say about Jones? It says that he is -- a) viciously homophobic! b) a cop-baiter! c) libelous! d) he has a conspiracy theory about _NLR_ that would make Lyndon LaRouche blush! Yet this is the person that Michael has praised! This is the Stalin-worshiper that Proyect has entered into an unprincipled combination with! On to yesterday's post ... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:37:16-0400 (EDT) From: Gerald Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Progressive Economics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: on the status of the pen-l list Michael wrote: Let bygones be bygones. The real enemy resides elsewhere. You still don't get it, do you? Re Jones: Not only is he viciously homophobic, but he also routinely calls others on the left "provocateurs", "counter-revolutionaries", "agents of US imperialism", etc. without any proof whatsoever. He has even -- on more than one occasion -- supported death threats against other leftists who don't agree with him. Should we say: "Let bygones be bygones" to Jones? Not only would this be seen as a defense of (verbal) gay-bashing, but we would also be saying that cop-baiting and death threats are OK. Re Proyect: he *is* (part of) the real enemy! He is a member of management who has threatened to seek to have other leftists fired and has even contacted mgt. to get someone silenced and/or fired. He has also -- knowinglyly, falsely, and maliciously -- accused someone of being an FBI agent. Does it matter at all if the reputation of a revolutionary is tainted forever by this charge that he was an FBI agent? If we say "Let bygones be bygones" to Proyect, we would be slapping this individual in the face again. Does it matter at all that a so-called "Marxist" has *crossed class lines* and _joined_ the real enemy by his actions? For Proyect, there is *NO* forgiving and forgetting. Moreover, it matters not one bit whether his actions occurred on pen-l or elsewhere. It matters not one bit whether he also writes posts which are not flames. What should *only* matter to us is that he has become an enemy of the working class -- a Benedict Arnold of the workers' movement. I would like to see us accomplish something. How can we expect to accomplish anything unless we can take a stand against homophobia, death threats, sexism, cop-baiting, anti-labor activism, etc? Jerry -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:185] Re: Barry Commoner
I agree with Louis' post in all respects except one: Louis suggests that Commoner would resist swallowing the "big pill" that the profit motive must go. I think that Commoner would thoroughly accept that idea [an has in the past] unless he has changed his mind in recent years. I should confess that I am a great admirer of Commoner's work. I even had him write the introduction to my first book back in the 1970s. Louis Proyect wrote: Last night I heard Barry Commoner speak on "The Economic Origins of the Environmental Crisis" at NYC's Brecht Forum. Although I suspect that much of the talk was a rehash of "The Closing Circle," it was useful to be reminded of his arguments, since nothing has changed basically since the book was written more than 25 years ago. For Commoner, WWII represents some kind of watershed. Before the war, there was no environmental crisis. Afterwards, there was. The explanation is that new technologies were introduced into the means of production that caused an imbalance between nature and society. The new technologies were introduced because they heightened the profit margin. Corporate greed, therefore, is the main explanation for the environmental crisis. He produced a number of examples, first and foremost among which was the automobile. He said that before WWII, smog was largely unknown but that in the 1950s it became a problem almost everywhere, the most notable example being Los Angeles. Smog is the result of the interaction between nitrogen oxide and waste gasoline products in sunlight. It produces ozone, which is hazardous to our health. The explanation for the increase in nitrogen oxide is that Detroit began making higher compression automobiles, which were necessary to power the larger automobiles that became common after WWII. The extra heat that these engines create cause nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere to react with each other. And why did Detroit decide to start making larger cars? Commoner cites John Delorean's "On a Clear Day You Can See Detroit" for the answer. Delorean says that when he was at General Motors, top management learned that while it only cost $300 more to make a larger car, that they could produce an additional $2000 in profit. So the thirst for profit had the unintended effect of producing smog. When a grass-roots movement emerged to fight against pollution in the 1970s, the corporations decided not to change their technology for the most part, but to utilize control devices. Such devices have failed to produce clean air or water, even though they do actually eliminate from 80% to 90% of the pollutants at the source. In the case of automobiles, smog continues to be a problem. Why haven't pollution control devices worked to clean up the air? The answer is that increased economic activity outweighs any improvements to the environment that such devices can produce. Since the 1950s, the huge increase in automobile ownership has meant that air pollution has continued no matter the degree to which antipollution devices have been introduced. The other important factor is that commercial transportation has become heavily dependent on trucks, rather than the more ecological railroads. The only genuine gains that have taken place is when the technology itself has been modified. For example, when the government banned lead in gasoline, the amount of lead pollution practically disappeared. The same is true of DDT. In general, however, corporate greed has acted to prevent further improvements. The case of soap versus detergents illustrates the problem. Soap does not cause water pollution, since it is based on a natural substance, animal or vegetable fats. The problem for corporations, however, is that agricultural products are subject to the ups and downs of any growing cycle, such as those involved with rainfall, temperature, crop or livestock disease, etc. With detergents, which are based on synthetics, no such problems exist. Hence, the bottom lines of companies such as Proctor and Gamble are easier to safeguard with detergent production. In his concluding remarks, Commoner raised the possibility that such problems can be eliminated if society gained *control* of the corporations, even though ownership remained in private hands. He thought that social ownership was no guarantee of ecologically sound production. He said that the former Soviet Union illustrates that perfectly. After Krushchev saw the impressive corn and wheat yields in the Midwest during his first trip to the United States, he decided that the USSR would have to produce crops in the same manner, that is, with pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. Commoner thinks that the dimensions of the crisis can very possibly force the powers-that-be in the USA to wake up and bring the corporations under control. A positive sign, in his opinion, was Clinton taking action against Microsoft. Why couldn't the same thing
[PEN-L:188] RE: pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subject line
I think the PEN-L prefix enables me to easily distinguish between this list and the much less useful PKT. But then again, I would rather suffer through PKT posts to get to pen-l posts if it meant losing people. Jeff -- From: Barnet Wagman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:186] pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subject line Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 12:59PM Is it possible - without a lot of work - to remove the [PEN-L:xxx] prefix from the subject line? The prefix (actually just the message number) screws up Netscape's threading, which makes reading a series of related comments much less convenient. Does anyone else feel this way? Thanks, Barnet Wagman __ Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-645-8369 2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor Chicago, IL 60622 __
[PEN-L:186] pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subject line
Is it possible - without a lot of work - to remove the [PEN-L:xxx] prefix from the subject line? The prefix (actually just the message number) screws up Netscape's threading, which makes reading a series of related comments much less convenient. Does anyone else feel this way? Thanks, Barnet Wagman __ Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-645-8369 2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor Chicago, IL 60622 __
[PEN-L:187] Re: pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subject line
There were furious complaints before when a software upgrade removed the pen-l from the header. I, for one, appreciate the new headers. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:195] Ward Churchill
By the way, I forgot to mention why Ward Churchill never showed up the other week at his speaking engagement at the Brecht Forum. Last night I ran into Sam Anderson, who was collecting money at the door of the Brecht Forum for the Barry Commoner meeting. I asked him if he ever found out why Ward didn't show. The answer was that he was arrested at Newark airport for an outstanding warrant and was held incommunicado. When he finally got in touch with Sam, who had invited him originally, he was very apologetic. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:193] [Fwd: Governing without Government: Book Release]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --8A90FFDD02EE696672E0B7BA Sid Shniad wrote: BOOK RELEASE Global Public Policy: Governing without Government?. Wolfgang H. Reinicke Published May 1998; 307 pages Cloth, 0-8157-7390-0, $42.95; Paper, 0-8157-7389-7, $18.95 Brookings Bookstore: 202/797-6528 or 1-800/275-1447 Book Lays Out Principles of Governance Beyond the Nation State The Asian crisis, the Helms-Burton Act, failure of fast track, a revival of nationalist, right-wing political movements, and calls to shut down the IMF all have something in common. Each is part of the growing backlash against globalization. But while globalization has become a fashionable term, little analysis has been done on its implications for public policy. In Global Public Policy: Governing without Government?, Wolfgang H. Reinicke argues that globalization has been primarily a corporate level phenomenon. Prompted by the cross-border liberalization of economic activity and the information and communication technology revolution, a labyrinth of global corporate networks -- legal and illegal -- are fast outgrowing national structures of public policy, which remain based on territory. Without a public policy framework that can accommodate such global networks and can act in the public interest, Reinicke argues, governments, which see their very rationale and legitimacy eroded, will have little choice but to fall back on national solutions for providing public goods. The problem is that such solutions focus on territory, an approach that is increasingly ineffective and that increases the risk of interstate conflict. "To avoid a backlash against globalization, public policy will have to undergo a fundamental reconstruction," says Reinicke, a Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow and a Senior Economist in the World Bank's Corporate Strategy Group. According to the author, governance does not always have to be equated with government. Global public policy provides an alternative. But global public policy, a networked structure of public, private, non-governmental and international organizations, can only succeed if the global corporate community is willing and able to take on some public policy functions with other non-state actors. This obligates greater transparency, adherence to disclosure based regulation, and commitment to internal reforms. These principles are currently in short supply, not just in Asia, but around the globe. Reinicke makes the case for global public policy in three policy areas: the regulation of global financial markets, transnational criminal networks and money laundering, and trade in dual-use goods and technologies. In all three cases, transgovernmental cooperation is a necessary precondition. But it is not sufficient. Non-state actors, corporations and civil society alike must play an important role in formulating and implementing public policy. They are the ultimate stakeholders in the success of globalization and they can contribute to that success. Their range of activity is not bound by territory. Often corporations and NGOs have the best information,knowledge, and understanding of complex, technology-driven and fast-changing public policy issues. Their participation will lead to a more efficient and effective policy process. And the resultant private-public partnerships will generate greater legitimacy and accountability -- a growing concern in the debate on globalization. Reinicke concludes by arguing that globalization must be inclusive. This suggests a strategic vision that places international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund at the center of international security arrangements for the 21st century. It also puts new programmatic demands on them. But as a trustee of global public policy, the multilateral system must become more open, transparent, and flexible, to gain the legitimacy and accountability that sustaining globalization requires. "Dr. Reinicke offers a brilliant analysis of the ways in which globalization is accelerating the erosion of the Westphalian state. But no prophet of doom, he offers creative alternatives to traditional forms of international regulation -- ideas that governments, international organizations and global corporations should take very seriously." -- Abram Chayes Antonia Handler Chayes, Harvard Law School Conflict Management Group "Globalization is a revolutionary force that can produce tremendous benefits if properly managed through innovative public-private governance. On the other hand, globalization can wreak economic and
[PEN-L:181] Re: principles
Gerald Levy wrote: The _New Left Review_ is a "faggot-valhalla" controlled by M16! And, as everyone knows, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun! Doug
[PEN-L:180] BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- =_NextPart_000_01BD858A.C22DE1A0 charset="ISO-8859-1" Two comments. The Am. Elect. Assn. does not say how many of their 200,000 new jobs went to people living in the US at the beginning of the year. The Natl. Rest. Assn. never has believed the CPI for Food Away from Home before, claiming that because of coupons restaurant prices have been falling. Dave BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1998 RELEASED TODAY: The share of all U.S. families with at least one worker rose by 0.8 percentage point to 82.2 percent in 1997. Over the year, the proportion of all families with an unemployed person fell by 0.6 percentage point to 7.0 BLS economist Fran Horvath told a Labor Research Advisory Council meeting that it appears Office of Personnel Management records on the number of federal workers covered by union contracts are more accurate than the current population survey. The CPS relies on respondents to accurately recall employment information. In some households the actual worker responds to the question, and, in others, a proxy -- usually a spouse -- answers the question. Proxy responses tend to show lower union representation than self response, Horvath said The agency will continue to search for a way to correct the under-representation, BLS economist Philip Rones said (Daily Labor Report, page A-1). Wives earn more than their husbands in about a quarter of dual-income marriages, altering the balance of power in the family and thus family resource allocation, according to an article in the April issue of the Monthly Labor Review Given that women still tend to earn less than men, the "large proportion of wives [who] earned more than their husbands is quite notable," said the article, written by Anne E. Winkler, associate professor of economics and public policy administration at the University of Missouri-St. Louis (Daily Labor Report, page A-3). The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland has tweaked the government's traditional measure of consumer prices and concluded that the U.S. may be a lot further from price stability than most analysts think. BLS calculates the CPI as the weighted mean -- or average -- of the prices of 36 product categories. By that measure, the annual inflation rate has fallen to barely 2 percent. But the Cleveland Fed publishes an alternative measure of inflation based on what it calls the median CPI The median CPI effectively discounts the most extreme fluctuations in consumer prices, which understate the overall rate of inflation. For example, over the past year, the prices of products such as fuel and used cars have fallen sharply, which has tended to pull down the government measure of inflation. By contrast, the median CPI gives less weight to these large but possibly isolated declines Cleveland Fed economists argue that their median-CPI method is a more accurate predictor of inflation and is more closely tied to the growth of money in the nation's economy. But ... they are still a long way from convincing colleagues at the Federal Reserve, where governors, including Chairman Alan Greenspan, are said to be skeptical (Business Week, May 25, page 26). High-tech industry added more than 200,000 new jobs to the U.S. economy in 1997, according to the American Electronics Association, a trade organization (Daily Labor Report, page A-16). U.S. international trade deficit in March was $13.0 billion, $0.8 billion more than the revised figure for February, the Commerce Department reports (Daily Labor Report, page D-1)_"Two Sides of a Trade Chasm: The U.S. Economy May Hang in the Imbalance" is the title of this week's "Trendlines" in the Washington Post (page D1) The U.S. trade deficit grew to $13 billion in March, up about 67 percent from a year earlier. The economic turmoil in Asia -- cutting demand for U.S. exports -- has been a major factor. The turmoil, however, also has cut the cost of many imports into the United States, helping to slow rapid economic growth and reduce inflationary pressures here _The monthly trade deficit reached a new high, providing the clearest evidence yet how Asia's mounting economic woes are restraining American growth for good and for ill (New York Times, page D1)_March's trade deficit makes it all but certain the year's gap will set a record by a wide margin (Wall Street Journal, page A2) Menu prices rose 2.5 percent for the 12 months ended in March, outpacing the rate of inflation, as higher labor costs were passed on to diners, says the National Restaurant Association. A higher minimum wage along with a competitive labor market create price inflation all the way up the ladder (Wall Street Journal, "Business Bulletin," page A1). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Regional and State Employment and
[PEN-L:177] Re: In Defense of History
G'day Ajit and Ricardo, So nice to see Habermas brought up here. I too think Habermas does a better job on the pomos (for I agree with EMW's project if not always her argumentative method) than anyone else. In my jaundiced view, the Pomos simply have to be answered if there's a practical left agenda to be salvaged/reconstructed. But the business of answering them is not simply one of defence against admittedly difficult questions; it is also one of asking some of our own. Habermas comes in particularly handy because his argument here also help us stick it to the neoclassicists. (This is awfully long (sorry) and much of it is drawn from Geuss's *The Idea Of Critical Theory* which I read the other day (I only have time for short books these days). And I apologise if my amateur wrestling with some basics offends/bores the more sophisticated among you.) H goes along with the scientists, and therefore at least the ostensible epistemological position of the neoclassicists, right up to the point where they say the normative statement is a meaningless category because there exists no way to test its validity scientifically, ie. by way of observed correspondence with the only world that counts - the one we can see and count. Simply put, if you can't count it, for this mob, it doesn't count. But H seeks to show that one set of normative beliefs can indeed be more rational than another. As scientific knowledge does not allow such a claim, the claim of scientific knowledge to be the only tenable mode of knowledge must be opposed. For H there is also normative knowledge. In this category, the 'either/or' demand of scientism is replaced by distinction by degree. Which is how we tend to think, I reckon. We can't, after all, not hold normative beliefs. This is important because the question neoclassicists never entertain (precisely because they are scientists) is: 'What is it that legitimates our desires such that the scientific claim can be made that a particular mode of social organisation (eg. the decontextualised 'market') confers the optimum balance between the meeting of desires and the associated regulation of human lives?' For the neoclassicist, norms/desires/needs all reduce to 'demand', which they see as a natural phenomenon which enjoys the gratifying characteristics of observability and countability. As a legitimating category for social organisation/regulation/repression, 'demand' is all-powerful just now. Marxists speak of 'interests' - a category that allows us to [re]ask the question: 'How best do we integrate our desires into 'the good life'. A more holistic and potentially radical question because it treats the category of demand as problematic (the satisfaction of that demand may be inconsistent with the buyer's interests because of social costs or incompatibility with components of even a self-articulated 'good life'.) Now, the Franks in general distinguished themselves from other salient lefties du juour by incorporating a bit of Freud in their efforts to put Marxism and their own depressing experiences together (less true of H, who has generally been an altogether cheerier chap). The idea is that scientific knowledge (as described above, anyway) gives you all the empirical data there is, but still not, in itself, a reliable pointer to 'the good life' (exit Walras, Jevons and Pareto). What H reckons (and it's in Marcuse's Eros Civilisation too) is that psychoanalysis is the model for human emancipation. Our institutions are produced and reproduced by us because they enable a mode of social life - in this they must also constrain. One thing thus constrained is our proclivity to think outside those institutions once we've constructed 'em. Now, if you go along with the proposition that these institutions may come to a point where they repress more than they enable, then we're in the province of Freudian delusion. And in need of the same sort of remedy - to make ourselves conscious of the unconscious component of our motivations for believing and doing what we do. We may find determinate aspects in ourselves that we might not think legitimate, and to the extent these are institutionally constituted, we may then decide the institutional structure is itself illegitimate. The institutions are dominating us to the extent they are making us act in ways we do not feel we should act. The only way institutions should be transformed or retired is (a) by their architects, who are (b) conscious of why they're doing it. Their motivation need not be a transcendental truth (and I don't think it matters whether you believe there are any such things here - the young Habermas followed daddy Adorno's idea of the ultimate arbiter as the epistemic principles that characterise a community in its time and place - this latter point being compatible with Marx's demands we always take history into account). The older Habermas senses a problem here, and the problem he senses is the one the pomos
[PEN-L:175] Re: On the status of the pen-l list
Anthony D'Costa Briefly, the nuke story everyone knows: US sanctions, Tokyo's aid cut-off, the lack of consensus among the G-8 regarding the sanctions, etc. Important questions have arisen whether India will be able to weather the sanctions. I think so. India's external exposure is very small (the globalization debate comes to mind). At the same time the current Indian leadership has taken a war-mongering posture, being remote controlled by the hardliners of the BJP. China has now accused India of the 1962 aggression and claims India's hegemonic ambitions. Pakistan's internal politics is virtually pushing it to explode a bomb! India's relationship with the US is best seen in the software industry, whereby US MNCs are setting up hi tech centers and at the same time the US government has raised the quotas for foreign engineers to enter the US. Naturally sanctions cannot be that devastating. A friend commented that India's corruption results in billions of dollars of leakages so what kind of a havoc would a cut off of a few billions do. _ My guess is Pakistan is going to get a bomb sooner or later, so everybody will have a bomb and there will be peace in the region. Of course, India's bomb is not for Pakistan but for China. Two questions interest me in this context. One, now that India has become world's bad boy, is it going to initiate a more self reliant (i.e. away from globalization) policy on economic front? BJP never was enthusiastic about globalization, so will it take this sense of "national purpose" to forge some sort of self reliant economic policy? Second, my sense was that the relationship with China was improving in the last few years. What has happened to deterioate it to this extent? Why didn't they allow Martin Scorsese to shoot Kun Dun in India then? Cheers, ajit sinha __ An American friend reported from the US: The bomb tests of course made big news here. Commentators and government officials have been trying to each out do the other in formulating expressions of outrage and condemnation. Such hypocritical bullshit. Not that I'm any fan of nuclear weapons, but I'm stunned (maybe I should be used to it by now) of the general level of stupidity in our public discourses about India. The policy moves being discussed are exactly what you'd want to do if you wanted to be counterproductive, or so it seems to me. The administration and Congress seem eager to now solidly embrace Pakistan, for re-assurance, in the name of parity, and to see if they can be promised enough rewards to dissuade them from setting off a few bombs themselves. China too is in the game, offering as yet unspecified assurances to Pakistan. I just read in the TNT today something to the effect of China's identification of India as an "enemy" and a "threat to China's national security." So with sanctions and these emerging cosy arrangements between the U.S. and its undemocratic, authoritarian, human-rights-squashing buddies, Pakistan China, India, I hate to say it, probably has more reason than ever to seek to become a nuclear power in its own right. Even though I personally wish all this nuclear busines was headed in the opposite direction, the Indian government's decision is not only understandable, it will probably pay off internationally in the long run. As China and Pakistan have both shown, the U.S. will evidently respect you and constructively "engage" you only if you are a bad boy in their eyes. Now that India has also become a bad boy, it can probably count on more respect and consideration from the U.S. in the long run. In the short run however India can probably count on more shrill, self-righteous, vein-popping rhetoric from the U.S. side. But as they say in advertising, there's no such thing as bad publicity... India has made it onto the mental map of American politics in a big way in the past few weeks. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. - Junoon is a popular Pakistani rock group who sing in the vernacular (Urdu). They are highly popular in India as well. So while bombs of all sorts were going up (and down) the young generation of the MTV culture had transcended such jingoistic postures and sought to dance themselves away. Cheers, Anthony
[PEN-L:174] Re: 35-hour week in France (fwd)
London Times May 20 1998 A CONTROVERSIAL Bill to reduce the working week from 39 hours to 35 was passed by the French National Assembly yesterday in a move described by many economists and business leaders as economic suicide. This is a great news. I hope it gives strength to workers all around the world to push for such a move. I'm wondering what would be it's impact on general price level and so real wages per worker? Cheers, ajit sinha Dismissing protests that the law will harm competitiveness and aggravate the migration of young professionals across the Channel, the Socialist-led Assembly ratified the Government's election promise to cut the working week without reducing wages by a show of hands. Members of the governing coalition - Socialists, Communists and Greens - voted for the Bill while the centre-right opposition voted against. The Bill had produced 75 hours of debate, with the Gaullists arguing that it would have no effect on France's crippling unemployment levels of around 12 per cent and might even increase joblessness. The Government, however, claims that the measure will create between 210,000 and 280,000 extra jobs over five years. The measure was originally championed by Lionel Jospin, the Socialist Prime Minister, as a way to reduce unemployment, although at one point late last year even he appeared to back away from it, describing the Left's election slogan "Work 35 hours get paid for 39" as "anti-economic". Under the terms of the law, all firms with more than 20 employees must introduce the 35-hour week by 2000. Firms with fewer than 20 workers will be allowed until 2002 to implement the measure. More than 15 million workers are estimated to be affected. The law includes no details on how it should be implemented, leaving management and trade unions to negotiate the terms. In 1999 practical details will be set out, based on the experience of companies that have adopted the measures in the interim. ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. ** -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
