[PEN-L:11472] Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to Darity
G'day Barkley, You write: Actually it was the Chinese who first figured out how to use gunpowder to make guns and cannons. Whoops! Guess that shows I didn't go to a good highschool ... The technology diffused westwards. And quickly! I see the Poms were loosing 'bombards' (cannon) at the French by the time of Crecy (ie by 1346). A couple of idle and tangential thoughtlets for the tangentially idle: I see also that 'the nation state' makes its entrance in France (probably when Joan's mob makes peace with the Burgundians at Arras in 1435), Spain (the union of Castile and Aragon in 1479 under a sovereign crown), and England in 1485 (the Tudors after Bosworth Field in 1485). These states had unprecedented economies of scale going for them when it came to taxation, unprecedented local threats (the other nation states) and the cutting-edge coordination/space-ruling technology of the day: printing (Gutenberg 1448 and Caxton 1476), combined with the rise of the humanistic school (weakening the stultifying scholasticism of the more orthodox types). Powerful stuff. I mention this last because in many ways the west of the 15th century was still catching up to where it (the med regions, anyway) had been in the year dot. As I don't know a thing about China, Japan and India du juour, so I don't know if there's anything of any significance in that little lot. Nite all, Rob.
[PEN-L:11516] Re: Marxist response to East Timor
At 13:38 22/09/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Jim Devine: But I'd like to know why you think that the Solidarity group violated Marxist principles in their position on E. Timor. I believe that they back the principle of the right of self-determination of nations, including the independence of E. Timor. They just have a different interpretation of the efficacy of the UN in helping E. Timor achieve achieve this goal than I do (or you do). That is, it's a disagreement concerning fact rather than principle. The United Nations, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is a instrument to promote imperialist hegemony. And it has no other contradictory aspect contained within itself? despite the following remark? - the General Assembly has passed many worthy motions in recent years, including the controversial "Zionism = Racism" one. Chris Burford London
[PEN-L:11526] globalisation's influences on mentality
Dear Penners, My name if Hiroto Tsukada, a Professor of Economics at Yamaguchi University, Japan. (Visiting UK till next January, at University of Kent at Canterbury.) I am studying now on globalisation's influences on mentality of people. My intention is to use it as an evidence for the necessity of enforcing welfare states. I am comparing Japan,US and UK,and a little of Sweden. The key words there are extreme school bullying to death and overwork to death in Japan,growing mental depression in UK,and school violence in US. As for Japan,I am quite sure they are the results of growing competitive urge. (Though it is not easy to prove how much of it is caused by globalising movement.) I am not sure if school violence of US represents a pathological side of this country, but that's the most impressive phenomenon about US at the moment for me. Hiroto -- Hiroto Tsukada [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Hiroto Tsukada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11529] RE: slightly new thread
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where should leftists stand on the push by activists in Seattle demanding that the WTO have stronger labor rights enforcement provisions? Are these demands the product of imperialist plots to make certain countries, i.e. China, less able to compete with the US in global markets? Well, there are two kinds of labor rights provisions. The first kind is substantive where global minimum wages are set and substantive regulation of the workplace are made global. There are some legitimate debates over how those might be enforced, how they would disadvantage struggling developing economies, and how they might be used by developed countries as trade weapons. On the other hand, procedural labor provisions, particularly provisions that protect the rights of workers to organize in each country and thereby demand whatever standards workers in those developing countries deem critical, should be the key demand of progressive global activists. There should be no debate among left activists over protecting the right to organize; any other position is merely the defense of national bourgeoisie - whether in the form of private capitalists or state bureaucrats - to exploit other members of their societies for their own enrichment. The International Labor Organization has broadly agreed upon procedural guarantees for workers that, sadly, have little enforcement built into them. Whether the WTO is the best mechanism for enforcing them is debated, but only in the context of whether the undemocratic structures of the WTO should have any of the powers it is developing. But if the WTO is going to continue to develop its powers to override the laws of national governments for the benefit of capital, labor will have to demand protections for its rights globally. --Nathan newman
[PEN-L:11532] Re: Re: Bairoch, etc.
I'd like to say that while I can't follow every twist and turn in the argument about Europe and the periphery, I am appreciating this thread (when it stays on track). But a question. For a different topic I am citing estimates of long-run industrial output by Bairoch, as well as those by Angus Madison (OECD, 1995). Since some of you probably know this area well, any comments on how good these estimates are, especially Bairoch's industrial output in physical terms? Bill Burgess Lousy, lousy, lousy, lousy. Really lousy. Half-educated guesses... But the best we have, and the best we are likely to get. Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:11542] Re: wojtek
Jim, I think this passage exemplifies the fundamental difference between your and my position on the subject. I am an empirical scientist, not an erudite, I am concerned with emprical facts, not their interepretations in the literature. The empirical fact is that countries that benefited the most directly from plundering South America were not able to transform that advantage into a capitalist system (i.e. system that reproduces itself). That seems to me a very important counterfactural evidence to the claim that colonial exploitation was a sufficient condition for capitalism. Yes, even if the colonial trade contributed a decisive amount of capital, we still need to examine the nature of the internal economy, for not just any internal economy is capable of transforming trade-surpluses into *sustained* economic growth. Your strategy seems to be declaring that fact irrelevant by a semantic gimmick - calling the countries in question "conduits." That is, you implicitly affirm the fact that these countries passed their riches instead of using them for capitalist development, but call it by a different name and consider the case closed. That may be good lit-crit, but poor empirical science. An inquiring mind would like to know what *internal factors* made the difference bewteen "conduits" and "accumulators" i.e. ordinary brigands who plundered civilizations for centuries, and capitalists, a uniquely modern phenomenon. In the same vein, you use a semantic gimmick to dismiss my argument about the necessary condition. I stated that neither Germany, Sweden or Japan received any meaningful benefits from colonial exploitation - which is an emprical fact, if the "meaningful benefits" are defined as those reaped by Spain or England. You dismiss that fact by changing the subject and saying that the countries in question "partricipated" in colonial ventures (without giving specific examples of the magnitude or character of that 'participation'). Well, my friend, Turks, Poles and Yugoslavs also 'participated' in the German post 2nd world war economic miracle - as "guest workers." Would you say that Turkey, Poland or Yugoslavia owes its post-war development to their 'exploitation of the German economic boom?" You also dismiss my argument that you may not have sufficient empirical evidence to sort out effects of different variables by simply calling it "babble." Well, my friend, if you ran a multiple regression with twelve variables plus interaction effects and six cases - you would be laughed out of the stage. What makes you think that a case-based approach is any different, from a methodological point of view. To summarize, your strategy seems to be based on drowning your causal model (if any) in a constant stream of quotations, name dropping, and literary references. That makes good literary criticism or talmudic scholarship, but do not quite qualifies as empirical science. regards, wojtek
[PEN-L:11546] RE: Re: Re: Re: Marxist response to East Timor
Brad is correct that we all do not need to work on every issue. Maybe he can tell us more about Primus's study. Does he come up with anything new? Brad De Long wrote: It's on the web at http://www.cbpp.org/8-22-99wel.htm It's an important paper, the first to signal with empirical evidence that something is rotten in welfare reform. It provoked an echo on the WaPo editorial page. Primus analyzes data from 95 to 97, a 'before and after' snapshot of welfare reform and shows that income among the lowest quintile of single women with children has decreased, notwithstanding the macro-boom. Other good stuff too. Highly recommended. mbs
[PEN-L:11549] Re: Response to Darity
I think that we can let this rest for a while. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11552] Re: Re: Re: Re: Marxist response to East Timor
Brad is correct that we all do not need to work on every issue. Maybe he can tell us more about Primus's study. Does he come up with anything new? Basically that people kicked off of welfare think that they are no longer eligible for food stamps (even though they are)--and that the state offices don't tell them that they can still get food stamps... Brad
[PEN-L:11553] Re: Marxist response to East Timor
Brad is correct that we all do not need to work on every issue. Maybe he can tell us more about Primus's study. Does he come up with anything new? Brad De Long wrote: It's on the web at http://www.cbpp.org/8-22-99wel.htm It's an important paper, the first to signal with empirical evidence that something is rotten in welfare reform. It provoked an echo on the WaPo editorial page. Primus analyzes data from 95 to 97, a 'before and after' snapshot of welfare reform and shows that income among the lowest quintile of single women with children has decreased, notwithstanding the macro-boom. Other good stuff too. Highly recommended. mbs And if these are the effects of welfare reform in--ahem!--the strongest American economy in a generation... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:11559] Re: UK Agricultural Revolution
Jim B. writes: I don't think there was an agricultural revolution in England. There was agricultural EVOlution in harmony with other changes taking place, but not as [a]n important causal force. Now that's an interesting position. There was no AgRev in the UK? To means that there was no _enclosure movement_ -- i.e., no radical change in rural property rights away from (1) the "feudal" situation where property rights were mixed with political rights and shared in a complex and often ambiguous way between the lords and the direct producers to (2) the capitalist situation where the political and economic dimensions of property relations were separated and the landlords claimed the land as their "private" property, rendering the direct producers propertyless. (It is useful at this point to read William Lazonick, "Karl Marx and Enclosures in England," REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS, vol. 6, no. 2, Summer 1974, pp. 1 - 59.) _Of course_ REVolution and EVolution are always mixed. The enclosure movement happened (or, rather, was imposed) in an uneven way, hitting different areas at different times, depending on the power of peasant resistance and the nature of the crops being grown (and other "natural" conditions). There are, I am told, still areas of the UK where enclosure was never completed (or at least there were 45 years ago or so, which is "today" by long-term historical standards). But the role of qualitative change should be acknowledged along with the quantitative change. Or in the language of mainstream social science, change co-exists with continuity. Of course, change and continuity describe different aspects of the dynamic process. For example, it seems to me that a theory of gradual change (which emphasizes continuity) might be validly applied to issues of agricultural technology. However, a theory of structural change applies to issues of radical changes in property rights. Why is it that you presume that enclosure played no causal role? (I dropped the word "important," since it seems like nothing but a weasel word. Admit it: you see anything that occured in the UK as simply an epiphenomenon of that country's exploitation of the third world, which is nothing but a mirror image of those who blame only the AgRev, seeing colonial expansion as merely an epiphenomenon of the AgRev.) Do you have a theory and evidence that suggests that the autonomous changes in the English countryside involving radical changes in property relations never ever played a role? (Wallerstein notes the importance of rural class struggles. Shouldn't you?) BTW, what _is_ your general theoretical framework that guides your research and tells you what kind of questions to ask and how to weight different kinds of evidence? Correct me if I am wrong in my impression that you are an empiricist, simply marshalling information to justify your position. That's okay by me (if it's so), but you have to realize the limits of empiricism. Empiricists are great at finding information, but that's different from understanding it. Nor is Brenner's pseudo-class analysis of any help. To claim that capitalism was invented by English tenant farmers is just wrong. And as he himself says, they weren't struggling against anybody. He's confusing the much earlier class struggle of serfs with nobles. My impression is that Brenner does NOT claim that "capitalism was invented by English tenant farmers" (though I'm sure that he admits that some tenant farmers became capitalists). Rather, my impression is that he generally goes along with Marx's analysis, in which capitalism was "invented" because the powers that were (semifeudalized lords, etc.) privatized what had been nonprivate property (property of the sort I referred to above). The "much earlier struggle of serfs with nobles" is of course the origins of the enclosure movement (though Marx mentions such stuff as the grabbing of Church and Royal lands in the Reformation and the Civil War). This set the stage for _some_ tenant capitalists to engange in _some_ technological innovation and the like. Again the question of "what is heck do we mean by capitalism?" comes up. I can't see how Brenner, given _his_ definition of capitalism, could put anything close to the kind of emphasis on tenant farmers that you attribute to him. Maybe it makes sense given _your_ definition of capitalism, but unlike with Brenner, I've never seen you define that term. BTW, I'm all in favor of criticizing Brenner (and a lot of useful stuff came out of criticism of his most recent book). But this kind of dismissal isn't useful. As I've said, I also find unicausal theories (either "exploitation of the colonies did it" or "the AgRev did it") to be too abstract. As I argued, the real process of history can only be understood as a multicausal and dynamic process. Michael P. says we should call the whole thing off (since you say ToMAHto and I say ToMAYto). I guess we can just agree to disagree, but I think
[PEN-L:11562] Empiricism, was Re: UK Agricultural Revolution
Jim Devine wrote: the limits of empiricism. Empiricists are great at finding information, but that's different from understanding it. I don't know whether this is a question that can be fruitfully explored on a maillist or not, but I want to raise it in isolation from the origins question in case someone can contribute to a clearer understanding of the nature, scope, and limits of not just empiricism but of empirical evidence within in any framework. One of the reasons I withdrew from the debate on origins (and should have withdrawn one or two posts earlier) was that it seemed to me that Jim B Lou as well as their opponents were operating as though purely empiricist arguments could decide the issue. This was also the reason I did not respond to Jim B's insistence that I learn more: there is no way even to know what is and is not a fact or what kind of facts are relevant without a prior theoretical framework within which facts and relevance are defined. (I think the features of the thread which led to Michael's suggestion that it was exhausted were precisely those which constituted its empiricist nature. Within the limits of a purely empiricist approach the disputants can only hurl uninterpreted and uninterpretable "facts" at each other endlessly without coming any nearer to a decision on the issues or even on what the issues are. It seems to me that various forms of empiricism constitute a far more serious repudiation of marxism than do the various fads called "post structuralism," "post modernism," "deconstruction," etc. Carrol
[PEN-L:11565] Re: Empiricism,
The way we learn is more complicated that that. We are constantly moving back forth from "facts" to "theory", or if you prefer from the concrete to the abstract. Any one you attempts to "theorise" without information, is engaged in a dream world (is an idealist). We need both. It is a mistake to call all appeals to the "facts" empiricist. Original Message Follows From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] there is no way even to know what is and is not a fact or what kind of facts are relevant without a prior theoretical framework within which facts and relevance are defined. It seems to me that various forms of empiricism constitute a far more serious repudiation of marxism than do the various fads called "post structuralism," "post modernism," "deconstruction," etc. Carrol Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:11567] Re: RE: Re: wojtek
At 11:51 AM 9/23/99 -0400, Max Sawicky wrote: WS: . . . You also dismiss my argument that you may not have sufficient empirical evidence to sort out effects of different variables by simply calling it "babble." Well, my friend, if you ran a multiple regression with twelve variables plus interaction effects and six cases - you would be laughed out of the stage. What makes you think that a case-based approach is any different, from a methodological point of view. . . . Tho I agree JB has been a little too big for his britches, I wonder what the above means for historical analysis. More often than not there are not sufficient cases to use statistical tests of hypotheses; or the question is too broad to admit of analysis via a data set. So where does that leave historians, both economic and otherwise? Max, imho the problem is how you construct your unit of analysis - the bigger the unit (e.g. nation-state), the fewer cases you get while the picture becomes more complicated and difficult to analyze. My suggestion would be constructing a unit of analysis at a relatively low leve of aggregation, e.g. a firm/organization instead of the nation-state or, goddess forbid, 'the world system.' This way you can: - effectively address the problem of human agency versus environmental influences - get enough emprical material (cases) to run meaninful comparisons, both within and between nation-states; - get enough cases to meet the 'ceteris paribus' and provide counterfactual - whi8ch is necessary to analytically separate and demonstrate the claimed effects of individual variables. For example to adress the question of 'what made capitalism work and reproduce itself' - it would be more fruitful to analyze the basic unit of production under capitalism and, say, fedualism and see what they share in common and how they differ - rather than addressing issue at the nation-state level and trying to guess th efactors that brough about a capitalist 'system.' To my knowledge, Russian historical economist A.V. Chayanov used that approach quite effectively. To summarize, i'd say keep your cases (units of analysis) simple, multiple - to ascertain comparisons and analytical separation of effects, and empirically verifiable (is there a counterfactual to your case?), do not loose human agency from sight, and stay clear of nation-states and world systems. wojtek
[PEN-L:11568] Re: RE: binary passions
At 12:41 PM 9/23/99 -0400, Max Sawicky wrote:
I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the
combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism
combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a
passionate matter of either/or dispute?
Doug
Looks to me like the subtext to the essentiality of
colonialism argument is that capitalism itself is
not a stage of historical progress, relative to
its predecessors, but merely a different form of
the same underlying misery and oppression.
No progress means little scope for reform, plus
the irrelevance of the working class in the
industrialized countries, particularly white
workers in the U.S. Ergo the implied
necessity of third-worldist revolution.
Lin Pao (sp?) and Che are still with us.
Morbid symptoms and all that.
Max, I would also like to call attention to the religious aspect of it -
third worldism is a form of a messianistic cult of the kind that were
popular in the 19th century Europe (originating in the hegelian right, if
memory serves). Essentiaslly the idea was to self-portray a disadvantaged
nation or a group of people as the "messiah of nations" that is, a nation
whose suffering significantly contributes to the 'salvation' i.e.
prosperity of other nations. This way, disadvantaged groups could
vicariously overcome their marginalization and see themselves as the 'pivot
of the world.' Kind of biblical eschatology ("the wretched of the earth
inherit the kingdom of heaven") without the other-worldly mumbo-jumbo.
wojtek
[PEN-L:11569] Re: Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
On 22 Sep 99, at 8:36, Chris Burford wrote: It is quite true that the reformatory strategies under consideration are in themselves inadequate, partial and limited. Like all reforms they have a dialectical dual aspect - they may help the onward process of change, or they may restabilise the basic structures... It is true the "breaking of the chains of debt" campaign is in one sense reformist. It does not address the process of the uneven accumulation of capital which perpetually enforces these debts, but patronisingly seeks to annul them every so often. No, I would say a dramatic debt cancellation with no strings attached -- qualitatively different than the WB/IMF/Clinton HIPC schemes (including the $1 bn announced yesterday) -- could be a profound non-reformist reform, in the spirit of the first 'graf above. But the various times this has periodically happened in world history have been times of revolt from below, with nation-state elites declaring default against weakened, often fragmented creditors. For that to happen in the near future -- incidentally, a demand for an African debtors' cartel came through strongly in the May 1999 "Lusaka Declaration" of leading NGO/church debt activists, and will probably be amplified at the Jubilee Southern Hemisphere meeting in Johannesburg in a couple of months -- requires a dramatic lessening of global financial power, especially the power of the two coordinating institutions, the IMF and WB. Indeed the petition had some unhappy phrase about putting the past behind us as if charitable blindness could solve the problems of capitalism. My petty bourgeois squeamishness about political purity made me hesitate to sign, and in fact I never did. No Chris, it's J2000 North's dalliance with Jeff Sachs -- including at a meeting with the Pope yesterday -- that should have brought up the bile. The religious angle and some of the associated rhetoric are the least of the problems; again, check Dot Keet on the divergent campaigning principles and strategies (http:\\aidc.org.za). However, that campaign opened the political space for a more determined group of campaigners who laid siege to the City of London itself on June 18. I'm curious about the connection to J2000. Was there one, seriously? ... Well I missed that debate, and I appreciate you linking this thread up to it. I can see it is an arguably effective political stance to rally opinion around an abolition of the IMF and the World Bank and calling for a people's global network. Good. Shall we leave it there then? Others seem disengaged... (By the way, Chris, the beltway is the ringroad around Washington. Buckled inside, awed by that ghastly city's phallocentric power structures, and aware of ancient but increasingly public traditions of cocksucking, many previously good people part with previously strong principles... present PEN-L company excepted of course.)
[PEN-L:11575] Re: Re: Empiricism
Jim, D. writes: Being empirically-oriented is not the same thing as being an empiricist. I like to think of it this way: Empiricism is not the same thing as taking an historical approach. The former carries the baggage of definite ontological and epistemological commitments that the latter does not. mf
[PEN-L:11578] Re: RE: Re: RE: binary passions
This is truly offensive. Even if one disagrees with the proposition that
slavery or the slave trade played a primary role in the rise and development
of capitalism, the insensitivity required to spout this is really
mind-boggling. Really sad. It is probably way past due time for me to
depart this list.
Perhaps I just don't 'get it' or I am 'making a big deal out of nothing.'
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 3:37 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:11570] RE: Re: RE: binary passions
. . . Essentiaslly the idea was to self-portray a disadvantaged
nation or a group of people as the "messiah of nations" that is, a nation
whose suffering significantly contributes to the 'salvation' i.e.
prosperity of other nations. This way, disadvantaged groups could
vicariously overcome their marginalization and see themselves as the 'pivot
of the world.' Kind of biblical eschatology ("the wretched of the earth
inherit the kingdom of heaven") without the other-worldly mumbo-jumbo.
wojtek
Some kind of funky zionism, sounds like.
Theodore Herzl meets George Clinton.
mbs,
from the Mother Ship
[PEN-L:11581] UK agricultural revolution
Apologies to Michael P. for continuing here. But I suspect that he is willing to tolerate a continuation if it is done at a lower key and less flamey level. Unless, that is, what he really wants is for the list to shut down temporarily while we all buy copies of his book and prepare for his seminar over on pkt soon In any case, I have a question, one I don't seem to be able to find a quick answer for in the sources here in my office (and, sorry folks, too busy, I'm not going to go dig around the library on this one). The question is: Is it not true that the enclosure movement was going on at least as early as the Elizabethan period in the 1500s in England? Somehow I remember reading something to that effect somewhere, but I don't remember where. Now, I am quite certain that even if it had started that far back, if not even earlier, that it picked up substantially in the 1700s. I know that there was this big increase in population along with lots of enclosures and people migrating to the cities and also a bunch of technical innovations in British agriculture in the 1700s. But, I guess to get at the more substantive issue, it may have been that the basic institutional framework had already been set in place earlier, indeed at the time that Elizabeth was receiving and using that original bullion booty from Drake and other early colonial/piratic ventures. This would suggest perhaps a more subtle interweaving of influences between the internal and the external than has been posited in some of the discussion so far. But then of course I may be just plain wrong here. And I do know that the enclosures were much more severe in the 1700s. The earlier round may have been like those pockets of capitalism that were scattered around the world but did not fully dominate the systems in which they were located. It may have been only in the 1700s in the UK that the enclosure movement became so significant that it effectively came to totally dominate the landscape, so to speak. Barkley Rosser
[PEN-L:11583] Re: UK agricultural revolution
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Is it not true that the enclosure movement was going on at least as early as the Elizabethan period in the 1500s in England? Thomas More's *Utopia* (1515) contains a polemic against the barbarism of enclosures (driving out men to make room for sheep). Carrol
[PEN-L:11584] Re: UK agricultural revolution
Is it not true that the enclosure movement was going on at least as early as the Elizabethan period in the 1500s in England? Somehow I remember reading something to that effect somewhere, but I don't remember where. If Marx is to be a guide, the "prelude to the revolution that laid the foundation of the capitalist mode of production was played out in the last third of the fifteenth century [i.e., before 1500] and the first few decades of the sixteenth. A mass of 'free' and unattached proletarians was hurled onto the labour-market by the dissolution of bands of feudal retainers... Although the royal power, itself a product of borugeois development [meaning the rise of Absolutism], forcibly hastened the dissolution of of these bands of retainers in its striving for absolute sovereignty, it was by no means the sole cause of it. It was rather that the great feudal lords, in their defiant opposition to the king and Parliament, created an incomparably larger proletariat by forcibly driving the peasantry from the land, to which the latter had the same feudal title as the lords themselves, and by usurpation of the common lands. The rapid expansion of wool manufacture in Flanders and the corresponding rise in the price of wool in England provided the direct impulse for these evictions" (ch. 27 of CAPITAL vol. I) Thomas More complained about "sheep eating men" in 1516. Elizabeth I was Queen from 1558 to 1603, i.e., the last third of the 16th century (1500s), after the period that Marx points to as the "prelude to the revolution." Of course, the process grew and spread, culminating in the enclosure boom of the 1700s. I understand that Marx's story is roughly accurate (because his sources were roughly accurate). For example, see the synthetic work of Barrington Moore, in his SOCIAL ORIGINS OF DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY (and also Tawney). ... This would suggest perhaps a more subtle interweaving of influences between the internal and the external than has been posited in some of the discussion so far. External and internal influences always interweaved (and interweve) as part of a dynamic process. Of course, if the past is to be a guide, history never repeats itself. ;-) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11585] Re: colonialism
I'm going to return to Brenner after I've had a chance to review some of his articles from the Columbia Library. I will say one thing now that sort of helps me put him into a framework. In a footnote in Blaut's book, Brenner is cited in Roemer's collection "Analytical Marxism" which rang a bell for me. Of course. Of course. Brenner is an analytical Marxist--how could I have forgotten. Justin Schwartz, a comrade of Brenner's, and a strong proponent of AM always used to hold up Brenner as an example of how good AM could be when challenged to defend some of the more obviously wrongheaded notions of Roemer and Elster. One of the things I pointed out in my dissection of AM here and on the Marxism list is the degree to which it is a throwback to Second International "stagism". Capitalist "progress" is good medicine for colonial peoples even when there are nasty side-effects. I really have to examine how this may or may not be present in Brenner's presentation... I don't think Brenner's views are anything like Cohen's or Roemer's, especially since he (Brenner) is empirically-oriented. He clearly likes abstract model-building (as the AMists do), as in the first chapter of his recent book, but quickly moves to confront the data. The Brenner-critique by Ben Fine, Costas Lapavitsas, and Dmitris Milonakis in CAPITAL CLASS Spring 1999 accurately sees Brenner as emphasizing the effects of the relations of production in determining the development of the forces of production (rather than vice-versa as in Cohen). (F, L, M, p. 78.) Since he's a professional history, I doubt that Brenner is a stagist. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11590] RE: Center for Columbia River History
-Original Message- From: Strahan, Elson Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 10:45 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Craven, Jim Cc: Witte, Marjan Subject: Center for Columbia River History Hello - Hope things are going well for you. I received a call and a fax from the Center for Columbia River History, which is a group involving faculty from PSU and WSU. They present/sponsor a number of programs dealing with Native Americans and they would like to get Clark involved. Their proposal is to bring a showing of Lawrence Johnson's new film Hand Game to the campus on June 1st. This is a historical examination of Hand Game and Native American gaming in general. It will be the program that is featured in conjunction with the Center's Heritage Award. Other programs they are planning this year are Jeanne Eder's portrayal of Sacagawea. You probably familiar with her. She is a Dakota historian and performer. They are also looking at a presentation from Elizabeth Vibert, who is a Professor of History at the University of Victoria and author of Trader Tales. Anyway, Marjan indicated that the students had not yet formed a club for this year, but I assume that we will again have an active group. Is this something you would like to suggest to them? The Center is at this point just finding out Clark's interest. And, if you are interested, whether that date would be workable. Could you touch base with me to let me know your initial thoughts and, if you are interested, how you want me to direct them? Thanks. Elson Strahan x 2104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Elson: As Clark College is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, despite repeated and ongoing attempts to privatize it--and shift funds to accounts subject to less rigorous accounting and auditing protocols than those of the State--through incestuous relationships between The Clark Foundation and Clark College, nothing should be private and therefore I'll share my comments and views with the whole campus. I can only speak for myself at this point as the reformation of the Native American Student Council is in progress, but my personal feelings on the above suggestions are as follows: 1) I find the timing and content of this proposal personally offensive. For the Totem Pole ceremony, sacred to Indians in meaning and action, we invited Harriet Nahane, Dr. Robert Ward and Uva Jane Ankenbauer. Harriet Nahane is a Pacheedaht Chief, a survivor of horrible Indian Residential School abuses in Canada and a venerated Elder and freedom fighter. Dr. Robert Ward is a hereditary Shaman of the Cherokee and one of the most respected experts and practicioners in Aboriginal Law in all of North America. Uva Jane Ankenbauer, a Cherokee is a highly respected activist on issues dealing with Indian education. In all cases, these are the real thing and not Hollywood Indians with white agents or people hustling sales of their books or lectures. I didn't see you or any of the "Executive Team" members at any of the presentations. I saw some showing up for photo ops and then quickly leaving and thus showing disrespect for these individuals--and the issues they discussed-- who, in terms of integrity, contributions and courage, all on the ET combined couldn't come anywhere close to. But in any case, this disregard for real (not the safe ones) Indian issues and real Indian activists is typical of the racism and hubris so rampant at Clark especially by those on the ET who in terms of actual performance and capabilities, have revealed absolutely nothing to be arrogant about. So I find this newfound concern for Indians and Indian issues to be entirely disingenuous, manuipulative ( a new PR moment is on the horizon no doubt) and even racist in tone and approach. 2. Once again, we have non-Indians or a few tokens setting up a whole program on "Indian issues" and then dropping it on us. Now "they" want Clark involved? And just who are "they"? I notice that the choice of topics is a PR man's dream. Nice safe historical topics. Guaranteed not to offend anyone, especially possible Foundation donors. How about "Sacagawea" [sic] as an epidemiological vector for the introduction of syphillis and other white man's diseases into Indian Country? How about the history, arrogance and effects of Christian missionaries as agents of genocide, forced assimilation, kidnapping/forced adoption, disease, broken treaties and thefts of sacred lands in Indian Country? How about The Roles, Practices and Consequences of Indian Residential/Boarding Schools in Indian Country? How about the application and applicability of precedents of International Law, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials etc on genocide and crimes against humanity to the history and experience of Indians in America? How about The role of the US Government, Developers, Fishing/Hunting Lobbies and bought-and-paid-for
[PEN-L:11593] Re: Re: City on Fire
Doug: Oh, I laughed between squirms too. The violence was so extraordinary it was hard to know how to take it. The gender politics of the movie were quite strange - there were only two women of any consequence in the cast, and both were near-mute ciphers Some HK films have a quite interesting sex/gender politics of representation, however: Wong Kar-wai's _Chungking Express_ and _Happy Together_, for instance. And how about Peter Chan's _He's a Woman, She's a Man_ and _Who's the Woman, Who's the Man_? And check out Brigitte Lin's performance in Ronny Yu's _The Bride with White Hair_. Yoshie Also, check out Brigitte Lin in *Bride with White Hair 2*, *Swordsman 2*, and *Swordsman 3*. Lin's characters blur boundaries and representations, simultaneously expressing what Barbara Creed calls 'perverse masculine desire' for the collapse of gendered borders and male fear of becoming woman - 'the ultimate scenarios of powerlessness.' And various films with Michelle Yeoh whose ability to deliver more than a few swift and sharp kicks spawned a subgenre of action-heroine flicks. In *Wing Chun* (based on real-life s/hero Yim Wing-chun) Yeoh's character learns martial arts in order to escape an arranged marriage. She is mistakenly identified as a man because of her male dress and is forced to endure incessant sexist comments. The bad guy in the film's final battle laces his speech with comments about sex and power: "Not everyone can tame a wild horse. I'll give you a ride." Wing-chun's superior fighting skills, however reduce him to a pre-pubescent boy. Michael Hoover
[PEN-L:11596] Re: Re: Re: Empiricism
Mathew Forstater wrote: Jim, D. writes: Being empirically-oriented is not the same thing as being an empiricist. I like to think of it this way: Empiricism is not the same thing as taking an historical approach. The former carries the baggage of definite ontological and epistemological commitments that the latter does not. mf ? Wouldn't it be better to say that they carry *different* ontological and epistemological commitments? The assumption that history is real (which of course I share with Mat) or, better, that history *is* reality, seems as much an ontological commitment as the empiricist's assumption that the world is a pile of chaotic data on which the observer imposes an (arbitrary) order. A historical approach does demand (as empiricism does not) that one make one's principles as explicit and conscious as possible. (Lou, of course, is being insufficiently empirical [as opposed to empiricist] himself when he confidently proclaims that certain propositions dealing with matters of fact violate "marxist principle." That is the sort of thing that happens when one oversimplifies the complex relationships of theory and fact. My claim that empiricism is a greater danger (for marxists) than "post modernism" is of course grounded in certain empirical conclusions about the influence of various currents of contemporary thought. Carrol
[PEN-L:11598] Re: poor officer perelman
How could a petty ideologist ever keep up with a daring theoretician such as the charming Max S.? Michael Perelman Dear kindly Officer Perelman, You gotta understand, It's just my bringing up-ke That get's me out of hand. My mother was idealist, My dad collected facts, Holy Lenin, natcherly I'm wacked . . . mbs
[PEN-L:11603] Re: [Capitalist development
At the risk of Michael's wrath I will ask Jim B. one more question. Why do you insist on translating "different" into "superior." Is it for the emotional charge that it gives your argument? Rod Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:11602] Virtual Walrasian Auctioneer?
One wonders if Levitt's been reading Peter Albin. http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/092499market-sec.html September 23, 1999 S.E.C. Chief Wants One Site for Posting Stock Prices By GRETCHEN MORGENSON he chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a system Thursday for displaying electronically all orders to buy and sell United States stocks and called such a central posting essential to preserve the integrity of the nation's stock markets. Arthur Levitt, the S.E.C. chairman, outlined his general vision for the financial markets yesterday after months of wrenching changes in how stocks are traded. New electronic trading systems have emerged, on-line trading by individuals has exploded, trading by small investors has begun to occur outside the exchanges' hours of operation and the exchanges themselves have proposed becoming publicly traded for-profit companies. A FINANCIAL REVOLUTION Levitt seems most concerned that if trading continues to migrate to the new electronic market systems, investors may not get the best prices. Information about orders and transactions across the entire market are not now available in any one place. Technology, he said, allows the creation of a central system in which investors will be fully informed about prices everywhere, from the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq market, the American Stock Exchange and the new systems. He stressed that he was asking for the development of a technology that would allow all orders to be shown to investors, not an institution or a place where all orders would be executed. In this way, competition would continue, along with innovation and pressure to keep costs low. "The beauty of this is technology has taken us to the point where we may be able to enjoy the benefits of competition while getting the benefits of centrality," Mr. Levitt said. Speaking at Columbia Law School, Levitt also said he was intrigued by the possibility of creating a single, self-regulatory organization to oversee the markets but suggested that each exchange continue its own surveillance. The exchanges now have self-regulating units, but those units could be compromised or at least conflicted if the exchanges become public companies with an obligation to provide the highest return to shareholders. In other areas, he was most concerned about fairness. He urged the elimination of a rule by the New York Stock Exchange that prohibits the trading of certain stocks by exchange members anywhere other than on the exchange floor. Fees charged to outside participants by the new electronic stock networks, he said, should also be eliminated. And the options exchanges, which have been effective monopolies for decades, must open their doors to true competition, he said. "I recognize the industry's inherent resistance to change," Levitt said in an interview before the speech. "But I'm willing to fight very hard to move in the direction of change rather than being a custodian." Frank Zarb, the chairman of the National Association of Securities Dealers, the parent of the Nasdaq market, applauded Mr. Levitt. "I think he's saying to us, 'You guys get this stuff fixed or we're going to have to see that it gets fixed,' " Mr. Zarb said. "It's a good clear menu of the major issues facing the industry -- a call for bold change when bold change is required." Levitt said his ideas were the result of yearlong deliberations with the S.E.C. staff and conversations with market participants. The proposals will result in stock markets that are more open, accessible and fair to all investors, he said. But given that so much about Wall Street remains hidebound even as great change has rocked the industry, the proposals will displease many in the business, both new and established. The organization that appears to have the most to lose under the proposals is the New York Stock Exchange, though its chairman said yesterday that the exchange was prepared to reinvent itself with the times. Levitt, 68, who has been the nation's chief securities regulator since 1993, this month became the longest-serving chairman in the commission's history. With the speech, he sought to position himself as the chairman who seized technological advancements as a way to level the playing field for investors and market participants of all types. Levitt couched his speech by asking many questions. This will surely disappoint market players who were looking for answers from the nation's top regulator and a clearer regulatory blueprint, though initial reaction yesterday was strongly positive to the speech. Jack Brennan, chief executive of the Vanguard Group, the mutual fund giant, said, "While innovation is a great thing, you always want to know that the innovation taking place is happening with integrity." Levitt made clear that he was not giving the securities industry its marching orders. Rather he was trying to shape the dialogue that must occur before changes can be made. "I want
[PEN-L:11601] Re: Clarification
I sympathize with Jim B. and everyone else who has become frustrated with this the participants displayed pen-l at its best. Now, it has degenerated. For that reason, I called for an end. Everybody wants to get in the last word, so it goes on. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11597] Re: City on Fire: Comments by Lou Proyect (fwd)
Yoshie was kind enough to forward Lou P's _City on Fire_ report to Doug H's lbo list. Below is post I sent to that list. Michael Hoover Lisa Stokes and I had the pleasure of meeting Doug H and his wife in NYC last weekend and it was great to finally do so after years of e-mail. I have much respect for Doug's work. Lisa was familiar with his articles in *Nation* and other places, plus, she's heard me talk him up. Doug even had a hand (which he may not remember) in facilitating our relationship with Verso that needs to be acknowledged. So big thanks for that. Unfortunately, Lisa and I were pressed for time and did not get to spend nearly the time visiting that we would have liked. But I'm sure we'll cross paths again in actual, not just virtual, space. And once again, a big shout-out to Yoshie. She's a great friend and companera who has, among other things, helped me to better understand filmic representations. Her presence is there on pages of _City on Fire_ (perhaps she'll recall some of our conversations and recognize the origins for some of what appears in the book). Words really can't convey the thanks I want to express. btw: I take a bit of credit for Doug Lou's reconciliation and hope that it's not just temporary.
[PEN-L:11595] poor officer perelman
How could a petty ideologist ever keep up with a daring theoretician such as the charming Max S.? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11594] Re: colonialism
Louis Proyect wrote: I'm going to return to Brenner after I've had a chance to review some of his articles from the Columbia Library. I will say one thing now that sort of helps me put him into a framework. In a footnote in Blaut's book, Brenner is cited in Roemer's collection "Analytical Marxism" which rang a bell for me. Of course. Of course. Brenner is an analytical Marxist--how could I have forgotten. [snip] In other words you agree completely with me: the facts of Brenner's texts as such tell us nothing about Brenner. We have to put them in a framework: i.e., establish a theoretical basis for interpreting them. But then, as is so often the result when theory is spontaneous or unconscious rather than conscious, you go off half-cocked in your search for a framework, and assume that the first (of a potential infinity) of frameworks that pops to mind is the only possible framework. Remember that the really obnoxious element in Justin's politics was his espousal of "market socialism," his game playing with various philosophical points being subordinate to that. *And*, remembering that and turning to the current issue of *Monthly Review*, you will find Ellen Wood denouncing market socialism, and doing so through recourse to Brenner. So I guess by using the same spontaneous play of associations that you use, we can now accuse you of being a market socialist. We can make the criss-crossing of names and tendencies even more glaring. You may remember that both you and I among others a couple years ago argued against what we called "productivist marxism," and which is also called "technological determinism." Now on pp. 54-55 of *The Retreat from Class: A New 'True' Socialism* Ellen Wood attacks Laclau and Mouffe and their interpretation/critique of marxism. Her footnote to her quotation from L M is as follows: It is worth noting that Laclau and Mouffe are quoting from G.A. Cohen, not from Marx. This practice of interpretation by proxy is followed consistently throughout their account. p. 55 n. 15 So now we have Brenner (and thus possibly Wood) associated with Cohen and market socialism in your post, yet we have Wood herself claiming that use of Cohen to interpret Marx is incorrect (and she elsewhere attacks, through a recourse to Brenner, all versions of productivist marxsim or technological determinism). Quite a tangle. The 'moral' I think is that you are not going to be able to line up the sides in this debate in two neat camps. The lines crisscross. I think it not irrelevant at this point to quote from a recent post of Michael Hoover's: "ps: I'm gonna take a bit of credit for Lou P and Doug H reconciling, may it be more than temporary." I hope so too -- and it will be if everyone remembers that philosophical positions do not necessarily line up with political positions. Some of the participants in this debate over colonialism are I guess not communists, but most of us are. I think that Jim Blaut's empiricism clashes with marxism -- but it is also as certain as anything can be that Jim Blaut is a comrade. This debate is important, but it does not provide a dividing line between friends and enemies. (I have argued that one of the few major issues that does is that of u.s. foreign intervention -- i.e., friends are those who condemn humanitarian intervention, enemies are those who support it. And even that marker is not quite perfect.) Carrol
[PEN-L:11592] Re: Re: Empiricism,
I just wrote to say that I agreed with Carrol. Rod is correct as well. I guess that is why they call it dialectics. Rod Hay wrote: The way we learn is more complicated that that. We are constantly moving back forth from "facts" to "theory", or if you prefer from the concrete to the abstract. Any one you attempts to "theorise" without information, is engaged in a dream world (is an idealist). We need both. It is a mistake to call all appeals to the "facts" empiricist. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11591] Re: colonialism
Sam, I agree with your argument. Now I wonder if anyone can make a decent argument against it without calling you Eurocentric or _? I might add, I found the recent article written by Ellen Wood, whom the anti-Eurocentrics would surely castigate as "Eurocentric", on 'The New Imperialism", one of the spring month editions of Monthly Review to be oustanding. I wonder how the anti-Wood crowd we have here would take her on vis that article? Here we have a Eurocentric Wood tackling the role of imperialism in the war on Yogoslavian and Albanian populations...Did her Eurocentrism cause her to miss anything? Steve On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Sam Pawlett wrote: Louis Proyect wrote: The question that needs addressing is not how and why feudalism in Europe evolved into capitalism, The problem for Marxists is how to evaluate the spread of EUROPEAN capitalism into NON-EUROPEAN pre-capitalist societies. These two statements amount to much the same thing: the evolution of the modes of production. That evolution was (as Marx and Jim D have argued) from both internal and external causes. The export of capital capitalism from England can be traced to the usual causes in the classic theory of imperialism; a way of avoiding confrontation with the working class at home, the need to cheapen constant capital because of the falling profit rate and need to create markets (i.e. realize surplus value.) Pre-capitalist societies like feudalism or "asiatic"/"tributary" modes remained stagnant because of low productivity. The surplus that was created, through extra-economic coercion, was squandered by the ruling class on temples, palaces and churches instead of being plowed back into creating more productive capacity. Thus the relations of production acted as a fetter on the productive forces. This is where Brenner comes in I think-explaining how the whole process of capitalist capital accumulation got going in the first place. I don't see why one couldn't combine the rape of the colonies and changing relations of production internally in an explanation. Dissolution of pre-capitalist formations can be explained by the greater productive capacity of capitalism and the class struggle of the bourgeoise against landowners. Interestingly, Bettelheim argues that capitalism leads to the simultaneous preservation and destruction of pre-capitalist modes. Re-reading Brenner's NLR 'critique of neo-smithian approaches' paper last night, I was struck by the theoretical nature of the argument. Not too much about agriculture in England. He argues that Sweezy, Wallerstein and Frank are in essence repeating Smith's argument that the growth of international capitalism is based on the growth of the int'l division of labor and trade relations but failed to analyze the class basis of the spread of K. The upshot is that the solution for 3rd world countries is autarky and not socialism. I find Brenner quite convincing. Sam Pawlett
[PEN-L:11589] Re: Empiricism, was Re: UK Agricultural Revolution
Yes, Carrol. You are correct, at least in part. Also, the tone was deteriorating. It was sounding like: "You son of a bitch why can't you accept my source as unimpeachable ..." Carrol Cox wrote: (I think the features of the thread which led to Michael's suggestion that it was exhausted were precisely those which constituted its empiricist nature. Within the limits of a purely empiricist approach the disputants can only hurl uninterpreted and uninterpretable "facts" at each other endlessly without coming any nearer to a decision on the issues or even on what the issues are. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11587] Re: Re: UK agricultural revolution
Well, I don't know when the enclosures started, but I know that the wool industry was a big deal in England going back to at least the 1200s with well off merchants associated with it, well off enough to have brasses on their graves in country churches in any case (many of which were destroyed during the Cromwellian Roundhead uprising). I also think that the very first futures market in the world (and I have a source on this one, even if it is the National Geographic), predating even the one for rice in Japan, was in England for wool in either the 1100s or 1200s, about the beginnings of those little nests of capitalism in Europe. It was the Cistercians who cooked up those wool futures markets, btw. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 6:17 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11583] Re: UK agricultural revolution "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Is it not true that the enclosure movement was going on at least as early as the Elizabethan period in the 1500s in England? Thomas More's *Utopia* (1515) contains a polemic against the barbarism of enclosures (driving out men to make room for sheep). Carrol
[PEN-L:11586] Re: Re: City on Fire
Louis Proyect wrote: Hong Kong twin bill at the Anthology of Film Archives In the audience was Doug Henwood, who told me that he had never seen a Hong Kong movie before. I assured him that he would at least find the experience unforgettable. There would be no mistaking John Woo's "Bullet to the Head," which Doug squirmed through from beginning to end, for an Eric Rohmer movie. Oh, I laughed between squirms too. The violence was so extraordinary it was hard to know how to take it. The gender politics of the movie were quite strange - there were only two women of any consequence in the cast, and both were near-mute ciphers; Doug Woo is not known for strong women characters. In fact, Tsui Hark's *A Better Tomorrow 3*, which is Tsui's Vietnam film (he grew up there) that displaces Hong Kong by re-creating the fall of Saigon and a film that functions as a prequel to Woo's renowned *A Better Tomorrow*, takes Woo to task for his less than assertive female characterizations. Gender issues are significant for Tsui, and with *ABT3*, he adds a strong female protagonist to teach the male lead just about everything he knows. From the prequel, we learn that Mark's (Chow Yun-fat) trademarks in Woo's *ABT*, shades and duster, are Kit's (Anita Mui) invention. She also shoots with two weapons (as Mark/Chow does in the Woo films) and saves Mark twice. Of course, as a pre-scripted character tied to previous incarnations of the story yet appearing in neither, her death is guaranteed by picture's end. Michael Hoover
[PEN-L:11582] colonialism
Re-reading Brenner's NLR 'critique of neo-smithian approaches' paper last night, I was struck by the theoretical nature of the argument. Not too much about agriculture in England. He argues that Sweezy, Wallerstein and Frank are in essence repeating Smith's argument that the growth of international capitalism is based on the growth of the int'l division of labor and trade relations but failed to analyze the class basis of the spread of K. The upshot is that the solution for 3rd world countries is autarky and not socialism. I find Brenner quite convincing. Sam Pawlett I'm going to return to Brenner after I've had a chance to review some of his articles from the Columbia Library. I will say one thing now that sort of helps me put him into a framework. In a footnote in Blaut's book, Brenner is cited in Roemer's collection "Analytical Marxism" which rang a bell for me. Of course. Of course. Brenner is an analytical Marxist--how could I have forgotten. Justin Schwartz, a comrade of Brenner's, and a strong proponent of AM always used to hold up Brenner as an example of how good AM could be when challenged to defend some of the more obviously wrongheaded notions of Roemer and Elster. One of the things I pointed out in my dissection of AM here and on the Marxism list is the degree to which it is a throwback to Second International "stagism". Capitalist "progress" is good medicine for colonial peoples even when there are nasty side-effects. I really have to examine how this may or may not be present in Brenner's presentation. In the meantime, here's my take on G.A. Cohen's stagism: === G.A. Cohen's Marxism is a curious business. He tries to restore Marxism to its "orthodox" roots but his project ends up as a defense of a "stagist" conception rather than of anything Marx had in mind. Once he establishes this rather bogus "orthodoxy", he speculates on the political consequences. His speculations have very little to do with the actual history and dynamic of the revolutionary movement. In "Karl Marx's Theory of History", Cohen singles out a paragraph from Marx's Critique of Political Economy that serves a guide to the sort of Marxism that Cohen endorses: "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of their development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of their material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or -- what is but a legal expression for the same thing -- with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundations the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed." If one attempts to build a Marxism around this rather abstract set of ideas, it is entirely possible to go off in the wrong direction, especially on the question of how one stage of development supersedes another. Is it the case that one stage replaces another when the previous one is a "fetter" on the means of production? If Marxists posit a capitalist class that becomes "decadent" in the way that that the feudal aristocracy had became decadent and an impediment to further productive growth, then one runs into a big problem when confronted with the real capitalist world. For instance, Lenin's "Imperialism--the Latest Stage of Capitalism" which reflects this "fettering" notion is a poor guide to understanding the explosive and *dynamic* growth of capitalism over the last 50 years or so. China's embrace of capitalist property relations and its phenomenal growth-rate over the last 10 years or so should tell you that the "fettering" concept does not exactly describe the current stage of capitalism. What is more is that the whole notion of stages -- feudalism, capitalism and socialism -- might have to be seen in a more subtle manner. The 3 stages might not only coexist in the same society, but there is no ruling out the possibility of going backwards from socialism to capitalism, or from capitalism to feudalism. Cohen lacks this type of dialectical insight and goes whole hog into the embrace of the crudest sort of stagism. This falls within the general rubric of what he calls the "Development Thesis", namely
[PEN-L:11580] RE: Re: binary passions
. . . . But Max, for example, seems to think that this whole issue of Eurocentrism is just *so-o-o-o-o* foolish. . . . Hey hey HEY hey hey hey. There is Eurocentrism the inadequate mode of analysis, what I take to be a substantive theme in the thread, and one that I agreed a while back is interesting, if not as obvious in terms of political implications as it might appear. Not knowing anything about the topic, the political implications are more interesting to me than the debate itself, since as CC noted the evidence and citations flying back and forth does not sway a non-initiate either way. Initiates, of course, tend to be committed to a particular position. I guess it's a way for them to hone their arguments. Fine. The back-biting is interesting too, since it signals contrasting political sub-texts. A problem is that inadequate analysis, eurocentric and otherwise, can be conflated with intimations of personal prejudice for demagogic political reasons. Eurocentrism the slur. That's the foolish bit. We've been here before. Most of the thread was bereft of such, but not all. As long as I can stay one step ahead of Officer Perelman, I'm going to let fly at the preachy stuff. Pragmatically speaking, this discourse has a purpose of its one, one which I find impractical. mbs
[PEN-L:11579] Re: colonialism
Sam writes:
... Pre-capitalist societies like feudalism or
"asiatic"/"tributary" modes remained stagnant because of low
productivity. The surplus that was created, through extra-economic
coercion, was squandered by the ruling class on temples, palaces and
churches instead of being plowed back into creating more productive
capacity. Thus the relations of production acted as a fetter on the
productive forces. This is where Brenner comes in I think-explaining
how the whole process of capitalist capital accumulation got going in
the first place. I don't see why one couldn't combine the rape of the
colonies and changing relations of production internally in an
explanation. Dissolution of pre-capitalist formations can be
explained by the greater productive capacity of capitalism and the class
struggle of the bourgeoise against landowners.
I think that greater military capacity also played a big role, especially
in the early stages when (as Jim B. argues) the productive capacity of
Europe wasn't that much better than that of other regions.
Interestingly, Bettelheim argues that capitalism leads to the
simultaneous preservation and destruction of pre-capitalist modes.
It depends. Capitalism swept away noncapitalist modes in places where the
resistance was low, as in the US, where the homegrown Indian population was
in essence swept away and replaced by white settlers and their slaves. But
in other places, like some of Latin America, preexisting systems were taken
over, transformed, and used to serve the metropole (combining preservation
and destruction). It's a matter of degree, going all the way to Japan,
where the leaders of the country adapted their own system to defend their
country against capitalism and then to compete and win the capitalist game.
Re-reading Brenner's NLR 'critique of neo-smithian approaches' paper
last night, I was struck by the theoretical nature of the argument. Not
too much about agriculture in England.
Most of that is in his PAST PRESENT article ("Agrarian Class Structure
and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, vol. 70, p. 30-75).
He argues that Sweezy,
Wallerstein and Frank are in essence repeating Smith's argument that the
growth of international capitalism is based on the growth of the int'l
division of labor and trade relations but failed to analyze the class
basis of the spread of K. The upshot is that the solution for 3rd world
countries is autarky and not socialism. I find Brenner quite convincing.
I think that Brenner "bent the stick" a bit too far away from emphasizing
the role of the int'l division of labor. As Marx wrote and I've been
arguing, both played a role. And now Jim B. is "bending the stick" the
other way. (In his multi-volume book on Lenin, the British Marxist Tony
Cliff explains the twists and turns of Lenin's thought by arguing that the
latter regularly "bent the stick" to combat political tendencies he didn't
like, because "you have to bend the stick to straighten it." Of course, it
can also break.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11577] colonialism
Louis Proyect wrote: The question that needs addressing is not how and why feudalism in Europe evolved into capitalism, The problem for Marxists is how to evaluate the spread of EUROPEAN capitalism into NON-EUROPEAN pre-capitalist societies. These two statements amount to much the same thing: the evolution of the modes of production. That evolution was (as Marx and Jim D have argued) from both internal and external causes. The export of capital capitalism from England can be traced to the usual causes in the classic theory of imperialism; a way of avoiding confrontation with the working class at home, the need to cheapen constant capital because of the falling profit rate and need to create markets (i.e. realize surplus value.) Pre-capitalist societies like feudalism or "asiatic"/"tributary" modes remained stagnant because of low productivity. The surplus that was created, through extra-economic coercion, was squandered by the ruling class on temples, palaces and churches instead of being plowed back into creating more productive capacity. Thus the relations of production acted as a fetter on the productive forces. This is where Brenner comes in I think-explaining how the whole process of capitalist capital accumulation got going in the first place. I don't see why one couldn't combine the rape of the colonies and changing relations of production internally in an explanation. Dissolution of pre-capitalist formations can be explained by the greater productive capacity of capitalism and the class struggle of the bourgeoise against landowners. Interestingly, Bettelheim argues that capitalism leads to the simultaneous preservation and destruction of pre-capitalist modes. Re-reading Brenner's NLR 'critique of neo-smithian approaches' paper last night, I was struck by the theoretical nature of the argument. Not too much about agriculture in England. He argues that Sweezy, Wallerstein and Frank are in essence repeating Smith's argument that the growth of international capitalism is based on the growth of the int'l division of labor and trade relations but failed to analyze the class basis of the spread of K. The upshot is that the solution for 3rd world countries is autarky and not socialism. I find Brenner quite convincing. Sam Pawlett
[PEN-L:11576] Re: Re: RE: binary passions
right, wojtek, your position of favoring internal factors is "scientific"
while one who through careful study reaches the tentative conclusion (always
subject to possible revision) that "external" factors are of primary
importance must subscribe to some "irrational" worldview of some kind.
-Original Message-
From: Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 3:30 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:11568] Re: RE: binary passions
At 12:41 PM 9/23/99 -0400, Max Sawicky wrote:
I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the
combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism
combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a
passionate matter of either/or dispute?
Doug
Looks to me like the subtext to the essentiality of
colonialism argument is that capitalism itself is
not a stage of historical progress, relative to
its predecessors, but merely a different form of
the same underlying misery and oppression.
No progress means little scope for reform, plus
the irrelevance of the working class in the
industrialized countries, particularly white
workers in the U.S. Ergo the implied
necessity of third-worldist revolution.
Lin Pao (sp?) and Che are still with us.
Morbid symptoms and all that.
Max, I would also like to call attention to the religious aspect of it -
third worldism is a form of a messianistic cult of the kind that were
popular in the 19th century Europe (originating in the hegelian right, if
memory serves). Essentiaslly the idea was to self-portray a disadvantaged
nation or a group of people as the "messiah of nations" that is, a nation
whose suffering significantly contributes to the 'salvation' i.e.
prosperity of other nations. This way, disadvantaged groups could
vicariously overcome their marginalization and see themselves as the 'pivot
of the world.' Kind of biblical eschatology ("the wretched of the earth
inherit the kingdom of heaven") without the other-worldly mumbo-jumbo.
wojtek
[PEN-L:11574] Re: City on Fire
After exchanging email with Michael Hoover for over three years, I finally got a chance to meet him here in NYC this weekend. He was promoting his new Verso book on Hong Kong cinema titled "City on Fire" along with co-author Lisa Stokes. Louis Proyect A belated response to Lou's report about last weekend in NYC, I've been catching up with teaching and other work that accumulated while Lisa and I were away. First, I want to say how much both Lisa and I enjoyed finally meeting Lou face-to-face. I've been forwarding Lou's posts to Lisa for years so she was quite familiar with him. As for me, I've learned much from Lou over the years that we've have shared various e-list space. Moreover, he has been a source of encouragement in several ways and I thank him for expressing interest in the stuff I write. Secondly, I want to thank Lou for the kind words in the report that he posted to the list as well as for his commentary on and review of *Ballistic Kiss* and *Bullet in the Head*. I've mentioned to him more than once that his posts on culture (ie., film and music) rank among e-list highlights for me. Third, Lisa and I appreciate Lou introducing us to Bill Thompson who, as Lou mentioned in his report, helped us out with info for our book. Lastly, I wish that we'd had more time but I'd like to believe that last weekend won't be the only time we have a chance to get together. Michael Hoover ps: I'm gonna take a bit of credit for Lou P and Doug H reconciling, may it be more than temporary. pss: One quibble: I prefer to think of my posts placing 'facts in context' rather than my posts 'letting facts speak for themselves' as Lou writes.
[PEN-L:11572] Re: Re: RE: binary passions
Max, I would also like to call attention to the religious aspect of it -
third worldism is a form of a messianistic cult of the kind that were
popular in the 19th century Europe (originating in the hegelian right, if
memory serves). Essentiaslly the idea was to self-portray a disadvantaged
nation or a group of people as the "messiah of nations" that is, a nation
whose suffering significantly contributes to the 'salvation' i.e.
prosperity of other nations. This way, disadvantaged groups could
vicariously overcome their marginalization and see themselves as the 'pivot
of the world.' Kind of biblical eschatology ("the wretched of the earth
inherit the kingdom of heaven") without the other-worldly mumbo-jumbo.
Wojtek, I don't think this is justified. Some "third worldists" are
messianic, but not all are. (Jim B. didn't seem to be messianic to me,
though he does seem to be a third worldist.) Similarly, some "classical
Marxists" are messianic, but not all are. (We should remember that one of
the key criticisms of Marx and Marxism by people like Robert Tucker is that
they are messianic.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11573] Re: binary passions
It is of course possible, and any full explanation of the rise and development of capitalism must include both "internal and "external" factors. The question is the relative importance of these, but also TO WHAT DEGREE AND TO WHAT EXTENT WHAT WE MAY THINK OF AS "INTERNAL" FACTORS ARE LINKED TO THE EXTERNAL FACTORS. Not only must we--as Doug proposes--think, we must also *link*. Intentional colonial policy was to bring raw materials produced by slave labor in the colonies to the "mother countries" in as raw a form as possible, so all the positive economic effects of processing, refining, and utilizing as inputs in production processes would benefit the metropole. The negative effects of imperialism were being felt by peoples in Africa prior to any apparent contact with Europeans. For example, pastoral and agro-pastoral peoples in East Africa suffered from the cattle disease brought by the British who imported infected cattle to feed their troops fighting colonial wars to the North (Sudan): (if you've never seen it _Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History: The Case of Tanganyika, 1850-1950_ by Helge Kjekshus, 1977, is a must read). The flip side of this phenomenon was the impacts on the daily lives of working people in the metropole of the colonial relations. E.g., how were the scale and content of industry AND AGRICULTURE determined by colonial relations? Both the scale and the content had IMPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCTIVITY via economies of scale and scope (and thus the LABOR PROCESS). What effect did colonial relations have on the DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR AS A WHOLE (Angus Maddison's empirical work supports the Kaldorian "polarisation hypothesis" btw). But also it would do us all well to consider the possibility that the scale and content of AGRICULTURE in the metropole, too, was determined to a significant extent by colonial relations. Earlier, I tried to convey some of the possible reasons for the passion evoked by these questions of the contribution of slave(ry) and the slave "trade". But I have been reminded during this discussion of the story of I believe it was Emerson visiting Thoreau in prison, when Emerson asks Thoreau "what are you doing in there?" and Thoreau asks Emerson in response "What are YOU doing OUT there?" E.g., are people aware of the work on reparations/restitution being done of late? There are several volumes edited by Richard America on these issues that are must reads. But also, the slave(ry) and slave "trade" issues are not irrelevant for the debates around the "culture of poverty" and the "underclass." Do people know who Engerman *is*? He is the co-author of _Time on the Cross_ (with Nobel winner Robert Fogel). That book also evoked some considerable "passion". Fogel has spent a lot of his time after recieving the Nobel going around and apologizing for _Time on the Cross_ (I was present at one of these). But Max, for example, seems to think that this whole issue of Eurocentrism is just *so-o-o-o-o* foolish. Then so too must racism and sexism and class exploitation be foolish. The eurocentric world view is ideological in the pejorative sense. Here, ideology is the particular presented as the universal, or perhaps when one of many is presented as one and only. Alternative perspectives are obliterated. Neoclassical Economics is a good example. There is no Neoclassical economics; there is just Economics. The idea of eurocentrism makes some people uncomfortable. I am not inn the business of making people feel uncomfortable. But maybe about some things we should be feeling some discomfort. mf -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 11:21 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11548] binary passions I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a passionate matter of either/or dispute? Doug
[PEN-L:11570] RE: Re: RE: binary passions
. . . Essentiaslly the idea was to self-portray a disadvantaged
nation or a group of people as the "messiah of nations" that is, a nation
whose suffering significantly contributes to the 'salvation' i.e.
prosperity of other nations. This way, disadvantaged groups could
vicariously overcome their marginalization and see themselves as the 'pivot
of the world.' Kind of biblical eschatology ("the wretched of the earth
inherit the kingdom of heaven") without the other-worldly mumbo-jumbo.
wojtek
Some kind of funky zionism, sounds like.
Theodore Herzl meets George Clinton.
mbs,
from the Mother Ship
[PEN-L:11571] Re: Empiricism, was Re: UK Agricultural Revolution
Louis Proyect wrote: II confess. I am not only an empiricist but a pragmatist. The result of this is that whenever Lou's unconscious theory is adequate (and it often is) he is able to make a rich selection of the relevant facts and interpret them correctly -- that is, one might say, turn them from raw data into facts. Whenever his unconscious theory is not correct or not relevant he produces huge piles of nonsense. It makes reading his stuff something of a lottery. And of course to some extent Lou is slandering himself. He doesn't really agree with the politics of Richard Rorty and Max Sawicki, two true pragmatists. Carrol
[PEN-L:11566] Re: Empiricism
Carrol wrote: It seems to me that various forms of empiricism constitute a far more serious repudiation of marxism than do the various fads called "post structuralism," "post modernism," "deconstruction," etc. Louis writes: I confess. I am not only an empiricist but a pragmatist. When I worked in Nicaragua, I always found myself stooping to the level of the people in the Ministry of Banking who were looking for software that worked properly. Being empirically-oriented is not the same thing as being an empiricist. An empiricist basically says that theories are unnecessary, relying only on "common sense." I guess Carrol is thinking of the Empirio-criticism debate of classical Marxism, in which some (like Eduard Bernstein) rejected Marxian theory as a whole because of empirical evidence rather than seeing that a lot of that theory is abstract and therefore does not apply directly to the "real world" without bringing in extra information (like the existence of the division of the world between the conquering and the conquered nations, as in the theories of imperialism of Lenin, Luxemburg, and Bukharin). Rod writes: The way we learn is more complicated that that. We are constantly moving back forth from "facts" to "theory", or if you prefer from the concrete to the abstract. Any one you attempts to "theorise" without information, is engaged in a dream world (is an idealist). We need both. It is a mistake to call all appeals to the "facts" empiricist. This is right on target. Both "facts" and "theory" are necessary. In fact, they nourish each other. I agree that even though theories are needed, those which lack any empirical or practical content are like building castles in the air. Similarly, though empirical content is needed, thinking which rejects theory and abstraction altogether isn't really thinking. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11564] Empiricism, was Re: UK Agricultural Revolution
It seems to me that various forms of empiricism constitute a far more serious repudiation of marxism than do the various fads called "post structuralism," "post modernism," "deconstruction," etc. Carrol I confess. I am not only an empiricist but a pragmatist. When I worked in Nicaragua, I always found myself stooping to the level of the people in the Ministry of Banking who were looking for software that worked properly. But it doesn't stop there. On most days I feel rather idealistic as well. As I walk across the Columbia campus and gaze up at the glorious sun shining down on all the undergraduates lolling on the steps of Low Library, I often feel inspired to belt out a few bars of some of my favorite Pete songs. I am particularly fond of the pre-Popular Front tunes and will belt out an off-key version of "FDR, You warmonger, keep our troops at home." My hope is that some undergraduate might decide to ditch his career as an investment banker and join the proletarian revolutionary vanguard party instead. But when I am feeling extremely degenerate and naughty, I will plunge directly into the swamp and revert to the Jewish beliefs of my youth. Just for the sake of being contrary, I often don a black suit and yarmulke and stop in at a trendy bar in my Upper East Side neighborhood and order a Vodka Gimlet in Yiddish. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11563] Re: Response to Darity
The pace and intensity of discussion at some points may have resulted in some confusion about citations and the like. There are, as Ricardo states, actually two Darity 1992 pieces: the one that I cited most (from _The Atlantic Slave Trade_ edited by Inikori and Engerman) did not (because it was originally published in 1990) include discussion of the O'Brien 1991 (O'Brien and Engerman), the other that I summarized portions of and quoted some portions of (from the _American Economic Review_) did include discussion of O'Brien and Engerman. I would be happy to give full citations to anyone interested: contact me off list. mf
[PEN-L:11561] Re: slightly new thread
As someone who has worked on this issue for a long time and who is also involved in preparing for the WTO actions in Nov/Dec, I am at risk of getting drawn into this thread. I'll try to put out a few thoughts, but maybe not until after the weekend, when my current time crunch abates a bit. Peter Stephen E Philion wrote: Michael was asking for new threads as alternatives to the You're Eurocentric, no I'm not, i'm Sardonic thread... Where should leftists stand on the push by activists in Seattle demanding that the WTO have stronger labor rights enforcement provisions? Are these demands the product of imperialist plots to make certain countries, i.e. China, less able to compete with the US in global markets? This is the argument that was frequently floated by officials I talked with in China... Steve
[PEN-L:11560] Re: binary passions
I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a passionate matter of either/or dispute? Doug Looks to me like the subtext to the essentiality of colonialism argument is that capitalism itself is not a stage of historical progress, relative to its predecessors, but merely a different form of the same underlying misery and oppression. No progress means little scope for reform, You could say this is one of the subtexts; as Bairoch sees it "if the exploitation of the Third World had been the main cause of or even only a major factor in the Industrial Revolution ... this would entail a very significant consequence...it would imply that economic development requires the exploitation of other large regions to succeed and, since the Third World could not fulfil these conditions today, it implies the impossibility of its economic development. Therefore it is very fortunate that the experience of the West shows that a process of development is possible without exploitation of other regions". But this is not my subtext. For me it has to do with the pattern of world history. The 50/50 happy middle Doug Henwood wonders about can never be an answer, and not just because this is a wholly inaccurrate way of accessing the role of different sectors of the economy, but because "internal changes" include a lot more than economics. And even the role of internal *economic* changes as such includes a whole range of exciting issues like the so-called 'agricultural revolution', technology and the use of new source of energy, population dynamics and diminishing returns, living standards and the home market.
[PEN-L:11558] Fw: Demonstrations to Stop the War Against Iraq!
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Yugoslavia list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Demonstrations to Stop the War Against Iraq! Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 11:06 AM Emergency Protest Actions to Stop the War Against Iraq! As part of the internationally coordinated week of activities on Iraq from Sunday, September 26 to Saturday, October 2, there are demonstrations and other activities in New York City, San Franicisco, Los Angeles, Ann Arbor, Minneapolis, Oregon, and other cities. Please send your local information in as soon as possible so it can be listed on the web page. Below is information for the New York City demonstration. The text can be used for organizing purposes nationally. Stop the War Against Iraq! Stop the Bombings-Lift Sanctions Now! Stand Up Against Genocide! DEMONSTRATION Thursday, September 30, 5 pm at the New York Times (229 W. 43rd St., between 7th and 8th) Part of the internationally coordinated Week of Emergency Protest Actions, September 26-October 2, 1999. Join the protest September 30, 1999, in front of the New York Times office to protest the ongoing U.S. bombing war inst Iraq and to demand the immediate lifting of economic sanctions that have killed more than 1 million Iraqis since August 1990. What are economic sanctions? They are the decision by rich and powerful countries to forbid poor countries to carry out trade. The poor countries cannot buy or sell products. Their economies shut down. Their workers become unemployed. Food products vanish. Medicine and health care products disappear. Sanctions can kill more people than actual warfare. But the rich countries can kill the people in poor countries without putting their own soldiers at risk. The U.S. has used sanctions and regular bombing of Iraq for nine long years. More than one million Iraqis have died. Those responsible for this policy should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Instead of exposing this criminal policy, the New York Times functions like a propaganda arm of the Pentagon and CIA. We want the truth, not lies! The United States government has carried out more than 10,000 combat or combat support sorties since the conclusion of the so-called Operation Desert Fox Operation between December 16-19, 1998. This is terrorism, plain and simple. The people in the United States are led to believe by the pro-big business media that the U.S. policy of economic strangulation of Iraq, coupled with constant bombings of the country, is caused by the dictatorial and dangerous government of Saddam Hussein. This is part of the propaganda campaign by the criminals to make their victims appear to be the guilty party. The Clinton Administration is waging this against the people of Iraq because the biggest U.S. oil monopolies and banks want to dominate Iraqs huge oil reserves (estimated to be 10% of the entire worlds oil.) These ruthless corporations dont care if there is a dictatorial regime in Iraq as long as it would be a puppet government, like the governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel. We demand that the multi-faceted war against the people of Iraq be ended. No bombing! Lift the sanctions! Self-determination for the Iraqi people! Please join in protest in New York City on Thursday September 30, 1999 in front of the New York Times. International Action Center 39 West 14th Street, Room 296 New York, NY 10011 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iacenter.org phone: 212 633-6646 fax: 212 633-2889
[PEN-L:11557] EPI Budget Spam
The following, including tables, can be downloaded from our web site at epinet.org mbs September 22, 1999 Issue Brief #134 Social Investment and the Budget Debate by Jeff Faux and Max Sawicky Budget politics in America have become a two-legged stool. While congressional Republicans and administration Democrats argue over the size of tax cuts and debt reduction, the third leg of budget policy social investment remains too short, imperiling future economic and social stability. Indeed, the recent 10-year budget plans advanced by the leadership of both parties would require substantial cuts in public investment and social services in order to finance tax cuts. But however this years budget is patched together, both sides proposals signal an intention to continue with the unbalanced budget priorities of the past 20 years. Surplus illusions The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected total budget surpluses of $2,896 billion over the next decade, of which $1,899 billion will come from the expected surplus in the off-budget Social Security program, and $997 billion will come from on-budget revenues and programs (Table 1). Both sides have proposed to lock up the projected Social Security surplus by using it to pay down the national debt, thus precluding a debate on using that surplus for public investment or other purposes. It is widely assumed that the non-Social Security surplus is available for tax cuts, new spending, or even further deficit reduction. But where would that $997 billion surplus really come from? The source of more than 90% of that surplus actually comes from plans to reduce the current level of federal government services, ranging from meat and poultry inspection to educating children in Head Start. Part of the confusion lies in the misleading use by both Congress and the Clinton Administration of spending numbers automatically capped by the provisions of the 1997 budget agreement. These numbers, which appear as baselines in the budget documents, do not represent a stable level of funding but rather reductions in real spending below what is necessary to maintain the current level of public services. The current services budget shown in Table 2 displays a more realistic estimate of spending needed to keep programs operating at their 1999 levels. It is a conservative estimate in that it reflects only expected price changes and not population growth or the increased public investments in human and physical capital needed to support future growth in a more competitive global economy. As Table 2 shows, within the discretionary spending category, nondefense spending absorbs virtually all of the proposed reductions the Clinton 10-year budget proposes a slight increase in military spending over current levels, while the Republicans budget proposes a slightly lower level. In either case, it is nondefense spending that will be cut. Over the 10-year period in question, the Republican budget would reduce nondefense discretionary spending by 20.1% overall, with the cuts reaching almost 28.6% by fiscal year 2009. The Clinton budget also cuts the nondefense discretionary budget, by almost 12.8% in 2009 and over 6.4% overall for the decade. To complicate matters, the Clinton budget proposal assumes that some domestic spending can be maintained with a series of offsets (e.g., superfund tax increase, takeback of tobacco tax revenues from states, increased user fees), whose passage is at best problematic. If those offsets are denied by Congress, and the spending therefore correspondingly reduced, the cuts in current services in Clintons budget could be as much as 50% higher than the overall 6.4% projected. Table 2 shows that the difference between the capped and the current services budget is $595 billion over 10 years. But, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, the shortfall is actually much greater for two reasons. First, there will be higher interest costs associated with the higher spending needed to close the gap. Second, the shortfall is greater as a result of the pattern in the 1990s of not budgeting for necessary programs (e.g., the Census), which then get funded as emergencies. These and other items could add roughly another $290 billion to the gap between the CBO projections and the money needed to maintain current services, eating up almost 90% of the projected non-Social Security surplus. [1] Shrinking social investments Since the exact composition of discretionary spending cuts is decided in the annual appropriations process, it is not yet certain where the cuts will be made. Clintons Office of Management and Budget (OMB), however, has provided some clues. In August 1999, the OMB estimated that the Republican budget, which calls for a tax cut of $792 billion over 10
[PEN-L:11556] Re: globalisation's influences on mentality
There is a long tradition in american sociology, going back to Dorothy Thomas's pioneering study in 1922, of studying the relation between suicide and other social problems, and the business cycle. Dorothy Thomas, "the Influence of the Buisness Cycle on Certain Social Conditions" Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 18, 1922, pp. 324-340. Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:11555] Seminar on Perelman Book
For those of you who are interested, you can get a 20% discount for my book 1800 221 7945 x270 cust. service Roxanne Hunte. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11554] overpriced drugs and profits
Aids Action has a very nice study of drug prices. http://www.aidsaction.org/silencewp.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11550] RE: binary passions
I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a passionate matter of either/or dispute? Doug Looks to me like the subtext to the essentiality of colonialism argument is that capitalism itself is not a stage of historical progress, relative to its predecessors, but merely a different form of the same underlying misery and oppression. No progress means little scope for reform, plus the irrelevance of the working class in the industrialized countries, particularly white workers in the U.S. Ergo the implied necessity of third-worldist revolution. Lin Pao (sp?) and Che are still with us. Morbid symptoms and all that. mbs
[PEN-L:11548] binary passions
I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a passionate matter of either/or dispute? Doug
[PEN-L:11547] RE: Re: wojtek
WS: . . . You also dismiss my argument that you may not have sufficient empirical evidence to sort out effects of different variables by simply calling it "babble." Well, my friend, if you ran a multiple regression with twelve variables plus interaction effects and six cases - you would be laughed out of the stage. What makes you think that a case-based approach is any different, from a methodological point of view. . . . Tho I agree JB has been a little too big for his britches, I wonder what the above means for historical analysis. More often than not there are not sufficient cases to use statistical tests of hypotheses; or the question is too broad to admit of analysis via a data set. So where does that leave historians, both economic and otherwise? mbs
[PEN-L:11544] Re: colonialism etc
At 04:30 PM 9/22/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: I am not sure what you mean by "switching to capitalism". Capitalist property relations existed throughout Latin America in the 1800s. The problem is that the form of capitalism practiced did not conform to Jeffersonian mythology. Instead of plucky, self-provisioning farmers, you had the plantation system with quasi-feudal social relations (debt peonage, etc.) The central illusion of bourgeois politics in Latin America is that the plantation system could be abolished without abolishing capitalism itself. Today, all of these countries (Colombia, El Salvador, etc.) employ very modern capitalist technology (airplanes dispensing pesticides, computer databases, genetically modified seed, etc.) but lack even the most elementary rights of a bourgeois democracy, including the right of free association in order to form unions. I am afraid your schema does not address existing reality. I think you got a point when questioning the meaning "switching to capitalism." What I had in mind is "industrialization Western-European style." The argument I proposed runs as follows: both, the "Asian Tigers" (esp. Taiwan and Korea) and Latin American countries started in the "same place" - they were latecomers to industrialization, they shared colonial past and vestiges of feudal social relations, yet they differe in the outcome of their industrialization project. The 'tigers" are much more successful. How can we explain that difference? The conventional 'wisdom' says work ethics. My explanation is 'land reform.' The 'tigers' were able to neutralize the power of landed elites through land reform, Latin American countries were not - which your passage acknowledges. Since landed gentry is a major obstacle to industrial development (their interests as food producers and exporters contradict those of industralists for whom food is a cost, and who depend on imports), neutralizing them as a class makes a diffrence between successful and unsuccessful industrualization. wojtek
[PEN-L:11543] Re: Response to Darity
Ricardo- You and I are probably the only ones reading this at this point. People interested in the substance of the issues can look at the original articles and book chapters that inform our arguments. In your case, the O'Brien, Engerman, Anstey works, and in my case the Darity, Bailey and other works I have cited, in addition to the Eric Williams and other works, including the mercantilists, Marx, and so on. Let me just say, though, that I have never said you are not Marxist or Marxist enough or that you are eurocentric or any of these other things. You are, however, basing your arguments on materials that are very conventional and conservative, as you probably are aware. Of course, as you have pointed out, there is a tradition in Marxist scholarship that has taken your view. These are old debates, but continue, telling us something, I believe, about the importance and controversial nature of the issues. I also apologize for the weakness of my presentation of Darity's arguments. But I do not believe that you have adequately or fully dealt with Darity's critique of O'Brien, Engerman, and his and others very real refutation of the "small ratios" view, but we do not seem to be making progress in our discussion. People can decide for themselves if they are interested in reviewing the archives or--the much better option--reading the original O'Brien, Darity, and other works. Moving on, Mat Mat, are you serious? Give me one single substantial argument brought in pen-l (apart from Ajit's, who with the little he has written has at least taken issue directly with the arguments I presented rather than questioning me on the strictly ideological grounds that I am not Marxist enough, or that I am ethnocentric, or that the people who were colonized did suffer). Ricardo: I think I can argue that not even *total* foreign trade of Europe (or even England) was *the major cause* of the industrial revolution, never mind the colonial, or the statistically insignificant slave trade! But let's look, for now, at what Darity has to say against O'Brien. You can *think* you may argue many things, but until you actually make an argument, addressing substance, your words dissolve into air. You must address substance and your responses must actually possess substance. Considering how long you made us wait for your reply, I hope you will *actually* argue something, as opposed to considering out loud what you "think" you could argue (and then never actually arguing that or anything else). Is thinking out loud what you might argue the only way you can sneak the phrase "statistically insignificant slave trade" into your post? Still waiting...(for substance)... I offered statistics which do indicate that the slave trade was insignificant. Here's more again: Anstey estimated that slave profits contributed 0.11% to British capital formation. Engerman, for his part, showed that, even if we calculate those profits *as high as is possible*, they would have contributed between 2.4% to 10.8% over the period 1688-1770 - leading aside the question of where they were invested. He also calculated the gross value of slave trade output to British national income as being an average of 1%, rising to 1.7% in 1770. Now, of course, this is just the slave trade, which is why I began this tread with O'Brien's figures on the colonial trade. Now, let's see what you have to offer - 'cause so far I have seen little except what you quoted from Darity. Ricardo: Mistake #1: O'Brien does not "dismiss" the colonial trade. As I have said, what he questions is the idea that this trade was *the* major source of capital in Europe's industrialization. Yes, he also does *not* think it was *a* major source, but he does say it was significant, though his numbers may suggest it was not even that. However, O'Brien is well aware that his "small ratios" cannot be taken alone, which is why he also examines the connection of the colonial trade to the cotton industry and the effects of this industry - as the first mechanized industry - upon other industries. Mat: Sorry, Ricardo. Perhaps you believe that we cannot tell the difference the phrase "importance of" makes in the sentence you have quoted. Speaking about rhetoric, isn't it interesting that this is the second (or third?) time you use the word "we"? Actually this clearly reveals the whole emotional texture of this debate: "I", the other, better watch out with what I say in this list; "I", the other, and only "I", have the burden of putting forward the evidence and the arguments against the colonial trade, whereas the "we" has somehow already proven its case! No wonder Devine feels he has the right to prattle every triffle that pops into his head without the slightest embarrassment! But let's see what the "substantial" Mat has to say about my criticisms of Darity. Mat: It means that Darity is not guilty of committing the error you claim. Do you think the meaning
[PEN-L:11541] Re: globalisation's influences on mentality
Hiroto Tsukada wrote: Dear Penners, My name if Hiroto Tsukada, a Professor of Economics at Yamaguchi University, Japan. (Visiting UK till next January, at University of Kent at Canterbury.) I am studying now on globalisation's influences on mentality of people. Hi Hiroto, I would look at the rise in suicide, especially teen suicide, rates with structural adjustment programs as well as mental health and things like alcoholism (traditional stress relievers) The suicide rate in N.Zealand skyrocketed after the SAP began in the 80's. Same with Russia. Sam Pawlett
[PEN-L:11540] article in Lingua Franca
Friends, Does anyone have the article in the August issue of "Lingua Franca" magazine titled "The Unmasking of Rigoberto Menchu" by Hal Cohen. If you do and you have a scanner, could you email it to me? I will be in your debt. Michael Yates
[PEN-L:11539] Re: wojtek
since when are all internal forces "Weberian"? and what is the philosophical principle that tells you that all internal forces are irrelevant _a priori_? That they are ethnocentric if they come from Europe but wordly if they come from China, and without name if they come from Africa!
[PEN-L:11538] Re: wojtek
At 04:53 PM 9/22/99 -0400, Jim Blaut wrote: "The sufficient condition can be questioned by the counterefactual of Spain and Portugal that in th einitial phase of colonial expansion seemed to be main beneficiaries of colonial exploitation. The Spaniards, for example, are 'credited' with plundering virtually ALL Inca gold. Yet, both countries became thrid rate industrial and military powers by the 18th century - which indicates that plunder alone was not a suffcient condition for the capitalist takeoff." Spain and Portugal were the conduit through which the merchant-protocapitalist community in NW and Central Europe and Italy acquired the wealth from colonialism. This is perfectly well-known. The lack of development of Spain and Portugal is of no theoretical interest in this discourse. Jim, I think this passage exemplifies the fundamental difference between your and my position on the subject. I am an empirical scientist, not an erudite, I am concerned with emprical facts, not their interepretations in the literature. The empirical fact is that countries that benefited the most directly from plundering South America were not able to transform that advantage into a capitalist system (i.e. system that reproduces itself). That seems to me a very important counterfactural evidence to the claim that colonial exploitation was a sufficient condition for capitalism. Your strategy seems to be declaring that fact irrelevant by a semantic gimmick - calling the countries in question "conduits." That is, you implicitly affirm the fact that these countries passed their riches instead of using them for capitalist development, but call it by a different name and consider the case closed. That may be good lit-crit, but poor empirical science. An inquiring mind would like to know what *internal factors* made the difference bewteen "conduits" and "accumulators" i.e. ordinary brigands who plundered civilizations for centuries, and capitalists, a uniquely modern phenomenon. In the same vein, you use a semantic gimmick to dismiss my argument about the necessary condition. I stated that neither Germany, Sweden or Japan received any meaningful benefits from colonial exploitation - which is an emprical fact, if the "meaningful benefits" are defined as those reaped by Spain or England. You dismiss that fact by changing the subject and saying that the countries in question "partricipated" in colonial ventures (without giving specific examples of the magnitude or character of that 'participation'). Well, my friend, Turks, Poles and Yugoslavs also 'participated' in the German post 2nd world war economic miracle - as "guest workers." Would you say that Turkey, Poland or Yugoslavia owes its post-war development to their 'exploitation of the German economic boom?" You also dismiss my argument that you may not have sufficient empirical evidence to sort out effects of different variables by simply calling it "babble." Well, my friend, if you ran a multiple regression with twelve variables plus interaction effects and six cases - you would be laughed out of the stage. What makes you think that a case-based approach is any different, from a methodological point of view. To summarize, your strategy seems to be based on drowning your causal model (if any) in a constant stream of quotations, name dropping, and literary references. That makes good literary criticism or talmudic scholarship, but do not quite qualifies as empirical science. regards, wojtek
[PEN-L:11537] Re: Military technology
. But, his discussion of Turkish military technology seems to be a bit off base. It has been widely reported that the walls of Constantinople were very thick but that the Ottomans conquered the city at least partly because of the superiority of their cannon, more powerful than anything in Europe of the time. I can probably dig up a source, if you insist, although I am sick today and not in a very good mood. Barkley, The passage on the Ottomas which I cited from Parker does not question the power of their artillery but in fact says it was bigger, which was precisely their weakness as far as mobility was concerned. Do you want to minimize the importance of manoeuvre in warfare? Of course the Ottomans also were long besieging the city which was drastically weakened. But do you deny this claim about Turkish cannons in 1453? Seems to undermine the general credibility of your great expert. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Ricardo Duchesne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 4:01 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11501] Re: Military technology Rod, stick to your position, don't let Blaut's "expertise" on this matter discourage you. Read the essay, "Europe and the wider world, 1500-1750: the military balance" by the foremost real expert on military technology, Geoffrey Parker, an essay which is collected in one of the books Blaut earlier cited as part of the scholarship which has challenged eurocentrism (!!), that is *The Political Economy of Merchant Empires*, ed by Tracy. This essay is a shortened version of his masterful book, *The Military Revolution. Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1880*. This book, and the article require close study, but here are a few passages from the article, which indicate that *military strength* is not simply a matter of technology but of organization, tactics, and strategy as well: On India: "Indian armies may have been huge, but they remained, essentially, aggregations of individual heroic warriorsIt is surprising to find that the Mughals, like other South asian rulers, never attempted to imitate European techniques of fortifications, with the bastions, ravelins and defences in depth that had proved highly effective both in Europe and overseas." On the Ottomans: "Handguns, field guns and siege guns were all rapidly imitated by the Turks after their appearance in the West; advanced siege techniques of both offense and defence were evident from the 1520s...the Turks were equal to all but the largest forces that the West could throw against them. And yet there were important respects in which the military revolution was imperfectly practiced by europe's most dangerous neighbour. First, and best known, was the Ottoman decision to build their artillery big, whereas the Western powers concentrated on increasing the mobility and numbers of their guns" and so on it goes through meticulous research analysis. On China: "By 1500 the iron and bronze guns of Western manufacture - whether made by Turkish or Christian founders - proved to be both more powerful and more mobile than those of the east, so that when they were brought to the Orient in the 16th they attracted both attention and imitation [...] But firearms remained only a part of Chinese armies. "early modern China, however, had no need of Western examples in the art of defensive fortifications: its rulers had already been living with gunpowder for centuries...Thus, the scale of fortifications in east asia in effect rendered siege guns useless. That may be why indigenous heavy artillery never really developed there...in China, it was seldom used offensively except during 1670s." A few errors of fact (we all make those): "'[Barkley] The technology diffused westwards.' And quickly! I see the Poms were loosing 'bombards' (cannon) at the French by the time of Crecy (ie by 1346)." Chinese were developing weapons that eventually became cannons long before the Europeans had cannons. According to Needham, true cannons appeared in China about a decade before they appeared in Europe. " I see also that 'the nation state' makes its entrance in France (probably when Joan's mob makes peace with the Burgundians at Arras in 1435), Spain (the union of Castile and Aragon in 1479 under a sovereign crown), and England in 1485 (the Tudors after Bosworth Field in 1485). These states had unprecedented economies of scale going for them when it came to taxation, unprecedented local threats (the other nation states) " If you call these "nation-states," then hyou have to allow a lot of Asian and African cases, e.g., among many others: Egypt, Songhay, Vijayanagar, Mataram, China... Nothing "unprecedented. Nothing. "...and the cutting-edge coordination/space-ruling technology of the day: printing (Gutenberg 1448 and Caxton 1476)," Technology "of the
[PEN-L:11531] Re: Re: Marxist response to East Timor
Please note that the assumption that "something" has to be be done is strictly a result of the way in which the bourgeois press treats the world, carefully picking out what "problems" demand solution and what problems do not even exist. The problem of severe malnutrition for those children in the U.S. whose mothers were kicked off welfare does not exist. The problem of [you name it] does not exist. The only problem in the world now is in East Timor. (Never mind the deaths of children from disease and malnutrition in Iraq.) Why do you immediately feel that whenever the bourgeois press yelps every marxist must mount her silver stallion with a Hi Ho Silver, Away!??? There is nothing we can do except continue developing and (when possible) spreading our understanding of imperialism and its role in the world today. Nothing any marxist does will save so much as one sprained finger in East Timor. It is either self-indulgence or ignorance to think "we" have to "do something." What have you done today to increase wages in South Africa? What have you done today to reduce malaria in Guatemala? What have you done today to reduce the prison population in the FSU? Carrol Nothing. But in the past week I have called four reporters, and told them that they really should make sure that someone on their publication is working on Wendell Primus's findings about "extreme poverty" and the 1996 welfare "reform"--that this is going to become a very, very big issue when the next recession hits (or possibly before during the Democratic primaries), and that they will be sorry then that they didn't build up the knowledge base now to effectively cover it... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:11530] Two new reports from Financial Markets Center
Flow of Funds Analysis Review: Second Quarter 1999 Corporations are replacing equity with debt at a feverish pace and outstanding U.S. credit market debt has risen to unprecedented levels relative to GDP. Jane D'Arista's quarterly assessment of trends in borrowing, lending and investment explains why the next economic slowdown could be especially painful for borrowers. The Federal Reserve and Local Economic Development How does the Fed address its obligations to support regional and local development? A new report from the Center sizes up the central bank's little-scrutinized community affairs program. The 52-page report contains extensive reporting, analysis, tables and recommendations for change. Both reports are available online at www.fmcenter.org.
[PEN-L:11528] Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Fw: EH.R: Kondratieff Cycles]
No, not satisfying, Doug. There's an issue here about methods. Of course, Kism valorises and devalorises continually. Isn't it in the least interesting to explain why and how and where and with what temporal rhythms? If there are particular moments in the business cycle where this becomes frenetic, and if it coincides with the restructuring of elite- politics, with geopolitical tensions and with the possibility for informed resistance, you don't want to just deny the process, do you? On 22 Sep 99, at 14:27, Doug Henwood wrote: Patrick Bond wrote: For the early 1990s, take away half the value of the Tokyo stock market, An event whose real world effects are...? The catalyst for all manner of 1990s problems in Japan, and part of the capital-push factor into East Asia? a huge chunk of real estate values in world cities not to mention backwaters, What world cities outside Japan are you talking about? E.g. a million families in England suffering negative equity because the 30% crash of their real estate asset-valuation put them below the value of their mortgage bonds. The early 1990s downturn of the global Kuznets property cycle was nothing to sneer at; gentrification in NYC even came to a grinding pause. In Johannesburg, the very rich and the black working-class witnessed a 30% property market crash from 1991-94, whether in snazzy Houghton (where Mandela lives) or Soweto (where he used to). more downward commodity price pressure, Except for the 1970s, commodity prices have been either in relative or real decline for decades. I know, the post-1973 non-oil index dropped something like 80% BEFORE 1989. My understanding, though, was that the drop intensified during the early 1990s. (I don't have data handy; do you?) (my favourite, Zimbabwe, witnessed a 40% fall in volume of manufacturing from 1991-95), rising bankruptcy rates, SL asset write-downs, etc etc. The SL crisis was 10 years ago! But the workouts of property portfolios hit peak around 1989, serving as one basis for intense little crashes of local real estate markets in southern California, Texas, parts of Florida, as I vaguely recall. Meanwhile, real and financial values are both many times higher than they were when the Resolution Trust Corp. was formed. Right, but a) it didn't look pretty during the early 1990s (the point of this discussion); and b) it could be said (and I'm just hypothesising, not putting forth a Domhoff-type analysis) that this asset-price recovery reflected the next logical step in the argument: the ability of one set of territorially-grounded capitalists (including US real estate interests, but particularly financiers who draw the bulk of their funds from the US) to withstand, displace or delay the broader devalorisation of capital, in part by the kinds of alliances -- huge campaign contributions to Democratic Party neoliberals for example -- that have encouraged the US to visit its vast economic problems onto the rest of the world during the 1990s. In any event, even if you don't like the story, do you not concede the idea of adding valorisation/devalorisation processes to your GDP and profit data (and are the latter not of dubious scientific merit anyhow after the past few months' corporate accounting revelations)? Patrick Bond (Wits University Graduate School of Public and Development Management) home: 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094, Johannesburg office: 22 Gordon Building, Wits University Parktown Campus mailing address: PO Box 601 WITS 2050 phones: (h) (2711) 614-8088; (o) 488-5917; fax 484-2729 emails: (h) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; (o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11527] Re: slightly new thread
Yes probably, but it is one push that should be supported, if it has any possibility of improving labour standards. It is one that labour unions should push in conjunction with labour groups in other countries. Original Message Follows From: Stephen E Philion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael was asking for new threads as alternatives to the You're Eurocentric, no I'm not, i'm Sardonic thread... Where should leftists stand on the push by activists in Seattle demanding that the WTO have stronger labor rights enforcement provisions? Are these demands the product of imperialist plots to make certain countries, i.e. China, less able to compete with the US in global markets? This is the argument that was frequently floated by officials I talked with in China... Steve Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:11525] World Bank in reverse on Financial Controls
The following illustrates the problems with the ultra-leftist position that no reform of these admittedly largely imperialist structures is possible. These structures are in any case constantly under pressure from innumerable forces and getting remodelled and reproduced continuously. They are not static immobile entities however oppressive and exploitative they are. Although the pressure for change is less in 1999 than in 1998 the following marks a signficant shift, even if Stiglitz is a controversial figure. The full article is interesting. I do not know how much PEN-L gets pestered by copywrite enforcers. For this reason and for reasons of brevity I am just posting the summary. Chris Burford London Global Intelligence Update Weekly Analysis Septemer 20, 1999 World Bank Reverses Position on Financial Controls and on Malaysia Summary: The World Bank reversed its opposition to short-term capital controls and announced that Malaysia's experiment with capital controls was, in effect, a success. Since the World Bank acts on the distilled essence of conventional wisdom, this means that the international financial community no longer regards either capital control or Malaysia's prime minister as taboo. The most important short-term consequence of this change will be on Japan, which has toyed with the idea of capital controls. But more importantly in the long run, the rehabilitation of Mahathir from lunatic to visionary will bring his other ideas into play. Of particular importance is his idea of a regional Asian bloc excluding the United States, based on the yen and Japan, with capital controls as a regional management tool. Neither of these outcomes is intended by the World Bank or the IMF, but both are the embodiment of the unintended consequence.
[PEN-L:11523] Re: more on colonialism
Jim D: I don't think there was an agricultural revolution in England. There was agricultural EVOlution in harmony with other changes taking place, but not as n important causal force. Nor is Brenner's pseudo-class analysis of any help. To claim that capitalism was invented by English tenant farmers is just wrong. And as he himself says, they weren't struggling against anybody. He's confusing the much earlier class struggle of serfs with nobles. Cheerfully \ Jim B
[PEN-L:11522] Re: wojtek
Ah! Doug joins the fray! All regions that possessed the more or less protocaspitalist characteristics of Europe and were maritime oriented like the relevant parts of Europe -- all of them had the "urge" to make profits in any way possible, including taking slaves. But the Europeans got the big priZe: America. They then fulfilled their "urge" by putting Native americans to work in mines, using the profits to take slaves in Africa, putting the slaves to work on plantations, and...the rest is history. Anyway, thats what I think. Cheerfully Jim B
[PEN-L:11515] PDS success in Saxony
The PDS success in Saxony follows that in Thuringia and in Brandenburg. It is now said to be have at least 20% of the votes in all the former East German Laender, Prior to this election, the PDS was equal in votes to the SPD (just a little behind). Only in Dresden was its percentage of voters twice as large as that of the SPD. Now its percentage is twice as large as that of the SPD in Saxony as a whole. Here is the English translation the PDS have just posted on their website. Chris Burford London From the PDS web-site PDS International Information on the results of the Landtag elections in Saxony on 19 September, 1999 PDS National Executive (September 1999) The Landtag elections in the East German federal state of Saxony have further strengthened the main tendencies of last weeks vote in Thuringia: an absolute majority for the CDU, an eclatant defeat for the SPD and a new success for the PDS. The PDS is the actual winner of these elections. It is the only one of the big parties with considerable gains in relative and absolute terms. Compared with the Landtag elections of 1994 it increased its share of the vote by 5.7 % to 22.2 %, the number of seats by 9 to 30. The PDS attracted around 140,000 more voters, among them 41,000 former voters of the SPD and 21,000 followers of the CDU. It succeeded in acquiring new groups of voters. This is first and foremost a result of the active and selfless work of the partys members, officers and delegates in towns and villages as well as on the lander level. They have brought more competence to the party and won it the confidence of the people. The PDS has consistently put the social question in the centre of its political activities and the election campaign. The voters accepted it as the party of social justice. This goes more and more for the federal level too. With this result the PDS has sent the SPD for the second time (after Thuringia) - with more than a double share of the vote - to the third place among the political parties in an East German federal state. However, it was not able to break the absolute majority of the conservatives. As the strongest opposition party the PDS is now the challenger of the CDU. It has a higher responsibility for developing concrete and convincing alternatives to the governments neo-liberal course. With this it also gained broader political chances. In Saxony the SPD suffered the 5th successive defeat in Landtag elections. Thus the Red Green federal government has managed to radically change the political map on the lander level within twelve months to the advantage of the CDU. The Saxony SPD has sunk to a historic low in its participation in Landtag elections. Its share went down by 5.9 % to 10.7 % of the vote, the number of seats by 8 to 14. The SPD lost about one third of its electorate, particularly among the young and the unemployed. One reason for this dramatic development is the massive refusal by the voters of the Red- Green federal governments neo-liberal policy. The government itself has become the most serious obstacle to the necessary social, ecological and democratic reform of society. A second important factor is the lack of profile of the Saxony SPD and its leader who on the one hand curried favour with the CDU and avoided any serious debate on the performance of the state government, but on the other hand sharply distanced himself from the PDS. The reproaches to the Thuringia SPD one week ago that its bad result was due to certain advances toward the PDS have now clearly been proved wrong in Saxony. On the contrary, where SPD lander organisations are cooperating in various forms with the PDS there they have scored the best election results (in Saxony-Anhalt 35.9 %, in Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 34.3 %). Where they have opted more or less openly for a grand coalition with the CDU they have lost considerably (in Thuringia they got 18.4 % and in Saxony 10.7 %). The SPD federal leadership until now gave no signs of drawing conclusions from this election defeat for their future policy. The CDU with 56.9 % of the vote and 76 seats in the Landtag received a clear confirmation of its absolute majority. However, it did not win the envisaged majority of two thirds and had even to bear a slight loss of 1.2 % in comparison with its top result of 1994. It had to cede one mandate to the PDS. The heavy CDU losses during the National elections of September 1998 in Saxony obviously did not influence this result. The reasons of this success on the one hand is the general trend on the federal level in favour of the CDU, on the other hand the undisputed popularity of Prime minister Kurt Biedenkopf, a well-known former General Secretary of the CDU and rival of Chancellor Kohl. Speaking out in a populist manner with great public appeal for the interests of the East Germans, confronting himself sometimes with the chancellors Kohl and Schröder and even with the
[PEN-L:11474] Re: Re: Marxist response to East Timor
G'day Yoshie, According to various posts and news articles, Australian unionists sprang into activism, using union bans, no less. If only they hadn't called for Australian/UN 'peace-keepers' and instead targeted the Australian government for its past support of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and present design of expanding its regional imperialist stature, it would have made a Marxist sense, I think. Every part of the entire Australian left (including sections of the ALP itself) has been moaning about Australia's outrageous actions re East Timor since late 1975. The media ignored it, but it was always there. However, judging by what they actualy did, I have to regrettably conclude that their actions basically reinforced the direction in which the Australian government wanted to go. Perhaps, it was planned that way from the top. They did what the occasion demanded, I guess. Noone was gonna interview them for their rare insights into regional geopolitics, and it wouldn't have saved a soul if they had. But bans were gonna make louder the guilty stirrings of a populace. And I don't think there was any elite planning involved either (Oz's elite have never evinced either the understanding or the interest) - in fact, this government very loudly and persistently tried to stuff the rising profile of East Timorese aspirations back into its box right up to March of this year. I think the government has been forced to lead this charge by across-the-board sentiment (just as nearly all our Golkar-snogging foreign editors were forced to turn arse-about on the issue - even Murdoch's boys) - now there are political points in resolve and salience, so that's the way we're going. The strategic comfort is that we may just be getting in with a new generation of compradorial elite in Djakarta - maybe (and I agree with Max that standing by on some abstract principle while the dominant section of the military have their ghastly way would have neither short nor long-term advantages for anyone but them - unfortunately that's not to say the short-term plus for the locals is gonna translate into long-term benefits either, but you have to play the hands as they come). Cheers, Rob.
