RE: Renaming URPE absolutely?
Just for the record: In Message Sat, 17 Sep 1994 20:49:14 -0700, Fikret Ceyhun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hundreds of people contributed to the reputation of URPE name and they have created a credible trade mark for URPE to be recognized and respected. In one stroke you want to eliminate all of that. Look around, how many journals or organizations change their names even though their names may not have "sex" appeal. Also look around, those few changed their name, what "success" have they had? For example, take a look at Socialist Revolution, Insurgent socialist, (Canadian) Studies in Political Economy. Have they created an avalanche of new members? Studies in Political Economy: A Socialist Review has NOT changed its name in the 15 years since it was founded. In fact, whereas the statement on its inside cover initially stated simply that SPE was "founded to contribute to the development of the socialist political economy tradition in Canada", this was amended about 4 years ago to read that SPE is "an interdisciplinary journal committed to the publication of original work in the various traditions of socialist political economy. Researchers and analysts within these traditions seek to understand how political, economic and cultural processes and struggles interact to shape and reshape the conditions of people's lives. Established in 1979, SPE has become a major forum for people who identify with the struggles to overcome exploitation, exclusion and oppression in Canada and abroad. SPE is especially interested in work by, about and for Canadians, but it aims to be an international journal" As far as I can recall, we haven't had a discussion about changing the subtitle of the journal (although that may have been the subtext in some arguments proposed about the adequacy of "political economy" as a paradigm advanced by some of our pomo types), and at this year's general board meeting the central question was more about whether we shouldn't explicitly orient the journal to the renewal of socialism---ie., whether we shouldn't go against the current rather than with it (as seems to be the proposal by some in URPE). Of course, like other left journals we do not exist in a vaccuum. We worry about our subs and we worry when good articles aren't being submitted. So, let me opportunistically invite you all to (a) consider submitting some of your work to SPE and (b) subscribing and/or getting your university or college library to subscribe. The contents of our forthcoming issue (No. 45) include: Alex Choi, "THe Myth of the Neo-Classical Explanation of NIC's Growth: A Study of Hong Kong" John Price,"Lean, Flexible Fordism at Suzuki and Toyota: A Historical Perspective" Katherine Fierlbeck, "Marketing Care: the Politicization of Health Care in Britain" Lurie Adkin, Review Essay: "Reflections on Environmental Politics, Political Economy and Social Democracy in Canada" As well other pieces on public school teachers and on Volvoism, there is also an obituary by Leo Panitch on Ralph Miliband. Subscriptions within Canada are $30 (3 issues) for individuals and $60 for institutions; outside Canada, they are the same (except they are in US dollars). For subscriptions or editorial correspondence, the address to write is: SPE, SR 303, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tell 'em Mike sent ya! mike lebowitz, econ dept, simon fraser university burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 (604) 291-4669 office (604) 255-0382 home Currently doing my solar power thing on Lasqueti Island c/o General Delivery, Lasqueti Island, B.C. Canada V0R 2J0 (604) 333-8810
Renaming URPE absolutely?
Sept. 17, 1994 Dear PEN-Lers, Sept. 17, 1994 For some time I have been reading my e-mail, but I am unable to catch up. There are letters still from April-May-June-July-August. I suppose, once a week at internet is not enough. The following topic is important enough to pass it up without saying anything. I have been reading my mail about the name change in URPE for some time. Some letters had good points, but many were totally irrelevant with respect to the question. The question was: whether URPE name should be changed or not. If it is to be changed why and to what purpose. If not, why do we keep the name. In many of these letters you can't find straight answers. This is not the first time that URPE name change has become an issue. It was discussed in the early 1980s when I was in the editorial board of RRPE and Hugo Radice(?) mentions the one in the late 1980s when he was on the board. Any time URPE has membership problems a quick solution was sought in the name change. Name change reminds me a practice in Turkey, as well as in many less developed countries. Whichever a party wins a mayoral race (or comes to power) attempts to change street names and town names to appeal to their supporters (This practice confuses mail-delivery, and if you see a new map and not aware of the name change you will see many towns that you knew are no longer there.) We also witness country name changes in Africa and Asia. This reminds me an underdeveloped mentality. I for one strongly oppose to a practice of name change for the following reasons: As indicated above, it adds to confusion and beaks historical continuity. Those who founded URPE gave the name that now has a history of identification. How would you like to change your name every ten years when you are in a crisis? Name recognition takes very long time. Hundreds of people contributed to the reputation of URPE name and they have created a credible trade mark for URPE to be recognized and respected. In one stroke you want to eliminate all of that. Look around, how many journals or organizations change their names even though their names may not have "sex" appeal. Also look around, those few changed their name, what "success" have they had? For example, take a look at Socialist Revolution, Insurgent socialist, (Canadian) Studies in Political Economy. Have they created an avalanche of new members? URPE was founded by diverse groups, most of whom were economists and a few of those were Marxist and revolutionist. Most of the members were the people who belonged to "intelligentsia." And today, the membership of URPE is still the same heterogeneous as it was founded. URPE was an umbrella organization and still is today. URPE is not Marxist organization, is not revolutionary grass root organization, not socialist, not reformist, not, not, not. . . . But URPE is all of them. To push URPE to any sectarian political line or group will negate its history and existence. There are already many such fragmented or sectarian organizations. There is no point making URPE like one of them. If enough people desire to form a new organization, I'll join them, and still keep my membership in URPE. After we settle this name issue, we can tackle with other concerns that are eloquently expressed by some PEN-L writers. These many be summarized as: 1. the goal of the organization; 2. concerns for younger members' tenure and CV: 3. Quality and nature of articles in the RRPE. The first is implicitly answered in my above explanation. There cannot be a single goal or narrow goals for an organization that whose members are diverse like ours. Remember that URPE is an umbrella organization for diverse individuals who come together to exchange their ideas, views, and experiences to enrich us. Nothing in URPE prevents us doing other work or functioning in other groups in different capacity. We each can pursue our own separate objectives elsewhere as well as work in URPE and share our experiences in URPE. URPE can be a voice for many diverse individuals working toward a common goal: betterment of humanity. We may differ in our tactics, but not in goal. As members get older there is a change in their tactics too. Life and experience is sometimes brutal teacher. Therefore, it is not surprising to see our graying members getting interested more in environmental and health care topics. Concerns for our younger members. We must not be "condescending in our attitude toward the problems of younger comrades," as one comrade said. Because we have not experienced certain difficulties in getting tenure etc. does not mean that those obstacles are not present in real life. Every one's condition and situation is different, and therefore we must not be judgmental toward others. Many comrades offered fruitful
