I think Stalinophobia means an unreasonable refusal to support Milosovic
and an incorrect refusal to recognize that the Yugoslav regime from 1990-98
represented a last bastion of socialism. What this has to do with anything
that is relevant today, I don't know. I personally regard Stalin as a
+, Justin Schwartz wrote:
I think Stalinophobia means an unreasonable refusal to support
Milosovic
and an incorrect refusal to recognize that the Yugoslav regime from
1990-98
represented a last bastion of socialism. What this has to do with
anything
that is relevant today, I don't
Well pardon me for being a political philosopher. Personally, I learn a lot
about possible misunderstanduings, objections, responses, at least from a
certain viewpoint. I also find internet discussion groups a poor venue for
fact intensive empirical research, but what do I know. I do wish
Justin Schwartz wrote:
As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors
univ. suffrage --- Yes
extensive civil rights and liberties Yes
representative govt - NO
This form of democracy has never produced democracy -- and it never
will.
It's replacement
As I said, almost everyone. jks
Almost everyone is right; as far as I can tell, yer man Posner is not in
favour of representative government or of extensive civil rights and
liberties in as much as these can't be derived from property rights.
That's unfair to Posner. His notion of what a
representative govt - NO [ditto]
Carrol continues:
This form of democracy has never produced democracy -- and it never
will.
It's replacement will have to be worked out in practice -- not from a
blueprint I or anyone else can provide at this time.
Representative
We need to continue to criticize _what is_, and be aware that only as
that criticism turns into practice under given (and now unknown)
conditions will we have more than an inkling of what might be the
positive results of that criticism.
Let us criticize by all means, and experiment, and learn.
It's important to remember that the New Deal also had lots of support for
businesses, too.
Like I said, it saved c pitalism.
Further, the progressive -- or better, the democratic -- aspects of New
Deal liberalism did NOT arise from liberalism as much as from mass
struggles (the Veterans'
Of what use is a
concept that includes the soviets of the revolutionary period and the U.S.
Senate today under the same classification?
Doug
Well, they have this in common: they are both government institutions
staffed by representatives who are elected by the people they are supposed
to
My last word on this. It's obvious that Michael is predisposed to find
nothing I say interesting, and to let you know that you shouldn't either.
Justin: Other things being equal, freedom is good.
what if the increased freedom of the working class reduces the freedom of
the capitalists?
Any
Please what? Ravi goes on about sort sort wierd context relative
truth, so I
just quoted Ari's old definition that no one has improved on these
2500
years.
=
Truth is more problematic than issues of representing form and we
frankly have no decision procedure for determining
Justin said
There are political technicians--Lydons Johnsons, Dick Morrises, Karl
Roves, who are political machers, who can make the system work to attain
particular ends. Thoise people need to be used and kept on a short leash.
Why not take that attitude to experts in general?
Because
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:28858] RE: RE: Expertise
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 06:47:59 -0700
--Hurricane (Bob Dylan)
My bad. It's the embarassing song Joey, a tribute to Crazy Joe Gallo.
Same
or is
this all just an issue of the advantages and disadvantages of the
division of labour... etc.
That's exactly what it is. Truth has nothing to do with it.
jks
_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
Well, I'm glad we can agree on one thing--you are indeed a bourgeois
liberal.
Why you hang out on pen-l is still a mystery to me, however. I think very
few
people here regard themselves as bourgeois liberals. What is your
program--to wise up the left??
Oddly enough, I am on the left too. I am
What do you think of juries? Is this an example of the hoi polloi
interfering in your area of expertise?
Joanna
No. Juries find facts, they don't decide questions of law. Neither I nor any
other lawyer has any expertise in hwta happened in a particukar case. jks
Justin Schwartz wrote:
I am in fact a socialist.
I thought you were a bourgeois liberal. I'm confused. How do you reconcile
a collectivist philosophy with a radically individualist one?
Doug
As I have explained, liberal democracy (the politics we bourg libs support)
involves
-0700
Is the fact that juries find facts while judges determine the law set in
a
stone that someone brought down from Mount Sinai?
No, but it's a rule of American law.
whatever happened to
juries that reject unjust laws?
It happens, We don't know about it unless the jurors say something
there are two main types of liberalism:
(1) Manchester, classical, or neo liberalism, which embraces
_laissez-faire_; and
(2) New Deal, Keynesian, or modern liberalism, which embraces the state as
the solution to capitalism's various problems. (Most social democracy fits
here, BTW.)
These
Me: Is the fact that juries find facts while judges determine the law
set in
a stone that someone brought down from Mount Sinai?
Justin: No, but it's a rule of American law.
and we should take US law as the only way things can be done?
JD
It's the way we do things here. Actually I think
Justin Schwartz wrote:
What part do you reject, Doug? Representative govt? Univeral
suffrage? Extensive civil and political liberties? In fact you
reject none of it. You are a bourg lib too, as are probably 95% of
the people on this list.
I reject none of it except your label.
See, Scott
Juries are very much the hoi polloi you are so
contemptuous of and yet, according to many, they do a very creditable job.
I have been very impressed with the juries who have served before my judge.
jks
_
Send and receive Hotmail
Justin:These (Manchester and New Deal liberalisms) are economic
liberalisms. I'm a political liberal, like Mill
and
Rawls.
please explain.
OK. Manchester liberalism is what we now call libertarianism, favoring a
nightwatchman state and unfettered free markets with private property. New
At 08:55 PM 07/30/2002 +, you wrote:
What part do you reject, Doug? Representative govt? Univeral suffrage?
Extensive civil and political liberties? In fact you reject none of it.
You are a bourg lib too, as are probably 95% of the people on this list.
Explain the bourgeois part.
Thanks,
You don't have much choice, do you? Any more than I have a choice in
trusting my physician or carpenter because s/he's an expert. I mean,
sorry,
guy, that's what expertise means, other people know more than we do about
something.
A quick tip to Pen-L members; if your doctor sounds anything
Of course, there is expertise, but experts can be very wrong -- especially
if they go unchallenged. Ask Ken Lay.
His problem wasn't bad expert advice. It was sheer crookedness. Of course
there is bad expert advice. You wanna see my stock portfolio? It's a
testament to bad expert advice.
[Ken Lay's] problem wasn't bad advice. The problem of many other people
was that
they trusted his expertise.
OK, there are crooked experts, as well as as incompetent ones. You are
telling me this because you think I don't know it? Or you are reminding
other people of this easily
It's important to remember that expertise is not a one-dimensional
variable. The practical and concrete knowledge of nurses and physician's
assistants may be quite different in kind from the more theoretical and
journal-based knowledge of MDs, so we can't say that the latter have twice
as much
I wasn't talking about the author. But the book is about ol' Norman, if I
recall. jks
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:28760] Re: Bethune or J.Horn? In digest 226
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:51:18 -0700
Yes, it was.
On
...incompetent ones[experts]
Don't be silly. Experts are not by definition competent. They are persons
with special training and knowledge. In law we distinguish between an
expert's qualifications, and whether his opinion is based in fact and
informed by scientific method, as well as
the working class and other
subaltern groups can exert countervailing power).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
: Expertise
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:29:06 -0700
Writing about expertise, I think that we should recall how Alfred Marshall
revamped econ. education -- making it more mathematical, even though he
himself rejected the idea that math was useful for economics -- just to
make it more difficult for
I think most professions suffer from the mandarin disease (named after
the
fact that the Imperial Chinese Mandarins required that new bureaucrats be
excellent at calligraphy, even though it didn't help them rule).
More useful than many skills, btw, it was part of just being an educated
Expertise also occurs in some specific context. Today's industrial medicine
means that your doctor has at most 15 minutes to spend figuring out what
your problem is. Because of the current mind/body split ideology, chances
are that your doctor will never touch you (if he/she can help it).
If, as Justin argues, Most judges, at least federal ones that I know of,
enforce the law fairly (i.e. evenhandedly), how come e.g. a
disproportionate number of US blacks end up in jail ? Of course, you can
make sociological arguments that more blacks commit crimes or more blacks
are poor,
that expertise is sometimes nothing more than the artificial creation of
hierarchy.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 05:41:18PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote:
: Expertise
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:29:06 -0700
Writing about expertise, I think that we should recall how Alfred
Marshall
revamped econ
Of course, in politics, the main body of experts
is the revolutionary party guiding society.
Gaak. That is exactly where there and can be no expertise, just politics.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
_
MSN
I would add one other dimension to the list of problems that Scott
mention: arrogance that often leads to disaster for all concerned, which
is why I mentioned Dr. Lay.
--
The Greeks had a word for that . . . . jks
_
Send and
Could you please describe in plain English the curtailment of my
liberties?
Ian
The judge asked him what time it was
Reuben said, Five to ten,
The Judge said, That's exactly what you get
--Hurricane (Bob Dylan)
Or as we say in Shytown, you all fucked, cuz.
jks
Thus I don't think you will be able
to write all laws and contracts in simple English; the effort of protecting
against other lawyers will prevent it if nothing else. Though I'm sure that
it can be done a lot of the time.
A lot of law is technical and there are centuries of technical
if i may say something as the resident slow thinker: things are
whizzing by at a good speed on this thread but it seems to me
that certain things are not clear (at least to me!). the examples
and analysis (offered by michael p. and others) seems to touch
upon the dangers of letting experts
From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:28838] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Expertise
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:38:13 -0700
- Original Message -
From: Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if so, is
that form of truth
Could you please describe in plain English the curtailment of my
liberties?
Ian
The judge asked him what time it was
Reuben said, Five to ten,
The Judge said, That's exactly what you get
--Hurricane (Bob Dylan)
My bad. It's the embarassing song Joey, a tribute to Crazy Joe Gallo. Same
In a message dated 7/29/02 1:49:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, in politics, the main body of experts
is the revolutionary party guiding society.
Gaak. That is exactly where there and can be no expertise, just
politics.
When will they
Justin Schwartz wrote:
In my typical, class-blinkered, petty bourgeois manner, I am a real fan of
expertise. Democracy has its place, but not in micro-managing the use of
real expertise by real experts. There are skills that require long study
and constant application to master, and where
Yoshie, you should get back to work.
1) The straw men: Democray in this context does not mean that everybody
votes on the details of how you run your shop. It does mean (and
Schweickart agrees) that everybody in your shop gets a vote. That is the
in a hospital, not only doctors, but nurses,
A book about Chinese health care, Away with all pests, describes how
cleaning people contributed to Chinese medicine in dialogue with the
doctors ...
I actually have a small statuette of Norman Betheune on my filing cabinet, a
memento from a past life. I have not given up on all of that
**Completely off the subject. Your answer to my question on legal briefs
did not quite give the information I was looking for. Let me put it this
way. Imagine I'm about to go to trial in a civil suit with a lot of money
at stake. Taking your 15 hours a day for three weeks straight figure
I agree, but then who judges accountants like Andersens? Other accountants?
Does any profession ever pass adverse verdict on the leading lights of that
profession?
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal, Satires, if I recall). An old
question. I haven't got an easy answer. We have this
The point of the book was that the orderlies and the like spend more time
with the patient than the doctor and thus have valuable insight into the
appropriate treatment.
Oh, I've read the book. And while in Columbus my doctor for practical
purposes was a physician's assistant, very able. So
Justin speaks of expert judges (in the legal system) who are empowered to
definitively resolve disputes by entering enforceable orders.
Exactly what are judges in the American plutocracy expert in
outside of convincing the plutocrats and their political agents that
they are reliable defenders
I'm afraid my knowledge of Schweickart is largely second-hand. Can you
perhaps list some of his most useful writings? Just a few as I am seriously
curtailed in regard to time and realistically would only have time to read
two or three. The more analytic the better.
ALl his stuff is very
How about nuclear engineers? Hospital surgeons and administrators? College
professors? You think any
of those groups currently want democratization of their expertise and
accountability if it means a
diminution of the scale and scope of their power? Just how much difference
would there be
I don't understand the physics, but wasn't Newtonian physics transcended
long before post-structuralism (by Einstein, a socialist, for one)?
Sort of. Newtonian mechanics is a limit case of special relativity if
spacetime is flat and velocities are well below the speed of light.
Einstein's
Justin Schwartz wrote:
Well, you can be on the left nonetheless. Russell was on the left,
and had a naive old-fashioned hoch-Enlightenment view of science.
I never said Sokal wasn't on the left (though he's a pretty mild
leftist).
Depending on what you mean by that, that might be me too
Devine, James wrote:
What's a sokal?
Alan Sokal is a physicist who embarrassed the post-modernist journal
SOCIAL TEXT
Sokal has now joined with ex-Social Text'er Bruce Robbins in a
campaign to get American Jews to sign a petition critical of Israeli
policy. Times change
How so? He
Ford? He played football for Michigan, I thought.
Right. But wasn't he Yale Law? jks
I don't think Ford's status as a lawyer should be held against him. After
all, he was pretty good by today's standards (Clinton, Bushes).
JD
I never hold anyone' status as a lawyer against him. Not
Dahl is an icon of the political science
establishment.
on the other hand, he has broken with the stereotyped trend of
politically-conscious people, shifting to the political left during his
older years. In fact, I saw him hanging around with the likes of Bob
Brenner
a couple of years ago.
JD
From: Davies, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:28342] RE: Re: progressive Archbishop of Canterbury
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:19:43 +0100
I wasn't even aware that it was legal for the Church of England to be led
by
I am sorry that my initial question on market socialism made Justin
Schwartz leave the mail group. I didn't want that.
It didn't. I've been busy. I _do_ resent Michael P's telling to meto shut up
because I have nothing new to say, unlike all the other sparklingly original
ideas one finds
0100
I certainly wasn't aware that it was legal for the Prince of Wales to be
Welsh!
twll din pob Sais.
dd
In Henry V, Shakespere has King Hal insist that he is Welsh. jks
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print
is there really such a thing as an original idea?
JD
Ask Michael. I wouldn't know. jks
_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Church of England not founded until three Henries later my friend.
Yeah, but Shakespeare's operating in a context where all royalty is
anachronistically C of E, as you you perfectly well know, even if officially
represent as Catholic.
jks
joanna bujes wrote:
One of the big things I learned at Yale was to have a visceral distaste
for preppies and rich people, and for pretentious people in general.
Yah, I often say that it was Princeton made a red of me. _These_ clowns
think they have a God given right to rule world?
Was it
So...following up on the Yale men thread...is the education given at the
ivies worth it? I ask because a former lover who went to Princeton was very
bitter about that aspect too. I also ask because I have a half-baked idea
to send my daughter (now 8) to Vassar or one of the other women's ivies.
Doug H writes,
. . . one's fellow students are an education in
themselves. Classes were very lively -
I wonder, however, whether this is _still_ true for the elite colleges. The
increased competition now to get into such schools and increased attention
to doing the right things during high
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:28376] Re: Re: Yale men
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:27:41 -0700
Ford? He played football for Michigan, I thought.
Right. But wasn't he Yale Law? jks
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:13:07AM
I have not read the report, but from what one critic
says, it leaves out capital flight and the role of
structural adjustment cum market forces in the
allocation of resources. in other words what it says
is: because Arabs are socially backwards they do not
develop, so once they start being nice
I think there is more advanced argument to be made against market
socialism. If Justin has not been exiled from the list I would like a
chance to make it in argument against the market socialists.
p
OK, shoot. What's the argument?
Michael, I'll talk about this as much as I like, and if
joanna bujes wrote:
To take an example, I think Pete Seeger's songs had much greater influence
on working class consciousness...than any utopian novel.
Really? I thought it was middle-class beatniks, hippies, and Commies who
listen to that stuff, while the working class was/is listening to
I don't know if my contribution is permitted here, but at risk of being shut
up, I'll try again.
So there are contradictions within the camp of the admirers of market
socialism!
There are market socialists of all varieties, just as there are people with
lots of views of all sorts about
people should realize that Arrow's theory is a critique of _all_ collective
decision-making mechanisms, not just democracy. It also applies to markets.
Can you think of a method of collective choice that isn't subject to the
theorem?
Um, how so? The theorem says you can't have:
In all fairness the same anomymity is possible under planning. Sensible
proposals for planning generally do NOT abolish money (though they may call
it something else). Yes, I know you have been arguing with people who do
think money could be abolished; but this is rather as though I argued
Is that why you blatantly distort what I wrote?
And why do you paint me as an enemy of democracy? Do you think I actually
disagree with any of the things you said about democratic advances?
I did not write
anything resembling what you put forth. I did not say things are
great with our
So, markets promote diversity and protect minority tastes.
Actually, you are reading the variety conversation into this one. I said
the markets protect _privacy_ but not requiring individuals to justify their
choices to the public at large,
But this
most market-besotted society of any on
Still, it's good to see someone acknowledge that the democractization of
choice is not an unqualified good...
Democratization of choice is not an unqualified good, as I've said again
and again: it's a necessity, given the interdependence of human life (or
what economists call externalities).
Sugn me off, Michael, I don't care to be part of your list under these
conditions. jks
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:27905] Repitition and Market Socialism
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:22:13 -0700
I've tried to put an
I'm sorry Jim, Michael says I may not talk about this stuff any more. He
just wants to hear about the current crisis. At least from me, because
unlike everyone else here I merely repeat myself and have nothing new to say
about matrkets, planning, democracy, ethics, or most of things that I
Within the camp of those who admire Against Capitalism I had really
wanted to argue for the possibility of looking at it again from the
perspective of the Marxian Law of Value, which he does not do
Actually he does. He has written a defense of the LTV in the WAre and
Nielsen collection
How can you run markets without a profit motive? jks
It is common in most human societies that have ever existed to attempt to
accumulate a surplus,
Name one. The guilds and mechants of feudal times attempted to make profits,
as did Roman traders, Arab caravaners, etc. They were not
How about something like this, at least for produce markets:
The land is worked in common and the produce stored. People take from the
stores according to their needs. Planting will be adjusted according to
whether there are shortages or surpluses of products. These are truly free
markets that
JKS writes: How can you run markets without a profit motive?
In another missive, JKS wrote: The guilds and mechants of feudal times
attempted to make profits, as did Roman traders, Arab caravaners, etc. They
were not operating on Maussian gift principles. There are exchange
systems
without
Justin Schwartz wrote:
Not in the real world. It extreme moments of cynicism, yes. But it tends
to blow up, as we have just seen. Smith would not have been surprised. He
thought you needed the moral sentiments to make a market society go. He
was quite right.
Yeah, except that a market
Justin Schwartz wrote:
Well, there's a tension there. But like the bumblebee, supposedly
aerodynamically impossible, the old whore keeps going along, which means
she's not as crooked as some say. Btw democracy is notoriously a sinkhole
of corruption and self-dealing too, when it's
Enormous amounts of resources are spent to market products that are
essentially identical. Maybe you don't get phone calls from the phone
companies
Is that a reason to abolish markets? There is nothing wrong with price
competition for identical products. And this economic objection
The problem with this line of argument is that for every seemingly trivial
example of product differentiation one can come up with, you can also point
to product differences that seem trivial to the average consumer/would-be
voter and yet are critical to some. Some people find no difference
Justin Schwartz wrote:
But Doug, tell me true, you have been relentlessly caricaturing my views
for the last little while, when you could write the answers to your own
own snipes,a nd agree with thosea nswers. Why have you been doing this?
jks
I'm not the one who made the analogy between
What's radical is subordinating the government -- and thus the market -- to
democratic will.
JD
I'm in favor of doing it that way. So maybe I'm a radical, but not a
socialist? jks
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and
JKS: Profit maximization (or seekingh, actually I said nothing about
maximization) is a product of specific social and institutional
arrangements. That's my point, actually, with respect to markets.
so that markets encourage universal profit-maximization (or under
conditions
of incomplete
Justin, you know better than to post something like this.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:04:48PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote:
Lots of socialist share Stalin's view that profit and competition are
just
wicked. Course Uncle Joe didn't go in for democratic discussion of
people's
How come it's not fair for me to talk about real world planning when you
guys talk about real world markets?
I wrote: I can imagine a market system that would co-exist with
universal
multi-goal seeking by cost-minimizing not-for-profits.
Yah, we have one.
one what?
A world with a market
On Wednesday, July 10, 2002 at 20:01:28 (+) Justin Schwartz writes:
...
Well, there's a tension there. But like the bumblebee, supposedly
aerodynamically impossible, the old whore keeps going along, which means
she's not as crooked as some say. Btw democracy is notoriously a sinkhole
Justin Schwartz wrote:
the bumblebee, supposedly aerodynamically impossible
I first saw this urban legend in the _Reader's Digest_ back in the early
or mid-40s. I believe as far back as the early '50s some engineers got
together an demonstrated that in theory as well as practice
Subject: [PEN-L:27861] market socialism. finis.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:32:34 -0700
I think that our discussion about the ability of the market to offer a
variety and how that variety should be determined has landed is right back
to our earlier discussions of market socialism, although we
Dear Se,
I have set that assumption (that I support the development of a MS type
economy) in a particular context. I would be happy to see things go further
but just can't see that around the corner given the state of the left
across the world.
Ah. Well, I guess I am principled supporter of
It seems I'm not a market socialist after all, jks. Please forgive my
treachery - I cannot abide the profit motive - I thought a market socialist
believed in the market as a central means of determining economic
development. My mistake. Will read the archives.
Sé
How can you run markets
Terrell Carver has an old Oxford book on Marx's Social Theory that I thought
was pretty good. Then there's Miliband's Marxism and Politics; also Raymond
Williams' Marxism and Literature. Best general intro to ME I know of id
Richard Schmitt, Intro to Marx and Engels (Westview); I used to use
Is anyone familiar with:
(1) Marx: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer (of animal rights fame)
Not to touch with ten foot pole. They alos had him do Hegel. I can't
imaginewhat inspired them.
(2) Marx: The Great Philos by Terry Eagleton
I think he's OK. I'd still use Schmitt.
jks
To start, let's assume that I am a market socialist with a model including
both state-managed and owned manufacturing and construction sectors and
non-profit distributing service sectors.
Sé.
Hi, Natasha. Is that lets' assume the economists' let's assume, that is,
not really, but in an
Company is just a colloquial term for a business.
Corporation is a legal term for a business owned
by shareholders.
The key thing about a corporation is that the liability of the shareholders
is limited by the extent of the ownership. Normally you cannot reach the
assets of the individual
1 - 100 of 687 matches
Mail list logo
