[PEN-L:7308] Re: post-modern wars--Is competitive the heart of...?

[Paul Zarembka]

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Ajit Sinha wrote:

> I did not explain exploitation FROM competition. My point was that
> REPRODUCTION of exploitation by individual capitalists comes about due to
> the pressure of competition, which is a structural aspect of capitalism. In
> other words, even if all capitalists were good guys, they will be forced to
> produce surplus value and push for more and more surplus value. To quote
> Marx: "By looking at these things as a whole, it is evident that this
> [capitalists attempt to maximize surplus value production] does not depend
> on the will, either good or bad, of the individual capitalist. Under free
> competition, the immanent laws of capitalist production confront the
> individual capitalist as a coercive force external to him." (Capital I, p.
> 381). The logic I'm using is structural, which I think Marx also used in the
> name of dialectics, and not linear. The Structural logic does not start from
> A point but has various points to begin with and it works through the
> relations of these points. By the way, all my quotes are from volume one of
> Capital. So competition is not completely abstracted from volume one. What
> is abstracted is the certain 'distortions' caused by comptition at the level
> of appearance. As I said, the "law" of value, which is assumed all through
> the volume one, will not make much sense without the notion of competition.

I believe, from your reaction, Ajit, that we are closer in understanding
than I had originally thought, but I will still put competition at a
somewhat lower level of abstraction in understanding the capitalist mode
of production than you seem to do.  This is the sense it which I referred
to competition as a SUPPORT for exploitation.  Regarding the law of value
you seem pretty close to equating competition with commodity production
itself.  Am I correct? 

Paul Z.

[PEN-L:7309] New WWW Site: Jubilee 2000 campaign

[Tom Walker]

Announcing a new web site:

IN THE SPIRIT OF JUBILEE:
Sound the Trumpet throughout the land. Proclaim Liberty to all people.

http://www.lights.com/jubilee


Over 3,000 years ago, the ancient Hebrews celebrated the Year of Jubilee.
With a trumpet  blast throughout the land, debts were cancelled, slaves
went free, and EVERYONE had an economic recovery.

As we approach the new millenium, jubilee is an ancient idea whose time has
come. JUBILEE 2000 is a campaign to celebrate the new millenium by
cancelling the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries. It is a
simple solution to break the debt trap and give a billion people a chance
for a better future.






Regards,

Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm

[PEN-L:7310] Re: New WWW Site: Jubilee 2000 campaign

[Max B. Sawicky]

Tom Walker wrote:
> 
> IN THE SPIRIT OF JUBILEE:
> Sound the Trumpet throughout the land. Proclaim Liberty to all people.
> 
> . . .
> As we approach the new millenium, jubilee is an ancient idea whose time has
> come. JUBILEE 2000 is a campaign to celebrate the new millenium by
> cancelling the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries. It is a
> simple solution to break the debt trap and give a billion people a chance
> for a better future.

I love it.  What about the debts of us interest-slaves
in the advanced countries?  And what about my Mom, whose
sole source of non-Social Security income is a lowly
interest-bearing financial asset?  Obviously there are
conflicting issues here, but if you're going to proclaim
a Jubilee you have to make everybody happy.

MS
 

Max B. Sawicky  202-775-8810 (voice)
Economic Policy Institute   202-775-0819 (fax)
1660 L Street, NW   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suite 1200  
Washington, DC  20036

[PEN-L:7311] Max's Mom's Jubilee

[Tom Walker]

Max Sawicky asks,

>And what about my Mom, whose
>sole source of non-Social Security income is a lowly
>interest-bearing financial asset?

This isn't the "widows and orphans" theory of capitalism, is it? By the
powers vested in me, I hearby declare Max's Mom *personnally exempt* from
any wholesale cancellation of debt (provided that debt cancellation occurs
on January 1, 2001).

Seriously, though, how about those mutual funds? A couple of weeks ago, we
had a drywall installer in to fix a hole in the ceiling. He talked
enthusiastically about his contractor pals who were making so much money in
the stock market they had given up doing construction work. Then just the
other day, I was in a toy store and overheard two clerks talking about how
you could borrow money from the bank, buy mutual funds and make enough money
to live on the interest and still increase your principal.

But there comes a point when the chain letter reaches the bottom of the
feeding chain (to mix metaphors, while retaining a link), right? And then we
have nothing to lose but our... umm, what's the word I'm looking for... bonds?

Regards,

Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm

[PEN-L:7312] Re: election post-mortem

[Thad Williamson]

Yes, and it precisely proves my point, which is: I'd like too the Dems take
over completely for 4 full years, and show how incapable they are of doing
substantial reform even when they are in the majority, with no one to blame
themselves. That is, deliver 4 years of milquetoast legislation that would
not alter any of the significant trends regarding inequality, social decay,
political cynicism, etc, which is what I think an all-Democratic gov't would
bring.  This would force (intellectually honest) borderline liberal-radicals
to give up the notion of the Democratic party as the agent of change.

As it is now, such people can think to themselves, "if only we could get the
GOP out, everything would be great" and percieve Newt as the problem, not
the entire system.

As you note, of course, the first 2 years with health care debacle and NAFTA
were enough to convince many of us of this already. I have in the
ideological consciousness of  "the liberal on the street", not the people on
this list.

Thad

At 08:00 PM 11/6/96 -0800, Ajit Sinha wrote:
> What bothers me most is many
>>"progressives" who are border-line between liberal and radical will continue
>>to interpret "the problem" as getting the GOP out of the Congress, and not
>>the system as a whole. If the Dems had taken over completely, once they
>>(too) failed to do (much of) anything real, the borderline liberal-radical
>>would be forced to move left.
>>Thad
>___-
>Weren't the Democrates in majority in both houses when Clinton's health bill
>was defeted? If so, then what are you talking about? Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>
Thad Williamson
National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/
Union Theological Seminary (New York)
212-531-1935
http://www.northcarolina.com/thad

[PEN-L:7313] Re: Re: Prop. 215 wins!

[JDevine]

In response to my joke about CA Prop. 215, legalizing the medical 
use of marijuana, Maggie Coleman is reasonable to bring up the 
passing of anti-affirmative action Prop. 209 in California.

It was gallows humor, something that unfortuately seems to have 
become more and more necessary since 1980 or so. 

A serious question: If affirmative action is going away, what can 
we do instead

On elections, the L.A. TIMES did the following calculation:

Clinton: $112 million spent on campaigning/45.6 million votes = $2.46/vote.
Dole: $116 million/37.8 million votes = $3.06/vote.
Perot: $37 million/7.8 million votes = $4.70/vote.
(I don't know if the dollar figures include soft money or not)

I wonder what the ratio is for Nader. Let's see: zero divided by a few 
million equals ...

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.

[PEN-L:7314] CAW's historic gains on outsourcing

[D Shniad]

The Globe and Mail   Report on Business November 14, 1996

FORD DEAL LIMITS OUTSOURCING
 -- CAW VOWS TO SPREAD FIGHT

  Issue expected to surface at other tables

 By Susan Bourette, Labour Reporter

TORONTO -- The last of the Big Three Canadian auto
makers has agreed to a deal that limits its ability to
contract out work, a principle labour experts predict
will become the rallying cry of the union movement
across the country.
   Indeed, the ink had yet to dry on a tentative deal
reached yesterday between Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd.
and the Canadian Auto Workers when union president Buzz
Hargrove vowed to entrench the same limitations on
outsourcing at other bargaining tables.
   "If you fight, you can win," an elated Mr. Hargrove
told reporters at a Toronto hotel where the negotiators
had been in marathon talks until yesterday afternoon
when the agreement was announced.
   "You can't win if you don't challenge managements'
rights. . . . This will set the standard. It will be a
major demand in all of our bargaining."
   The deal wraps up the triennial bargaining session
with the Big Three car companies that has spanned the
better part of the past three months.
   Ford has agreed to the same restrictions on the
contracting out of work to auto parts companies as both
Chrysler Canada Ltd. and General Motors of Canada Ltd.
The deal between the union and GM was reached only
after a three-week strike against the auto giant.
   The tentative three-year agreement--reached in
advance of a 7 p.m. deadline--averted a walkout by
nearly 12,300 workers at Canada's second-largest auto
maker.
   However, late yesterday the two sides were still
putting final touches on sections of the deal at local
and subcommittee levels. Workers will vote on it this
weekend.
   Don McKenzie, Ford's top negotiator, said the
company was pleased to have reached an agreement that
would allow it to work within its business plan in a
competitive industry.
   The agreement provides wage increases of 2 per cent
in each year of the contract. With cost-of-living
improvements that adds up to 10 per cent over the life
of the contract.
   The auto makers have agreed to replace any jobs
that are outsourced with similar work. They have also
agreed not to sell or close any plants over the next
three years.
   With the pattern agreement now in place at all
three companies, the CAW appears to have achieved its
goals in this round of talks. In fact, some industry
experts argue that key principles won by the union this
year are perhaps the most significant gains made in
more than half a century.
   Alfie Morgan, a business professor at the
University of Windsor, says he expects limits to a
corporation's ability to outsource work will now be a
key demand by other unions across the country as
companies continue to shed workers.
   "Other unions will have a very difficult time
resisting this objective," Mr. Morgan said. "I
anticipate this will be the major trend in the labour
movement in Canada and eventually across the world."
   Mr. Morgan argues that challenging a company's
right to manage its business--or place limits on
contracting out--is the most significant gain made by
unions since the so-called Rand formula of 1946 that
was a result of a Ford strike.
   The principle introduced by arbitrator Ivan Rand, a
judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, helped unions
flourish by stipulating that all workers had to pay
union dues whether they chose to become union members
or not, because they received the benefits of working
in a unionized workplace.
   "Buzz Hargrove has been tremendously successful in
questioning the prerogative of the corporation to
manipulate people only as a business variable," Mr.
Morgan said.
   Charlotte Yates, an associate professor of labour
studies and political science at McMaster University,
said the CAW has often set standards of labour practice
that eventually filter throughout the trade union
movement.
   Ms. Yates said if the CAW tries to enshrine such
principles in other deals it negotiates, other unions
will try to foist limits on outsourcing on their
employers--particularly because of the prominence of
the issue on most companies' agendas.
   The CAW-Ford agreement also includes a ban on the
sale or closing of all Ford plants in Canada, except
Ford's Windsor, Ont., engine plant, which was announced
some time ago and is being closed this month.
   The new agreement includes a buyout for some of the
600 workers at the engine plant. However, Mr. McKenzie
told reporters that most employees are expected to be
recalled in the next year to perform other work within
its Windsor operations.
   Mr. Hargrove said he is optimistic the company will
add a second shift at one of its truck plant. However,
the company said it had no immediate plans to do so.
   The CAW represents about 52,000 auto workers in
Canada, and about another 160,000 in the aerospace,
transp

[PEN-L:7316] FW: BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BLS DAILY REPORT,  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER  6, 1996

Bridgestone/Firestone and the United Steelworkers reach a tentative
agreement resolving "all key issues" in their long-running labor dispute,
the parties announce.  Neither side released details of the agreement
Announcement of the tentative settlement comes the same day that
hearings were scheduled to begin before a NLRB administrative law judge on
NLRB complaints issued against Bridgestone/Firestone (Daily Labor
Report, pages 1,A-1; Washington Post, page C13)_After more than two
years of fighting the biggest tire maker in the world, the United
Steelworkers of America is claiming a victory.  Yesterday, the union and
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., a unit of Tokyo giant Bridgestone Corp.,
announced an unexpected breakthrough in their 27-month labor dispute:  They
had reached a tentative agreement resolving all major issues Labor
experts note that the terms of the contract are less significant than the
fact that a contract was reached at all, says a labor professor at Cornell
University.  "Bridgestone Firestone was trying to break the union and they
didn't succeed" (Wall Street Journal, page B1)

Under a new contract between Kellogg Co. and the American Federation of
Grain Millers, some 2,550 hourly employees at four plants will see no wage
increases over the next three years but will receive cost-of-living
adjustments expected to total about $1.43 per hour over the term.
 Continuation of COLA was a key issue in the contract negotiations
(Daily Labor Report, pages 2,A-3).

Skilled labor shortages head the list of greatest challenges for
construction firms during the next five years, a construction association
reports in its annual financial survey.  Concern over shortages of skilled
labor was expressed by 59 percent of the 1,009 construction firms
responding to the Construction Financial Management Association
questionnaire, compared with 48 percent last year (Daily Labor Report,
page A-6).

Graphs that show who America's low-wage workers are appear in an article on
jobs at Marriott hotels.  They're mostly women, they're young, and they're
less educated (Business Week, Nov. 11, page 108).

DUE OUT TOMORROW:  Productivity and Costs, Third Quarter 1996

[PEN-L:7317] Re: Re: Prop. 215 wins!

[Doug Henwood]

At 11:11 AM 11/7/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Clinton: $112 million spent on campaigning/45.6 million votes = $2.46/vote.
>Dole: $116 million/37.8 million votes = $3.06/vote.
>Perot: $37 million/7.8 million votes = $4.70/vote.
>(I don't know if the dollar figures include soft money or not)

Probably not. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that the whole
presidential campaign cost $800 million, which leaves the LAT accounting
above about $535m short. CRP also estimates that the Congressional
campaigns cost another $800m - making this a $1.6 billion election,
something like twice as expensive as 1992's.

Another perspective, though. Jeff Winter, a poli sci professor at
Northwestern who specializes in Indonesia, told me that they're scratching
heads down in Jakarta about the Lippo scandal. Specifically, they can't
believe access to a president can be bought for a mere $425,000. Winter
says that you couldn't even say hello to the multibillionaire Suharto for
such chump change.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 

[PEN-L:7315] Korea: Vision for New Labour-Management Relations (fwd)

[D Shniad]

> Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Sam Lanfranco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:  Korea: Vision for New Labour-Management Relations (fwd)
> 
> --- Forwarded Message Follows ---
> From:  daga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Vision for new labour-management relations
> Korean Worker, September 1996
> 
> (Newsletter of the Yong Dong Po Urban Industrial Mission)
> 
> In April the Kim Young-Sam government administration presented a "vision for
> new labour-management relations" which aims to transform the existing labour
> management relations (LMR) into a new co-operative and participatory model.
> The government presented five principles to be incorporated into the VNLMR:
> maximising the common good; participation and co-operation;
> labour-management autonomy and responsibility; emphasis on education and
> human dignity; and globalisation of institutions and attitudes.
> 
> Following this presentation, in May President Kim established a presidential
> commission for labour reform (PCLR), comprising management, labour and
> public interest representatives. Of particular note was the decision of the
> Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has been seeking labour
> reform and carrying out its own battle for legal recognition, to participate
> in the presidential commission.
> 
> >From the beginning the PCLR has had a tough task of satisfactorily meeting
> the differing demands of the different groups through national and social
> consensus under the leadership of the government. On the one hand labour
> groups, such as the KCTU, are demanding overall revision of collective
> labour-management law, including the lifting of the bans on multiple trade
> unions and interference by third parties in line with international
> standards. On the other hand, employer groups, such as the Korean Employers
> Federation (KEF), are demanding separate revision of individual
> labour-management law, including the relaxing of conditions for the
> dismissal of workers, introduction of a flexible working hours system, and
> labour dispatch law. Among the challenges facing the PCLR are whether or not
> the current political leadership can secure a solution to the inevitable
> intense conflict between labour and management; whether or not the focus on
> the reform of LMR can include the full participation of the KCTU, whether or
> not the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) can recognize the KCTU, and
> whether or not the disagreement of capital headed by the KEF can be
> minimized. Both the KCTU and the FKTU have strongly stated that they are
> opposed to any detrimental revision of the labour laws.
> 
> In mid-July the PCLR outlined seven basic principles for the improvement of
> LMR agreed to by all representatives:
> 
> 1) Improvement of labour-management co-operation and rational arbitration of
> conflict.
> 2) Respect for labour-management autonomy and equality.
> 3) Elevation of the quality of workers' lives and increasing the power of
> the labour market.
> 4) Focus to be on variety for the sake of balanced development and
> improvement of international competitiveness.
> 5) Clarification of basic ideology and consolidation of formal standards.
> 6) Respect for international standards and customary practice.
> 7) Respect for labour management consensus and concern for national well-being.
> 
> These principles provide a general direction with regard to all sensitive
> issues between labour and management. However while the committee managed to
> reach consensus on a general direction for the improvement of the labour law
> and systems, considerable difficulty is being experienced in reaching
> consensus on the revision of detailed labour clauses.
> 
> A prime example is in the case of the granting of basic labour rights to
> civil servants and teachers. Whilst in July the PCLR hinted at the
> possibility of allowing civil servants and school teachers to organise trade
> unions, in September their position again reversed. It now seems unlikely
> that public servants and school teachers will be granted the rights to
> collective bargaining and actions.
> 
> On the other hand in late September the PCLR agreed to lift a ban on the
> political activities of trade unions. On other key issues however, the
> commission has as yet failed to reach agreement. Due to the big differences
> between management and labour representatives, at the end of September, the
> public interest representatives drafted a report, which is currently being
> internally circulated within the PCLR.
> 
> The Position of the KCTU
> 
> The position of the KCTU with regards to the PCLR, was discussed in detail
> during a membership training session for individual union representatives
> which was held in July by the KCTU. This session provided time to review the
> income increase and collective bargaining struggle set up 

[PEN-L:7318] "widows & orphans"

[JDevine]

Tom Walker says: >>Seriously, though, how about those mutual 
funds? A couple of weeks ago, we had a drywall installer in to 
fix a hole in the ceiling. He talked enthusiastically about his 
contractor pals who were making so much money in the stock market 
they had given up doing construction work. Then just the other 
day, I was in a toy store and overheard two clerks talking about 
how you could borrow money from the bank, buy mutual funds and 
make enough money to live on the interest and still increase your 
principal. <<

This is serious stuff: there's an underground Wall Street theory 
that says that when the "widows and orphans" (WS jargon for 
amateurs, outsiders) get into the stock market (with or without 
mutual funds as mediators), it's time for a crash.

I don't know if there is any empirical evidence for or against 
that theory. Doug?

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.

[PEN-L:7320] a cartoon -- and then back to work

[JDevine]

Here's a recent cartoon (LA Times, Nov. 6, 1996). Sorry I can't 
draw the pictures:

US-based radio interviewer (a man): "So Janet... what do 
CANADIANS think about our elections?"

Canadian newspaperwoman (Janet): "YOUR ELECTIONS? It's all about 
YOU isn't it? Your elections... Your Olympics... Your apple 
pie... What about your largest trading partner? Canada is in 
danger of splitting up...

"And all you can talk about is YOU YOU YOU! What about me me ME? 
I've had enough! I WANT A DIVORCE!!"

Radio interviewer: "Is that ALLOWED in NAFTA?"

-- "Us & Them" by Wiley Miller and Susan Dewar.

I thought that "Us & Them" referred to men & women. But it also 
refers to USers and Canadians. It's the only cross-border cartoon 
strip I've seen. (Lynne Johnson's "For Better or For Worse" is 
purely Canadian.)

and now back to grading tests...

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.

[PEN-L:7321] FW: BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

See next to last item on Manpower pay.  It would seem that a lot of their
workers were getting the $4.25 minimum wage or close to it.

Dave Richardson
 --
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1996

RELEASED TODAY:  The preliminary seasonally-adjusted annual rates of
productivity growth in the third quarter were 0.3 percent in the business
sector and 0.2 percent in the nonfarm business sector.  In both sectors,
productivity increases in the third quarter were smaller than those
recorded in the second quarter.  In manufacturing, the productivity
increase in the third quarter was 6.3 percent, the largest recorded since
the first quarter of 1994 

The all-industries median negotiated first-year wage increase compiled in
the first 44 weeks of 1996 is 3 percent, according to the latest biweekly
survey by BNA PLUS.  In manufacturing agreements, the year-to-date median
wage increase is 2.8 percent; in nonmanufacturing settlements (excluding
construction), the year-to-date median wage increase is 3 percent.  In
construction agreements, the year-to-date median wage increase is 3.5
percent (Daily Labor Report, pages 2,D-1).

Layoff plans by major U.S. businesses surged in October to the highest
level in nine months, according to a monthly survey by the employment firm
Challenger, Gray and Christmas.  Planned dismissals rose 15.9 percent last
month, to 47,911, from 41,335 during October 1995 (Washington Post, page
D1).

Temporary workers' average hourly pay at Manpower, the nation's biggest
temporary staffing company, rose nearly 5.8 percent in the third quarter,
compared with a 3.3 percent gain for U.S. workers overall, the company
said.  Smaller rival Randstad Staffing Services of Atlanta said its hourly
pay increased 6.4 percent in October from year-ago levels (Washington
Post, page D2).

U.S. manufacturing executives expect steady, moderate growth through the
end of the year, while builders see a slowdown in growth during the period,
according to Dun & Bradstreet Corp. surveys.  D&B's September survey of
1,000 manufacturing executives found that they toned down their
expectations for production and new orders in the fourth quarter In a
separate September survey of 200 construction executives, D&B found
builders expect more-sluggish growth when compared with the rapid increase
in the spring and summer (Wall Street Journal, page A2).

DUE OUT TOMORROW:  Average Annual Pay Levels in Metropolitan Areas, 1995

[PEN-L:7319] help on "racial" differences (fwd)

[Eban Goodstein]

Hi folks,

In the context of a discussion today of the social construction of race, 
a student brought up the myth of differences in musculature between 
Africans and Europeans, insisting that in fact there were real 
and significant differences. 

This came in at the end of class, so next time I want to pursue it 
along the lines of:  "do all Africans have this alleged difference? ie, 
South African Bantu speaking folks, as well as Northern desert dwellers 
or eastern Somalis, and  does this difference in muscle structure stop at 
the Nile?" 

But beyond this, does anyone have an authoritative source on the genesis 
of this belief, so I can set him (and the class) straight?

Eban
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Eban Goodstein  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Economics phone:  503-768-7626
Lewis and Clark College fax:503-768-7379
Portland, OR 97219

[PEN-L:7322] Re: help on "racial" differences (fwd)

[rakesh bhandari]

I only took first-year genetics and biology many years ago, so if anyone
wants to clarify the arguments I try to make below, please do.

Sickle cell, Tay-Sachs and other ailments can be tied directly to parts of
the DNA.  So can several phenotypical variations among peoples.  However,
1)these phenotypical differences (hair texture and color, the so-called
nasal index, skin color, etc) do not vary sufficiently concordantly to
sustain the coherence of racial classification and 2)these superficial
phenotypical differences, much like the relation of one's big toe to its
neighbor (is it bigger or smaller?),do not point to deep differences
between the races which have defined in terms of these superficial
phenotypic differences (in his admirable *Reconstructing Biology: Genetics
and the New World Order*, John Vandermeer refers to this as the ideology of
deep difference which he subjects to criticism).

 That the criteria used for racial classification do not point to or even
suggest the existence of deep differences beyond themselves renders it
impossible therefore for race to control the inheritance of any property
such as intelligence (whatever that is) not tied to its definition (in
*Race in the Making*, Lawrence Hirschfeld makes this important point which
was ignored in *The Journal of Economic Literature* critique of the *Bell
Curve*, by the way).  Moreover,  there is greater genetic variation within
races than between them, underlining that superficial phenotypic
differences which are tied directly to parts of our DNA do not point to
deep racial differences among us.

For some reason, Herrnstein and Murray, Dinesh D'Souza, James Q Wilson,
etc. ad nauseum  never really take up the present knowledge of genetic
differences among human beings: they are psychologists, political
scientists and hacks after all.   They like to argue instead with Richard
Lewontin over what twin studies show about the heritability of intelligence
(though what the tests show is the mutability of so-called IQ, given the
higher scores adoptees have than their biological parents--suggesting that
even if the so-called intelligence measured by IQ were heritable, it can
still be improved in a different environmental context).

And they like to insist that the famed racial gap in IQ simply cannot be
explained away as due to differences in parental socio-economic status.
That is, they insinuate that there must be biological differences between
the races which control for inheritance of   intelligence because, as they
see it,  environmental differences cannot explain the racial IQ gap.
D'Souza, who attempts to provide a cultural explanation for the IQ gap and
other racial inequalities, grants the reasonableness of the biological
theory on the ground of Occam's Razor.  In short,  these scholars do not
systematically investigate the implications of what we really do about
genetic variation among human beings.

But this raises another question.  If racial classification is incoherent
(the criteria used for classification do not vary concordantly, even those
criteria only point to skin-deep differences), then why are we so
interested in the racial gap in IQ; what makes this an interesting fact?
Some scholars argue that this is proof of a caste-like oppression of
racialized minorities and a similar gap appears in other nations where
there is such caste-like oppression (see Claude Fischer, et al. Inequality
by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve).

But let me pose another question about racial differences.   The US Army is
known to have conducted exams on which rural Southern whites scored lower
than urban Northern blacks--despite the putative caste-like situation of
blacks.  Why isn't this the gap which needs to be explained? Isn't the
national puzzlement, panic and perhaps handwringing over the racial gap in
IQ not end up as nothing but a piece of propanganda, perhaps the basis for
Kenneth Arrow's statistical discrimination against minorities?  And then
there could be some positive feedback: subjected to discrimination,
minorities then endure poverty which undermines the opportunity for their
children to acquire certain skills, the lack of which then disadvantages
them further in the labor market in addition to the statistical
discrimination they confront. I think Gunnar Myrdal referred to some such
effect as cumulative causation...without any affirmative action now even
possible to challenge it.

Rakesh
Grad student
Ethnic Studies
UC Berkeley

>Hi folks,
>
>In the context of a discussion today of the social construction of race,
>a student brought up the myth of differences in musculature between
>Africans and Europeans, insisting that in fact there were real
>and significant differences.
>
>This came in at the end of class, so next time I want to pursue it
>along the lines of:  "do all Africans have this alleged difference? ie,
>South African Bantu speaking folks, as well as Northern desert dwellers
>or eastern Somalis, and  does this difference i

[PEN-L:7323] Re: "widows & orphans"

[Doug Henwood]

At 1:19 PM 11/7/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>This is serious stuff: there's an underground Wall Street theory
>that says that when the "widows and orphans" (WS jargon for
>amateurs, outsiders) get into the stock market (with or without
>mutual funds as mediators), it's time for a crash.
>
>I don't know if there is any empirical evidence for or against
>that theory. Doug?

Most finance academics would say no, but most people on Wall Street believe
it to be the case. Not that a crash is imminent - just that things are
wildly overvalued and due for a, um, correction. Ditto the reverse - when
the general public is staying out, then it's time to buy. Problem is that
these sentiment indicators are pretty poor for timing - trends that have
gone way out of whack can go even further out of whack.

Merrill Lynch used to use the behavior of its own margin account customers
as a contrary indicator (cash accounts were thought to be more sober).
Don't know if they still do, but they did in the early 80s.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 

[PEN-L:7324] Fwd: Affirmative Action in public employment and education is dead

[MScoleman]

In a message dated 96-11-07 14:06:11 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Myra
Strober) writes:

>ubj:   Affirmative Action in public employment and education is dead
>Date:  96-11-07 14:06:11 EST
>From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Myra Strober)
>Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>As you may have heard, Prop. 209, the so-called California Civil Rights
>Initiative, passed with an uncomfortable margin on Tuesday.  The ACLU and
>the Now Legal Defense Fund have already filed suit to challenge the
>constitutionality of the initiative, which in effect ends affirmative action
>in public education, public employment and public contracting.
>
>Some of you may not know the full implications of this initiative.  In at
>least one respect, the implications may be even more dire for women than for
>minority men.  There is a very scary clause (31 c) in that initiative that
>could be extremely detrimental for women's employment.
>
>The initiative adds the following to California's constitution:
>
>The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment
>to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or
>national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or
>public contracting.
>
>Here's the scary clause:  Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as
>prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably
>necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or
>public contracting. 
>
>As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the bona fide occupational
>qualification in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act a very narrow
>interpretation.  NOBODY KNOWS HOW THE CALIFORNIA COURT WILL INTERPRET CLAUSE
>31B.  If the Court gives employers wide berth with regard to bona fide
>occupational qualifications based on sex, it truly will undue 30 years of
>progress for women in the employment arena.
>
>Other states have been waiting to see the fate of Prop. 209 and will now be
>introducing similar legislation.  In addition, there is a bill like this in
>the wings in Congress.  WATCH OUT.  Everything feminists have fought for in
>terms of improving girls' educational opportunities and women's employment
>is now in potential jeopardy.
>
>In California, it is not clear to me that white women understood section
>31C, or even knew that it was in the initiative.  (It was only in the fine
>print in the ballot pamphlet and not in the summary that appeared on the
>ballot itself).  Hopefully some of you in other states will have time (and
>warning) to mobilize against such similar legislation or initiatives and
>educate the electorate.
>
>Tuesday was a very sad day in California.
>
>Myra Strober
>School of Education
>Stanford University
>Stanford, CA 94305
>415-723-0387
>fax:  415-493-6367
>email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

I would just add a couple of points to Myra's message, which, I unfortunately
agree with.

1.  I think that this vote will serve as a legitimizing symbol to a growing
backlash against affirmative action, particularly against women in
nontraditional careers (whatever the hell nontraditional means).

2.  I believe that the business community will increasingly not comply with
affirmative action laws on the books, and complainants will find beleaguered
public agencies less and less able to deal with monitoring compliance.

maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

p.s.  one reason pomoism is important is because it at least attempts to
combat real world problems like this one,
-
Forwarded message:
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Myra Strober)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 96-11-07 14:06:11 EST

As you may have heard, Prop. 209, the so-called California Civil Rights
Initiative, passed with an uncomfortable margin on Tuesday.  The ACLU and
the Now Legal Defense Fund have already filed suit to challenge the
constitutionality of the initiative, which in effect ends affirmative action
in public education, public employment and public contracting.

Some of you may not know the full implications of this initiative.  In at
least one respect, the implications may be even more dire for women than for
minority men.  There is a very scary clause (31 c) in that initiative that
could be extremely detrimental for women's employment.

The initiative adds the following to California's constitution:

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment
to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or
national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or
public contracting.

Here's the scary clause:  Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as
prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably
necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or
public contracting. 

As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the bona fide occupational
qualification in Title VII of the 1964 

[PEN-L:7325] Re: post-modern wars--Is competitive the heart of...?

[Ajit Sinha]

Regarding the law of value
>you seem pretty close to equating competition with commodity production
>itself.  Am I correct? 
>
>Paul Z.

This is a curved ball, and I don't know whether i can do justice to the
question in the hurry I'm right now. But let me try. In capitalism, as long
as there is commodity production, competition will be an aspect of it. In a
simple commodity production system, a mobility of labor from one branch to
another must be assumed for the law of value to operate. It may not be
called competition but it performs the same purpose. But what about
"commodity production" in societies were occupations are more rigid--like
traditional Hindu caste society? Here we will have some problem. My first
impulse is to not think of production in such division of labor situation as
"commodity production". Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>