[PEN-L:393] Re: A closet stalinist without knowing it myself (was:
Reply to Barkley, who says: I did not throw out dialectics. I fully agree with your analysis of it, including especially its use/interpretation in modern nonlinear dynamics. I suspected that, Barkley. :-) But all the same - The issue is the extension of dialectics derived from historical materialism to everything, as with Plekhanov-Lenin-Stalin. Thus scientific truth is to be judged according to class analysis, the classic example being the argument that Lysenko was right This is just one of several instances throughout history of misusing political theory and philosophy for state power purposes, and this has happened not only with marxism. What I still want to know is why especially DIALECTICS have been so dangerous (useful) in the hands of Stalin, as opposed to f.inst. such topics in Marxism as "class struggle", "leading role of the proletariat", etc. ? They have also been extensively misused. Trond Andresen
[PEN-L:394] Re: A closet stalinist without knowing it myself (w
Reply to Gil Skillman, who says Trond writes I find the following elements of dialectics in conjunction with materialism very appropriate: - Description of social relationships and phenomena as transitory and changing as opposed to static. - These dynamics interpreted as driven by interaction between opposites, not the result of one-sided influence (f.inst. if one employs a historic materialist viewpoint and forgets dialectics, one very often ends up as a determinist historical materialist). - Sudden qualitative change as a result of gradual quantitative change. , but I don't see how any of these statements, or at least the valid parts of them, ... Which -if any- of these statements is non-valid, Gil? ... depend in any fundamental way on dialectical reasoning _per se_, a suspicion Trond's subsequent discussion of nonlinear systems seems to corroborate. Any of these statements may perfectly well be valid _without_ being considered part of "dialectics", that is of course true. But this is beside the point since I tried to give a compact _definition_ of "dialectics" in a marxism context. Trond Andresen
[PEN-L:395] Re: A closet stalinist without knowing it myself
Reply to Jim D., who says in a comment on my message: Recent work by Levins and Lewontin (THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST) and others suggest that the Hegel/Engels perspective that dialectical reasoning can help us understand nature has a lot of truth in it. Possibly, but if you by "nature" mean the natural sciences, this wasn't a point from me. I only upheld that dialectics are helpful in analyzing social, political, cultural phenomena. On the other issue I also have opinions, but not in this message. But the important thing is to remember that the "dialectics of (nonhuman) nature" are different from the dialectics of human society. People are conscious creatures who consciously transform their world according to preconceived ideals and other notions, unlike ants and parakeets. We don't make history as we please, but we make history nonetheless. Agree completely, in fact this is an argument _for_ dialectics when analyzing the role of humans in society. "Society shape and change people, but people also shape and change society". Thus one avoids narrow historical materialist determinism. Also, the dialectics of the human/non-human nature relationship is different from those of either humanity or non-human nature. Yes, again. Trond Andresen
[PEN-L:398] Status of URPE at ASSA
Does anyone know the status of the URPE panels at the ASSA for January, 1996? Thanks, Ann Davis
[PEN-L:399] Re: A closet stalinist without knowing it my
Ajit writes: Congratulation to Barkley for introducing a substantial issue for debate and steering us away from the mud throwing contest on individual personalities. It is always problematic to really know what is meant by *dialectics* in Marxist literature. I don't know how substantial this issue is, but as far as I can tell, there are 5 different meanings of "dialectics": (1) dialectical models: dialectics as a description of how dynamic processes work. This is the kind of thing that Trond describes when he talks about mathematical models. BTW, non-Marxists such as Kenneth Boulding have developed models that are labelled "dialectical." (Whether this is an accurate description or not is another issue; frankly, I don't know.) (2) dialectical ontology: this centers on the assertion that the objective world is an interconnected and dynamic (usually conflictual) system, suffering from (or enjoying), not just quantitative but qualitative changes. To me, I don't see how one can assume that this ontology is accurate, since we don't know empirical reality directly. Instead, we may use this description as a working hypothesis, an assumption, which suggests that dialectical reasoning is appropriate. See #3. (3) dialectical reasoning, which as Ajit points out, is anti-Cartesian. Further, this reasoning would include Marx's discussion in the introduction to his GRUNDRISSE about his method of analysis, (a) starting with perceived empirical reality, (b) abstracting from it, and (c) then reconstructing concrete reality in abstract reasoning by progressively moving to a less abstract analysis. To my mind, this also involves asking a set of questions of empirical reality, a heuristic: what are the elements of the system? how do these parts interact to form a unified whole? how does the whole feed back to affect the character of the parts? how does this back-and-forth between whole and parts (the unity of opposites) lead to dynamics? Reasoning about an issue that does not attempt to ask these questions by its very nature gives incomplete and therefore wrong answers. If I accurately understood what Gil said in response to Trond, he is saying that dialectical models may be great but that does not mean that we need dialectical reasoning. To me, this doesn't make sense; it is crude formalism (a glorification of math, formal logic, and graphs over other sorts of reasoning). We need some step _before_ we build models, what Schumpeter called a "vision." Crucially, we need _philosophy_ to help us decide which models are superior to others. We also need philosophy to help us understand what a model means; it may imply a partial truth, but what does it say in context? (A model of voluntary exchange presents a partial truth; however, it this is seen as the essence of life under capitalism, it's untrue. Instead it represents a one small part of the system.) The neoclassicals, for example, start with an implicit ontological assumption that the world is inherently static, that the different spheres of human experience and action are easily separable, etc. This vision produces a form of reasoning that is inherently static and treats "society" as exogenous to the "economy," etc. This in turn results in static models, etc. Dialectical ontological assumptions, on the other hand, produce dialectical reasoning, which privileges dialectical models. BTW, I agree with Ajit that at some deep level dialectics maintains causality. It's just that dialectics rejects the simple linear causality of Cartesian theory as being the whole picture. Causation doesn't simply flow from "base" to "superstructure" as in the Plekanov story; it goes both ways, as part of a complex dynamic process. (I'm not using the word "complex" in the technical sense, BTW.) (4) dialectical mode of presentation: Marx does this in CAPITAL, using a lot of Hegelian language and, in line with #3(c), steadily moving from the highly abstract analysis at the start of vol. I to the more concrete analysis of vol. III. Unfortunately, Marx didn't explain his mode of analysis and its relationship to his mode of presentation very well. This not only meant that it is easy for reasonable people to disagree about what CAPITAL is about. It also helped open the door to: (5) dialectical obscurantism: this is what Ajit refers to when he says that When Marxist economists use the term "dialectical method" it most of the time turns into the "last refuse of the scoundrel" Unfortunately, it's not just Stalin and his type who engage in this kind of stuff. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:401] Journal Stuff on Internet
Two internet sites of possible interest: 1) Information on 20+ heterodox economics journals. Initial ( crudely presented) information about 20+ journals that are indexed in the Review of Heterodox Economics. It appears at csf.colorado.edu. Go to Economics directory, then go to Resources on the Internet for Economists. 2) Blackwell indexes its own articles. Blackwell has a web site that list articles appearing in their journals. It lists them according to the JEL classification system. This site is: http://savage.ecn.bris.ac.uk/cticce/blackeai.htm Eric .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:402] Eric, please contact Robert
Dear Eric please tell me where you are at the moment? Regards, Robert McIntyre
[PEN-L:403] Re: A closet stalinist without knowing it my
Jim writes: If I accurately understood what Gil said in response to Trond, he is saying that dialectical models may be great but that does not mean that we need dialectical reasoning. To me, this doesn't make sense; it is crude formalism (a glorification of math, formal logic, and graphs over other sorts of reasoning). Perish the thought! But to affirm the insufficiency of formal argument for understanding the world is not necessarily to embrace dialectical reasoning; in particular, unless one defines the terms as identical (which would make "dialectical materialism" equal to "historical materialism" by definition), one can do historical analysis without doing dialectical analysis. Indeed, in my experience " dialectical analysis" has often involved a fetishistic, and not obviously legitimate, imposition of structure on historical materials. Jim continues: We need some step _before_ we build models, what Schumpeter called a "vision." Crucially, we need _philosophy_ to help us decide which models are superior to others. We also need philosophy to help us understand what a model means; it may imply a partial truth, but what does it say in context? Agreed. Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:404] GAO online
Good news for geeks! The GAO Daybook is now online!! Details follow!!! Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax = 1.1 - GAO's DAYBOOK VIA LISTSERV The U.S. General Accounting Office, Congress' Watchdog agency, now has available a daily electronic posting of released reports. The "GAO Daybook" is the daily listing of released GAO reports. To subscribe to the GAO Daybook, send an e-mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "subscribe daybook" (NO qoutes). The subscribe welcome file contains info on how to retrieve back issues. To UNSUBSCRIBE to the GAO Daybook, send an e-mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "unsubscribe daybook" (NO qoutes). 1.2 - GAO FAQ VIA AUTO-REPLY E-MAIL To receive the current GAO FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) automatically, send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:406] dialectics, cont.
(this replies to a note titled something like "the effects of gamma rays on closet stalinists and man in the moon marigolds") I wrote:If I accurately understood what Gil said in response to Trond, he is saying that dialectical models may be great but that does not mean that we need dialectical reasoning. To me, this doesn't make sense; it is crude formalism (a glorification of math, formal logic, and graphs over other sorts of reasoning). He writes:Perish the thought! good: I misunderstood your point and we agree in our opposition to formalism. But to affirm the insufficiency of formal argument for understanding the world is not necessarily to embrace dialectical reasoning; in particular, unless one defines the terms (dialectical reasoning and understanding the world) as identical ..., one can do historical analysis without doing dialectical analysis. Indeed, in my experience " dialectical analysis" has often involved a fetishistic, and not obviously legitimate, imposition of structure on historical materials. As with the application of most methodologies, lot of the "dialectical analysis" is very poor (the last refuse of a scholar, as Ajit says). In fact, it is often very formulaic, ignoring the need for a dialectic between the formal categories and perceived empirical reality. (Much of it is as bad as GA Cohen's "historical materialism.") It ignores the fact that dialectical reasoning supplies not answers but questions. But Gil, what is your substitute for dialectical methodology? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:405] AFL-CIO foreign policy
DEMOCRACY BACKGROUNDER: A Forum for the Study of U.S. Government Democratization Programs and Other Democratization Issues. * The DEMOCRACY BACKGROUNDER is a bi-monthly publication produced by the Interhemispheric Resource Center, a private nonprofit research and policy institute located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Founded in 1979, the Resource Center produces books, and policy reports about U.S. foreign relations with the Third World, as well as sponsoring popular education materials. The DEMOCRACY BACKGROUNDER is published six times annually. Subscription rate for The DEMOCRACY BACKGROUNDER is $15/year in the U.S., and $20/year for foreign subscriptions. To order by Visa or MasterCard, please call the IRC at (505) 842- 8288 from 8-5 MST. Or send a check to The Interhemispheric Resource Center, Box 4506, Albuquerque, NM 87196 * Democracy Backgrounder Vol.1, no.2 AFL-CIO Promotes Democracy and Economic Reform Overseas Since the 1940s the U.S. government has worked through U.S. labor unions to further its foreign policy objectives, particularly the containment and rollback of communism. After World War II and especially in the 1960s this relationship between the government and labor deepened as part of the intensifying cold war. Starting in the 1980s "democracy strengthening" has formed another key component to the AFL-CIO's overseas activities.1 The Agency for International Development (AID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) currently have labor programs in every region of the world. Both institutions work through the international institutes of the AFL-CIO to implement these programs as they have done for years. With deep historical roots in aggressive anticommunism, the AFL- CIO framed its world view and international programs through a cold war lens. Hand in hand with the U.S. government, the AFL-CIO carried out a war against purported communist unions through the "free" labor unions it financed and trained. The close ties to the U.S. government and the ideological character of its operations opened up the AFL-CIO to criticisms that its overseas programs responded more to U.S. foreign policy goals than to the needs of U.S. and foreign workers. The cold war is over, but that has not weakened the ties between the U.S. government and the AFL-CIO's international programs. Despite congressional attempts to slash the foreign assistance budget and possibly even to eliminate AID, these highly controversial, largely ineffective, and sometimes quite harmful international labor programs continue to count on firm support in Washington. AID Administrator J. Brian Atwood stresses that the U.S. labor movement is an effective force in achieving sustainable development goals.2 As part of his effort to gain congressional support for the Clinton administration's foreign assistance budget, an official of the Latin America and Caribbean bureau asserted, "The historic movement toward democracy would not have been possible without the active involvement of democratic trade unions and the support we provided them through the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD)."3 In 1995 the labor federation's foreign operations are scheduled to receive nearly $25 million from AID, while these overseas labor operations received $9 million from NED in 1994. Why do these programs continue in the post-cold war era? What is the U.S. government's rationale behind funding these programs? How do these programs fit into a larger US foreign policy context? This is the first of two Democracy Backgrounder reports examining these questions, and we begin by describing current programs and objectives. AID Funding for AFL-CIO's International Institutes The Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI) is the flagship institution of the AFL-CIO's four international branches. FTUI oversees and channels funds to the following three regional institutes: American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), Asian American Free Labor Institute (AAFLI), and African American Labor Center (AALC). In addition, FTUI has its own regional focus: Eastern Europe and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. FTUI Unlike its other regional grants, AID funds to FTUI are not channeled through the agency's Center for Democracy and Governance (See Democracy Backgrounder, No. 1). Rather, FTUI's AID funds come by way of the agency's Regional Bureau for Europe and the New Independent States. Direct aid to FTUI is for two regional programs, one in Central Europe including all countries except the Czech Republic and the other one in the former Soviet Union. The first grant of this kind was a two-year grant awarded in 1992. In 1994 the FTUI grant was renegotiated and established as more of a cooperative agreement, making it more an AID/FTUI partnership. FTUI does the work in the region while AID retains
[PEN-L:407] Re: dialectics, cont.
Jim corresponds: I wrote:If I accurately understood what Gil said in response to Trond, he is saying that dialectical models may be great but that does not mean that we need dialectical reasoning. To me, this doesn't make sense; it is crude formalism (a glorification of math, formal logic, and graphs over other sorts of reasoning). He writes:Perish the thought! good: I misunderstood your point and we agree in our opposition to formalism. Again, no. I am not "opposed" to formalism, and think that any such unqualified opposition is superstitious. I've said before on this net that there are certain tasks best (and perhaps, uniquely) addressed through formal argument. Rather, I agreed that formal argument of itself is inadequate for a complete social understanding: specifically, because formal argument works from a given axiom set, and historical change involves changing "axioms", or given presuppositions. I had said: But to affirm the insufficiency of formal argument for understanding the world is not necessarily to embrace dialectical reasoning; in particular, unless one defines the terms (dialectical reasoning and understanding the world) as identical ..., one can do historical analysis without doing dialectical analysis. Indeed, in my experience " dialectical analysis" has often involved a fetishistic, and not obviously legitimate, imposition of structure on historical materials. To which Jim responds: As with the application of most methodologies, lot of the "dialectical analysis" is very poor (the last refuse of a scholar, as Ajit says). In fact, it is often very formulaic, ignoring the need for a dialectic between the formal categories and perceived empirical reality. (Much of it is as bad as GA Cohen's "historical materialism.") It ignores the fact that dialectical reasoning supplies not answers but questions. But Gil, what is your substitute for dialectical methodology? It is a nice point to say that dialectical reasoning "supplies not answers but questions." As for my "substitute," I have no pat answer. I don't think there is one; that's what makes good historical analysis so difficult. My abbreviated answer is that there IS a difference between "historical" and "dialectical" materialism, and the former is as good a label as any for my suggested "substitute." Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:408] Dialectic Immaterialism
On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, James Devine wrote: I don't know how substantial this issue is, but as far as I can tell, there are 5 different meanings of "dialectics": It was very important for someone here to at least try to put such complex, mind-bending confusion into some kind of order, no matter how crude (it's a joke, Jim!) IMO. I think discussion here, and on the Marxism List (where this thread really belongs) would do well to make a note of these `5 meanings' and refer back to them when issues around Dialectics get confusing... Perhaps they can be a nucleus for a definition of Dialectics in the (hopefully) future Marxism FAQ... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal + if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig + more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, Benjamin Franklin to purchase a little temporary Safety, Pennsylvania Assembly deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Nov. 11, 1755 -- Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[PEN-L:409] help: governmental negotiations with World Bank
Dear Pen-lers, To help a government engaged in negotiations with the IMF, we need to obtain very quickly the best critical information and references on privatization, information that would be useful in countering IMF arguments in this regard. Please help if you can. Send your messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject heading Attn.: Magdoff. We need the information by Wednesday September 13 at the very latest. In Solidarity, John Bellamy Foster (on behalf of Harry Magdoff)
