[PEN-L:9612] Re: Walras vs. Sraffa

[Stephen Cullenberg]

Gil concludes his long response to Ajit with the following: 

Thus, as I'verepeatedly shown, one can make the same (valid) political
economic points within the Walrasian framework that one can make within the
Sraffian
>framework, with the important difference that the former is arguably more
>descriptive of capitalist reality--markets for labor power and capital do,
>in fact, exist.  So far as I can tell, nothing Ajit has said here changes
>that assessment.
>
>In solidarity, Gil


I generally agreed with most of the points Gil was making regarding the
Arrow-Debreu framework, but I am baffled a bit on two counts by these last
comments.

First, with regards to making the same (valid) political economic points in
both the A-D and Sraffian systems - do you think Gil that the A-D world can
meaningfully articulate an economic system where a surplus (and hence
exploitation) exists as an equilibrium result?  Before you mention Roemer
and his notion of exploitation as unequal labor exchange, which I
understand, I wonder if you would explain how an A-D neoclassical would
feel comfortable with an economic surplus as an equilbrium result, and
therefore a profit opportunity that paradoxically is not being taken
advantage of in equilbrium?  That a Sraffian can feel comfrotable with such
a result seems to me to imply at least some political differences.

Second, I know no economic theorist who would claim that the A-D model is
at all an attempt at descriptive reality.  That is not the purpose of the
research program.  Instead, the purpose is to raise certain counterfactual
questions about potential equilibria that can be evaluated for their Pareto
optimality or not.  The approach is to find SUFFICIENT conditions for
certain results to be logically examined.  Mostly, as Frank Hahn has argued
so forcefully (Ie, in his short book _On Equilibrium_), this research
provides a negative heuristic for outlandish claims for the superiority of
free markets, etc.  Whether the intellectual energy that has gone into this
research is worth the results, is another question of course.

The Sraffian approach to GE is a bit different.  It begins by saying given
certain input coefficients and usually a real wage bundle, then what, if
any, are the NECESSARY prices and profit rate rate, that are entailed by
such data, given the added economic condition that the profit rate is
positive and equal.  And then, let's investigate what happens to these
prices and profit rate as certain data are changed or new conditions
introduced.

Steve 


***
Stephen Cullenberg  office:  (909) 787-5037, ext. 1573
Department of Economics fax: (909) 787-5685
University of California[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Riverside, CA 92521
http://www.ucr.edu/CHSS/depts/econ/sc.htm

[PEN-L:9611] Min. Wage Raised by Australian Labor Court

[Michael Eisenscher]

The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition -- April 22, 1997
   Australian Labor Court Sets
   Living Wage Below Union Claim

   AP-Dow Jones News Service

   SYDNEY, Australia -- An Australian labor court Tuesday
   granted a raise of 10 Australian dollars per week for
   low-paid workers in response to labor unions' so-called
   "living wage" claim.

   The Australian Industrial Relations Commission issued its
   wage decision on the Australian Council of Trade Unions'
   claim after months of deliberation. The decision was in-line
   with analysts' expectations.

   The commission set a federal minimum wage of A$359.40
   per week (US$279.43), compared to the unions' claim for
   around A$380 per week.

   The commission indicated that it sees any raise above that
   level as inflationary and inconsistent with the Reserve Bank
   of Australia's target for inflation. The central bank aims to
   keep underlying inflation at 2%-3% over the course of the
   business cycle.

   The ACTU, a national labor union representative group,
   wanted an A$20-a-week "safety net" pay raise in each of
   the next three years for low-paid workers. It also wanted an
   8.75% pay raise for all workers on awards, which are
   agreements reached under a centralized wage fixing system.

   Australia's labor laws give employees a choice between
   negotiating an enterprise, or workplace, agreement with
   their employer with the help of a labor union, signing an
   individual work contract, or remaining in an awards
   structure.

   In explaining its decision, the commission noted that it was
   imperative to keep price pressures within the target the
   Reserve Bank set.

   "Any increase greater than the amount which we grant
   carries a risk, in our view, of leading to a rise in interest
   rates, in the current state of the economy, with a high and
   seemingly stationary unemployment rate and inadequate
   [economic] growth rate we are unwilling to take that risk,"
   the commission said in its ruling.

   Unemployment stood at 8.7% in March, year-to-year
   inflation reached 1.5% in the fourth quarter of 1996, and
   annual growth stood at 3.1% in the fourth quarter.

   The commission said that if it had granted the wage request
   the union made, it would have caused average weekly
   overtime earnings to grow at an annual rate of 6%, "well in
   excess of the current inflation rate."

   That level would have led to a "significantly higher" inflation
   rate, the ruling said, "unless the monetary authorities took
   corrective action."

   Analysts had expected the commission would grant a rise of
   A$10 to A$12 a week. A rise of more than A$15 a week
   would spark concern over "excessive" wages growth, they
   said.

   The A$10 wage rise granted to low-paid workers by the
   commission will be available to workers who earn less than
   average weekly earnings, excluding overtime, who haven't
   negotiated an enterprise agreement. The decision applies
   starting Tuesday, according to the commission.

   In its ruling, the commission noted that it needed to balance
   various interests in granting the so-called safety net rise for
   low-paid workers. It emphasized particularly a measure of
   wages growth known as average weekly ordinary time
   earnings.

   The ruling said that the increase granted would contribute
   0.34% to that measure of wage growth.

   The Reserve Bank of Australia had indicated that the full
   union wage claim would have contributed an unacceptably
   high percentage to wages growth. The court indicated that
   the allowed increase would be consistent with the central
   bank aims for price pressures.

   In the three months to November 1996, average weekly
   earnings, excluding overtime, rose 3.9% year-on-year to
   A$686.70.

   Treasurer Peter Costello had repeatedly said the ACTU
   claim, if successful in full, would be inflationary and not
   conducive to "low" interest rates.

   In its submission to the labor court the government said the
   living wage decision will 

[PEN-L:9610] Re: Walras vs. Sraffa

[Gil Skillman]

Ajit writes:

>After reading through Gil's claims about the GE theory, I couldn't help but
>remember some of the circuses I saw when I was a child. They make elephants
>dance on their hind legs and tigers jump through hoops of fire. You can not
>not marvel at the skills of the trainers. But I for one get more concerned
>about the cruelty to the animal. Elephants were not born to dance on their
>hind legs-- a point alluded to by Robin Hanel already, so I will leave this
>point there.

Coincidentally, Ajit's post evoked a childhood memory of my own.  My parents
took me to see a debate in which one participant made an argument for which
his opponent apparently had no effective response.  Rather than expose this
fact by attempting to answer the argument directly, that opponent told some
elaborate  story involving circuses, elephants on hind legs, tigers jumping
through hoops, and the like, seemingly intended (but not realized) as a
metaphor about the first debater's argument.  This stratagem failed miserably. 

I suppose the relevance of one or the other of our childhood memories will
presently become clear. Until then, I'll just note that Ajit ignores most of
my direct responses to his original claims (e.g., concerning the
significance of reswitching phenomena to the critique of the Walrasian
model), and so far as I can see his new points just offer additional
illustrations of my original position--that the differences he asserts
between the Walrasian and Sraffian systems are more apparent than real,
having much more to do with the different political economic concerns of
their respective exponents than with any necessary difference in the
analytical systems themselves.  Also, as a preview of what's to come, I'll
reiterate my observation that mere omission shouldn't count as a point in
favor of a theory.  If it did, then the  claim that "stuff happens" is the
most powerful political economic model going.

Ajit continues:

> I have one simple question to ask Gil, and then I might have more ;).
>Question: Arrow-Debreu commodities have many properties attached to them.
>One of them is time. So let's say we start off with the commodites for time
>zero. These commodities, by definition cannot be the products of
>commodities, ie. they could not have been produced by commodities.

I disagree.  Ajit's claim holds only if one insists that in the Arrow-Debreu
framework "time zero" *must* be interpreted literally as "the beginning of
time", or, if you'd prefer, "the beginning of market time."  But in no case
that I know of is "time zero" interpreted in this way--rather it is taken to
represent "the current period" or "the initial period" of an economic
interaction under study.  Of course, one can assume this without having to
pretend that current endowments fall like manna from heaven. 

> This situation cannot arise in Sraffian system because his commodities are
always
> products of commodities. 

Yes, by assumption, but this hardly counts as a point in favor of the
Sraffian system on descriptive grounds.  First, as a descriptive matter
commodities *should* be time-indexed, as they are in the Arrow-Debreu
framework, because in fact production and circulation takes
time--commodities serving as inputs into production exist at an earlier
point of time than the commodities produced with these inputs.  The Sraffian
system, of course, glosses over this distinction.  If it didn't, it would
commit the same spurious "error" Ajit identifies above.  More on this point
below.

Second, by the same token, the Sraffian system ignores the operation of
markets which intrinsically involve time--like capital markets and other
futures markets.  But this is hardly a point in favor of the Sraffian
system, since as a purely descriptive matter markets for financial capital
do exist.  This omission has in the past led to infamous confusions on the
part of Sraffian critics of Walrasian theory (none of which I'm necessarily
imputing to Ajit, I should note).  (Examples on request.)

Ajit continues:

>So what does this mean? It means that the two
>theoretical worlds are wide appart. The GE framework does not get away from
>what Sraffa called a "one way avenue", ie. a linear theoretical structure
>which goes from 'factors of production' to consumer goods production.

For reasons given above, this distinction is necessarily specious.

>Consumption is the final *goal* of the theory. So the theory is ahistorical
>through and through. It is a solution to a problem generated by axiomatic
>*nature* of man. The Sraffian theoretical framework is circular. It is
>interested in the question of *reproduction*-- consumption is simply a
>moment in the reproduction of the system.

Ajit's anthropomorphic wording, which suggests the bizarre notion that
theories, i.e. formal analytical structures, can somehow *themselves* have
"goals" and "interests" (as if my copy of _Production of Commodities by
Means of Commodities_ could express an "interest" in going out 

[PEN-L:9609] Re: civil society

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 12:24 PM 4/22/97 -0700, Max Sawicky wrote:
>> Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> From:  Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject:   [PEN-L:9594] civil society
>

>I thought it was DeToqueville.  To me the term connotes
>not simply foundations but the entire organization outside
>the strictly-defined public sector, meaning family, community
>organizations, lodges, trade unions and associations, etc.  
>Obviously, as JD says, this is all shot through with class relations 
>of an unwholesome nature, but it also reflects efforts by the working
>class to organize itself.


It is also my reading of deTocqueville.  The theoretical problem he tried to
solve was the question "what holds individuals together to form an
integrated society immune to tyranny."  Under the ancien regime, social
order was grounded in the Aristotelian concept of natural law and human
nature.  That is, a social order was "just" or "natural" when it allowed
every individual a full realisation of his/her human potential circumscribed
by the nature the Creator endowed him/her with.  Since different individuals
had different natures, some had nature of a slave while other of the master,
the society was organised to accomodate those different natures.

One important consequence of that doctrine was the attitude toward work and
the accumulation of material goods.  In short, work and accumulation beyond
what was necessary according to human nature was viewed as unnatural and
thus sinful.  Of course, that proscription to accumulate was antithetical to
the nascent capitalism for which constant accumulation was the ultimate
goal.  Therefore, as the ancien regime was being replaced by the bourgeois
world system, a new ideology that would justify accumulation was needed (for
more on that see Max Weber, _Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_).

The new ideological expression of the logic of accumulation was the doctrine
of infinite perfectability of human nature (more is always better, in plain
English) which deToqueville addresses at length in the vol. II of his
_Democracy in America_.  This belief is the justification of democracy, for
it implies freeing individuals from what was now viewed as constraints
imposed by the feudal social order.  However, this pursuit of individal
perfection had one undesirable consequence, it atomised and disintegrated
society making it ripe for the worst tyranny of all -- the tyranny of the
majority (which deTocqueville conceptualises as a tyrannical government
taking control of all affairs that are not of direct concern to private
affairs of individuals).

DeTocqueville antidote to the tyranny of majority was a network of civic
associations acting as intermediaries that would allow individuals to
directly participate in public affairs (rather than doing do through
el;ected representatives.)  As I understand it, this was also the stance
against the Jacobin doctrine of no intermediaries between individuals and
the state.

The Jacobins, in turn, adopted the "no-intermediaries" doctrine in direct
opposition to the ancien regime, especially the Catholic Church, whose grip
on French society was exercised through a myriad of ancilliary organizations
it set up and controlled.  Even when the backbone of the Church's power
(property) was broken by the French Revolution, the network of these
organisational relics of the ancien regime persisted, allowing the Church to
hide some of its property from confiscation, and to and to infuse and
mainatain royalist sympathies in French society (that pattern was not unique
to France, and repeated itself in other parts of Europe).  

To offset that royalist influence, the jacobins advocated the dissolution of
all "intermediary associations" except political clubs, the latter seen as
the necessary instrument of political mobilisation of the citizenry.  

Of course, the question is what deTocqueville, himself of aristocratic
pedigree, really tried to accomplish: warn his fellow citizens about the
dangers the elimination of the "civil society" (or intermediary
organisations between the citizen and the state) to democracy, or simply to
preserve the organisational relics of the ancien regime.  But his solution
to the question of citizen self-governance is indeed worth more than any
hidden agenda he might (or might not) have had.

It needs to be emphasized that this concept of civil society as the medium
of self-governence and participatory democracy is much different from what
passess for the "nonprofit sector" in English speaking countries, especially
the US.  The latter is simply conceptualised by the neo-classical and
transaction-cost economists as a more or less loosely defined residual
category that merely solves the efficient resource distribution problem.
Due to externalities or information asymmetry, certain types of goods cannot
be efficiently distributed through the markets, and thus call for the public
sector.  However, the public sector may also face contrai

[PEN-L:9608] Re: LatAm Marxism

[Alan Cibils]

Two further volumes on this issue:

Marxism, Socialism and Democracy in Latin America by Richard Harris, Westview
Press, 1992.

The Latin American Left: From the Fall of Allende to Perestroika, edited
by Barry Carr and Steve Ellner, Westview Press, 1993.

Alan

[PEN-L:9607] re: civil society

[Michael Perelman]

Therborn, Go"ran. 1976. Science, Class and Society: On the Formation
of Sociology and Historical Materialism (London: NLB).155: Hegel,
Philosophy of Right, 1st major thinker who formulated distinction
between State and Civil Society. "Civil Society is the [order of]
difference which intervenes between the family and the state" "..the
creation of civil society is the achievement of the modern world" Knox
ed., Oxford 1942, pp. 182 and Addition p. 266. To Hobbes and Locke,
civil society was contrasted with a state of nature and was synonymous
with a politically organized society. see Leviathan, chs. xvii and
xxxvii, Penguin ed., pp. 223-8, 478. Locke's 2d treatise, ch VII, "Of
political or civil Society" 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:9606] Communist Party Of Brazil Celebrates 75th Anniversary

[SHAWGI TELL]

The Communist Party of Brazil (CPdoB), led by Joao Amazonas,
celebrated its 75th anniversary on March 25, 1997. CPdoB is one
of the few parties in the world which, at the time of the rise of
revisionism in the Soviet Union, did not succumb to its
pressures, neither adopting Khruschevite revisionism nor allowing
itself to be split because of it. The CPdoB has endured and
survived the most difficult conditions of complete illegality and
brutal suppression, with many of its cadres having experienced
the harsh conditions of working in clandestinity. The 75th
anniversary marks a long history of unbroken leadership in the
struggle of the working class and people of Brazil for freedom,
national independence and socialism. 
 In October, the CPdoB will convene its 9th Congress. At its
8th Congress, held in 1992, the PCdoB decided that its existing
program of a two-stage revolution, democratic and then socialist,
needed to be replaced by a program recognizing only one stage of
revolution in Brazil: a socialist revolution within which the
democratic and anti-imperialist tasks would also be fulfilled. It
entered into a period of cross-country discussions on a Socialist
Program for Brazil, leading to its successful adoption at its 8th
National Conference in August of 1995.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:9605] Communist Party Of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist) Holds 7th Congress

[SHAWGI TELL]

>From March 27-30, the Communist Party of Denmark
(Marxist-Leninist) convened its 7th Congress. The Congress
adopted a Program For a Socialist Denmark, concluding a period of
more than three years of discussion on it within the party and
amongst all communists in Denmark. It sums up the experience of
socialism on the world scale, analyses the national situation,
and concludes that socialism is the only real alternative to the
capitalist system and the project of the European monopolies to
create a European Union under their total dictate. 
 The 7th Congress of the CPD(M-L) also dealt with
constitutional amendments; the party's line and tactics to
strengthen its influence in the working class and trade union
movement, and amongst the youth; concrete proposals to advance
the struggle against Denmark's entry into the European Union; and
the strengthening of the party's daily newspaper Dagbladet
Arbejderen (The Daily Worker). The Congress also reaffirmed the
CPD(M-L) as a Marxist-Leninist party that stands with the
international communist movement, underlining its
internationalist support for Cuba, North Korea and all other
peoples and nations fighting for national independence, and
socialism.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:9604] Re: M-I: LatAm Marxism

[Alan Cibils]

In reply to Louis P., I agree that Peron cannot be judged a fascist
given his actions as president of Argentina. However, he did
have clear sympathies for Fanco and Mussolini which went well beyond the
commercial ties that Argentina held with Spain and France. Evita's
trip to Spain and her head-of-state-like reception by Franco speak
to the close ties between the two governments. Fruthermore, the institution
that provided Peron with access to power, namely the army, had
strong fascist leanings.

Clearly none of this makes Peron a fascist, but his sympathies for them
went beyond antagonism to the U.S. or mere circumstances.

Alan

[PEN-L:9603] Re: M-I: civil society

[Andrew Wayne Austin]

Doug,

The use of the term "civil society" comes from Marxian formulations of the
concept, and in this form it does come from Hegel, as you noted. Gramsci's
formulation is emerging as the dominant meaning in political economy (see
Gill or Robinson).

Andrew

[PEN-L:9602] '96 Presidential Elections

[SHAWGI TELL]

Greetings,

This is not exatly what was asked for, but it might prove helpful.
-
_
100|
   |
   |  Voter participation in Presidential elections
___|_ as a percentage of eligible voters;
 80|  100% equals all those eligible to vote.
  _|
   |
___|_   ###
 60|  ###   ###   ###   ###
  _|  ###   ###   ###   ###
   |  ###   ###   ###   ###
___|_ ###   ###   ###   ###
 40|  ###   ###   ###   ###
  _|  XXX ###   XXX ###   ###   ###
   |  XXX ###   XXX ###   XXX ###   XXX ###
___|_ XXX ###   XXX ###   XXX ###   XXX ###
 20|  OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###   XXX ###
  _|  OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###
   |  OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###   OOO XXX ###
 __|__OOO_XXX_###_|_OOO_XXX_###_ _OOO_XXX_###_|_OOO_XXX_###_
 1980 |1984 |1988 |1992

   OOO Voted for Winner  XXX Voted  ### Registered to Vote

SOURCE: Compiled from the 1995 US Statistical Abstract; US Dept. of
Commerce; US Census Bureau.
NOTE: Due to the limitations of e-mail, percentages have been rounded to
the nearest 5%.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:9601] Re: civil society

[Max B. Sawicky]

> Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From:  Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:   [PEN-L:9594] civil society

> Could anyone enlighten me on the evolution of the term civil society? As I
> understand it, Hegel used it to signify the world of market relations. But
> it has come to signify a "third sector," the world of philanthropies,
> community orgnizations, volunteerism, meant as a balance to state and
> market. Since so much of the "third sector" is ruled by big-money
> foundations, it seems to me that present usage is unconsciously
> acknowledging the term's origins, while still professing to offer balance
> to the "market."
> 
> Isn't Vaclav Havel somehow responsible for this?

I thought it was DeToqueville.  To me the term connotes
not simply foundations but the entire organization outside
the strictly-defined public sector, meaning family, community
organizations, lodges, trade unions and associations, etc.  
Obviously, as JD says, this is all shot through with class relations 
of an unwholesome nature, but it also reflects efforts by the working
class to organize itself.

Re: JD's comment it seem logical that Marx's vision of the
state withering away implies the ascendance of civil
society.

Forcing people to think about this, if only by provocation,
is in my opinion a useful antidote to excessive reliance
by the left (liberal and social-democratic, as well as radical)
on commandism in economics and social policy.

MBS


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

Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute.
===

[PEN-L:9600] Re: civil society

[Louis Proyect]

John Ehrenberg, author of the excellent "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is
currently working on a book about this very topic. It probably originated in
Eastern Europe in the way that you describe, but it has been au courant in
Latin American and Central American as well. Jorge Castaneda, the Mexican
left intellectual, wrote "Utopia Unarmed: Latin America after the end of the
Cold War" as a defense of the need for "civil society" rather than the
antiquated notion of dictatorship of the proletariat promoted by the
dinosaur Fidel Castro. Our dear friend Jon Beasley-Murray is doing a PhD
thesis on civil society in Latin America under the watchful eye of Michael
Hardt at Duke University, who has written on civil society in Latin America
in the pages of Social Text. The article is surprisingly clear-headed and
class-oriented giving the venue.

Louis Proyect


At 10:39 AM 4/22/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Could anyone enlighten me on the evolution of the term civil society? As I
>understand it, Hegel used it to signify the world of market relations. But
>it has come to signify a "third sector," the world of philanthropies,
>community orgnizations, volunteerism, meant as a balance to state and
>market. Since so much of the "third sector" is ruled by big-money
>foundations, it seems to me that present usage is unconsciously
>acknowledging the term's origins, while still professing to offer balance
>to the "market."
>
>Isn't Vaclav Havel somehow responsible for this?
>
>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: 
>web: 
>
>
>

[PEN-L:9599] M-I: Re: LatAm Marxism

[Louis Proyect]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Jon Beasley-Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: M-I: Re: LatAm Marxism
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Well...
>
>For current Latin American intellectuals:
>
>I'd suggest definitely the Brazilian Roberto Schwarz (whose _Misplaced 
>Ideas_ is published by Verso); also the Cuban and head of "Casa de las 
>Americas" Roberto Fernandez Retamar (whom I just heard speak in 
>Guadalajara; key book _Caliban and Other Essays_ published by Minnesota); 
>while not quite a Marxist, the Mexican Carlos Monsivais is worth looking 
>at (_Mexican Postcards_ just out from Verso).
>
>For the historical tradition:
>
>You'd have to include Mariategui (_Seven Essays_).  Roque Dalton's 
>_Miguel Marmol_ is fascinating: Marmol was the founder of the Salvadoran 
>communist party, and Dalton a member of one of the guerilla forces that 
>later became the FMLN (until he was assassinated by fellow FMLN leader 
>Joaquin Villalobos).  On economics, dependency theory is Latin Ameican's 
>main contribution to Marxist thought: vulgarized and popularized by 
>(especially) Gunder Frank and Eduardo Galeano (_Open Veins of Latin 
>America_ remains a classic, however), it's worth looking at Cardoso (yup, 
>the current Brazilian president; fascinating essay more or less about him 
>by Schwarz called "Reading Marx in Brazil," but I'm not sure that's been 
>translated) and Faletto's _Dependency and Development in Latin America_.  
>Finally, it's well worth looking at Laclau's _Politics and Ideology in 
>Marxist Theory_ to see the beginnings of the transition to "new social 
>movements" theory.
>
>Then for Latin Americanists:
>
>Two interesting books are first, Michael Taussig's _The Devil and 
>Commodity Fetishism in South America_ and Neil Larsen's recent _Reading 
>North By South_.
>
>So, the above is a start.  My list reflects a certain culturalist bias 
>(of course), and there could well be other, very different suggestions 
>provided as an answer to the same question.
>
>On Evita and Peronism: _The Peron Novel_ by Tomas Eloy Martinez and (so I 
>hear, but I haven't read it yet) _Santa Evita_ by the same author.
>
>Take care
>
>Jon
>
>Jon Beasley-Murray
>Literature Program
>Duke University
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
>

[PEN-L:9598] Re: M-I: civil society

[Stephen E Philion]

Doug,

By far the best article I've read on this is by Ellen Wood (the evil
social democrat, you remember?), called "The Uses and abuses of civil
society". It's a chapter of here book, *Democracy versus Capitalism* (or
against capitalism-don't remember).

Later,  Steve

On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:

> Could anyone enlighten me on the evolution of the term civil society? As I
> understand it, Hegel used it to signify the world of market relations. But
> it has come to signify a "third sector," the world of philanthropies,
> community orgnizations, volunteerism, meant as a balance to state and
> market. Since so much of the "third sector" is ruled by big-money
> foundations, it seems to me that present usage is unconsciously
> acknowledging the term's origins, while still professing to offer balance
> to the "market."
> 
> Isn't Vaclav Havel somehow responsible for this?
> 
> 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: 
> web: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
> 

[PEN-L:9597] re: civil society

[James Devine]

Doug, I first encountered the phrase "civil society" in a course on Marxism
in the early 1970s (taught by William McBride, I believe): Marx's
"burgherlicte geselleshaft" (sp??) could be translated as either "bourgeois
society" or "civil society." But I think that the basic idea of civil
society goes back to John Locke or Thomas Hobbes, the founders of modern
liberal political theory. (I can't find the quote, since someone who
doesn't believe in absolute private property rights walked off with my copy
of Locke.;-))

The idea was (in very crude terms): society as a whole = the state plus
civil society, where civil society is the organized individuals who
contract to create the state (in a social contract), have some say over the
state's operations (through elections, etc.), or oppose the despotism of
the state. (The state, following Hobbes or Max Weber, is the
generally-accepted centralized monopolization of force.)

The phrase became popular recently with the fall of the USSR and its
"people's democracies" in Eastern Europe. The line is that under
"totalitarianism," civil society had been suppressed. But civil society had
reasserted itself, overthrowing "totalitarianism." Now the phrase seems to
have been generalized, to include all non-governmental organizations. (Is
it _all_ of them or only the ones that someone doesn't describe as being "a
special interest"?) 

I don't think that the phrase "civil society" goes against Marxism. The
problem concerns the illusions that liberal thinkers (both classical and
welfare-state) attach to the phrase. They, unlike Marx, ignore the fact
that civil society is class-ridden, with the capitalist organizations of
civil society working against those of the working class (so that the state
represents the former much much more often than the latter). 


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
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.

[PEN-L:9596] Foucault and liberalism

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

 I would suggest that a national element in Foucault's 
late turn to Austrian style liberalism is the nature of the 
French state and society.  It has long been dirigiste and 
etatiste in comparison to most other societies and still 
is, with one of the strongest ongoing systems of indicative 
planning around.  Hayek even identified Saint-Simon as the 
ultimate father of rational constructivist planning and 
social engineering, of which Hayek disapproved.  Indeed, 
there is a direct line from Saint-Simon to the modern 
plannificateurs of the French economy, a trend deeply 
connected to the rationalist Cartesian tradition, as well 
as the policy tradition handed down from Colbert under 
Louis XIV.
 Thus, there has been a countertendency of French 
liberals to tend to go whole hog in reaction to all of 
this.  Laissez-faire is a French term (as is bureau), and 
in Jean-Baptiste Say one has a real poster boy of pure 
classical liberalism with a libertarian bent.
Barkley Rosser

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:9595] FW: March to Protest Cutbacks; Workers' Memorial Day; People's Summit

[Bove, Roger E.]

 --
From: Philadsa
To: shoshana; clampetlundquist; peacedel; QuinnKM; skeptic; rbove; landreau; 
StahlBen; siftartj; hkadran; tobiabj; sullivmj; sschatz; shapsj; rbrand; 
amhoffma; MacMan2; jantzen; leonobol; winant; lsekaric; BerniceS; jhogan; 
emoore; AlEmily; gdolph; straussjohn; strieb
Subject: March to Protest Cutbacks; Workers' Memorial Day; People's Summit
Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 9:29PM

NATIONAL MARCH TO PROTEST CUTBACKS
Sunday, April 27, 2:00 p.m.
Judge Lewis Quadrangle, 6th & Market

At its last meeting, the Steering Committee of Greater Philadelphia DSA 
voted
to endorse this weekend's protest against the Volunteerism Summit being held
in Philadelphia. The march and rally has already been endorsed by over 500
individuals and organizations of all kinds from across the country.
Organizers are expecting a large turn-out. I am told that one organization 
in
New York is sending 25 busloads of people and others are coming from as far
away as San Francisco.  Please show up (with signs, if possible) to protest
the cutbacks in social programs and the billions spent on the military,
corporate welfare, and prison construction.  The NPC, which is organizing 
the
event, is looking for volunteers for phone banks and leafleting throughout
the week and for a preparatory work session on Friday night at Calgary
Church.  For more information, call the NPC at (215) 724-1618.

* * * * * * * * *

NINTH ANNUAL WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY
Friday, April 25 at 9:30 a.m.
Sheetmetal Workers Hall, 1301 S. Columbus Boulevard

For more info call PHILAPOSH at 386-7000.

* * * * * * * * *

PEOPLE'S SUMMIT:  A TEACH-IN ON JOBS WITH INCOME
Monday, April 28, 8:00 a.m.
Franklin Square, 6th & Race Streets

Sponsored by AFSCME District Council 1199C. Call (215) 735-1300 for more
information.

[PEN-L:9594] civil society

[Doug Henwood]

Could anyone enlighten me on the evolution of the term civil society? As I
understand it, Hegel used it to signify the world of market relations. But
it has come to signify a "third sector," the world of philanthropies,
community orgnizations, volunteerism, meant as a balance to state and
market. Since so much of the "third sector" is ruled by big-money
foundations, it seems to me that present usage is unconsciously
acknowledging the term's origins, while still professing to offer balance
to the "market."

Isn't Vaclav Havel somehow responsible for this?

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: 
web: 

[PEN-L:9593] `96 Presidential Voting Stats

[Robert Saute, CUNY Grad Center]

Dear Colleagues:

Where can I find a breakdown of votes for the 1996 presidential
election by sex, marital status and income?

Please feel free to respond to my email address or the list.

Thanks,


Robert Saute
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:9592] Re: DARWIN AWARDS

[James Devine]

Jim Craven writes:>>You all know about the Darwin Awards - It's an annual
honor given to the person who did the gene pool the biggest service by
killing themselves in the most extraordinarily stupid way. <<

this kind of thing always evokes a chuckle (as with NEWS OF THE WIERD's
recent story about a man who died because he played "catch" using a
poisonous snake, which was  titled "the thinning of the herd"). 

But it's very crude Darwinism. (There's no guarantee that these idiots
didn't contribute to the gene pool before their escapades; in the case of
the man with the lawn-chair and the balloons, he could easily make
contribution even afterwards.) Further, it ignores the entire sociological
dimension. Specifically, these actions seem to reflect the bizarre form of
alienation the infests US culture along with a lot of macho craziness. 

While it's fun to laugh at this kind of stupidity, it's important to note
that many or even most of the people in pen-l are immersed in the same
culture.

BTW, I see nothing wrong with reopening the discussion of "progressive
internationalism" vs. "progressive nationalism." It's one of the big issues
of our day. For example, what does the PI camp say about MAI?


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
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.

[PEN-L:9591] Re: German liberalism

[Doug Henwood]

Tavis Barr wrote:

>One could, indeed, do a
>Foucauldian analysis of the discourse of the market and talk about how
>neoclassical notions of freedom -- the ability of individuals to buy and
>sell at prices they desire -- were created by those with property and
>defined explicitly so that the dscourse of property would not be
>questioned.

That would be a very interesting thing to do, and very Foucauldian in
spirit (and why is it Foucauldian and not Foucaultian?). But he didn't do
it, did he? I wish someone would - hey Tavis! Why don't you?

>Given that Foucault was a Marxist earlier in his life, it
>would be amazing if he did not see this.

Yes, but didn't he leave the CP in the early 50s and turn against Marxism?
What about passages like these:

"But the alternatives offered by Ricardo's 'pessimism' and Marx's
revolutionary promise are probably of little importance. Such a system of
options represents nothing more than the two possible ways of examining the
relations of anthropology and History as they are established by economics
through the notions of scarcity and labour Marxism introduced no real
discontinuity; it found its place without difficulty as a full, quiet,
comfortable, and goodness knows, satisfying form (for its time), within an
epistemological arrangement that welcomed it gladly (since it was this
arrangement that was in fact making room for it) and that it, in return,
had no intention of disturbing and, above all, no power to modify, even one
jot, since it rested entirely upon it Their controversies [between
bourgeois & revolutionary economics] may have stirred up a few waves and
caused a few surface ripples; but they are no more than storms in
children's paddling pool." [The Order of Things, pp. 261-262]

"Rather than searching in those texts [Marx & Lenin] for a condemnation of
the Gulag, it is a matter of asking what in those texts made the Gulag
possible, what might even now continue to justify it, and what makes it
intolerable truth still accepted today [We must give] up the politics
of inverted commas, whether damning or ironic, round Soviet socialism in
order to protect the good, true socialism - with no inverted commas - which
alone can provide a legitimate standpoint for a politically valid critique
of the Gulag. Actually the only socialism which deserves these scornful
scare-quotes is the one which leads the dreamy life of ideality in our
heads." [Power/Knowledge, pp. 135-136]

There's a lot that's right in the second quote - we should ask if anything
in M&L "made the Gulag possible," though I suspect F's implied answer to
the question is "lots," and mine would be "maybe a bit." But it would only
be fair to ask what in Nietzsche, one of F's favorites (and whom he uses to
displace Marx on the page following the quote from The Order of Things),
made Auschwitz possible. That first quote seems quite loony to me, and
worthy of a lesser figure like Baudrillard, who argued in The Mirror of
Production the Marx wasn't as radical as he seemed, because he still argued
on the terrain of production and political economy rather than symbol
formation and analysis.

>Do you know what Miller was referring to?

Here's what James Miller says, on pp. 310-312 of The Passion of Michel
Foucault (and I know lots of people hate this book, dismissing it as
gossipy trash; I liked it a lot):

"On January 10, 1979, Foucault began his annual series of lectures at the
College de France. Ignoring current events, as he normally did, he took up
again the theme of 'governmentality.' But once more, his political
reflections veered off in a surprising direction.
   Despite his own 'wishful participation' in the revolution in Iran [he
was a great enthusiast for Khomeni], he advised his students to look
elsewhere for ways to think about 'the will not to be governed.' He asked
them to read with special care the collected works of Ludwig von Mises and
Frederick hayek - distinguished Austrian economists, strident yet prescient
critics of Marxism, apostles of a libertarian strand of modern social
thought rooted in a defense of the free market as a citadel of individual
libertyand a bulwark against the power of the state. [footnote: anonymous
interview, 22 March 1990; cf. 'Une esthetique de l'existence, Le Monde
Aujourd'hui 15-16 July 1994, p. xi, English translation in MF, Politics,
Philosophy, Culture, p. 50].
   In his public lectures, Foucault at the same time turned his own
attention to modern liberalism, analyzing its character with unprecedented
sympathy. As he afterwards summed up the gist of these lectures, liberalism
had to be understood as a novel 'principle and method for rationalizing the
exercise of government.' Its novelty, according to Foucault, lay in its
break with the rival modern principle of 'raison e'Etat,' which he ad
analyzed the previous year. According to the Machiavellian principle of
"raison e'Etat" the state constituted an end in itself, regulated only by
its internal structure, an

[PEN-L:9590] Re: LatAm Marxism

[Alan Cibils]

The journal Latin American Perspectives has had many articles on Latin
American Marxism over the years. It also publishes a fair amount of
articles by Latin American authors.

Alan

[PEN-L:9589] Re: M-I: LatAm Marxism

[Louis Proyect]

Peron was no fascist. He was a nationalist who represent the class interests
of a developing Argentinian bourgeoisie that felt thwarted by the
traditional comprador bourgeoisie tied to British capital. In the
furtherance of the goals of this wing of Argentinian capital, he drew upon
the support of the industrial working class and was pro-union (but
anticommunist). He has much more in common with Cardenas of Mexico in the
1930s or the APRA governments in Peru, all nationalist regimes. The reason
he earned the epithet of fascist was that he was not an obedient servant of
Washington or London. Since he clearly was not a communist, they needed to
find some way to stigmatize him. In Marxist terms, the best way to describe
Peron is as a "Bonapartist", or somebody who appears to rule above and
beyond the two major classes in society but who really acts objectively on
behalf of the bourgeoisie. The best source on Bonapartism is Marx's 18th
Brumaire. For books on Argentina and Peron per se, I recommend:

1) Paul Lewis, "Crisis of Argentinian Capitalism", Univ. Of North Carolina, 1992

2) Maria Peralta-Ramos, "Political Economy of Argentina: Power and Class
since 1930", Westview Press, 1992

Louis Proyect 


At 09:45 PM 4/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>...  greetings to all.  There's been alot of hoopla about Evita Peron
>and the movie EVITA.  I understand that Juan Peron was an admirer of
>Mussilini.  His regime was in power during the post WWII era, when Nazi
>fascists were flooding South America, especially Argentina.   Other than that
>I do NOT know much about the fascist Perons.
>
>Can someone recommend books or provide more details about Evita and her
>fascist tendencies?  Thanks to all who respond.
>
>Hasta la Victoria siempre!
>... Mike
>
>

[PEN-L:9588] LatAm Marxism

[Alex Izurieta]

> What's good to read on Marxism in Latin America?

Hope it helps to hint to some important names (authors). I am afraid 
most of their works are not published in English. 

Mariategui, Jose Carlos (Peru): it is a "pioneer" both
chronologically and content wise. He introduced, right from the early 1900s, 
notions of indianity and colonialism into marxist thought. It would 
surprise me if  his "7 thesis on L.A" are not translated into 
English.

Cueva, Agustin (Ecuador). He died quite recently, and I therefore 
suspect (hope) that something has been published in English as a sort 
of compilation of writings or "memorial...". He comes from a 
sociological tradition, though he also wrote a "economic history of 
LA". Whatever you find from him is worth reading.

Arismendy, Rodney (Uruguay). The same as with Cueva, he died 
recently. He is a sociologist,  founder of the Communist party in 
Uruguay. Comes from a leninist tradition, "latinamericanised" little by 
little, especially after the Sandinista experience, which he joined 
in the early set up.

Zea, Leopoldo (Mexico). His first writings were more..., say cautios 
marxist "approximations". But it was the Cuban revolution that 
radicalized his thoughts and became a marxist proponent.

Gonzalez Casanova, Pablo (Mexico). He is an historian, and wrote a 
lot about economics and labour. He has also edited an impressive 
history collection, putting together many writers, of a marxian 
strand practically all them. He could be more known in the US as he
explicitly intended to appeal to the northamerican (progressist) 
publicl by (trying to)  integrating latam marxism with US "empiricism" 
(whatever it may mean). 

Sanchez Vasquez,Adolfo (Spaniard, later nationalised in Mexico). He 
writes from a philosophical point of view. Interesting in the sense 
that it links also with a Spanish tradition of "classical" 
non-marxists philosophers (as Ortega y Gasset). IMO he treats marxism sometimes in a 
reductionist / materialist narrow way...

Dussel, Enrique (Argentina). He writes from philosophical and 
theological backgrounds. His main contribution, which I think is, 
next to 'indianity',  a most revelant "originality" of Latam marxism,
is the appraisal of marxist thoughts as they were incorporated by 
grass roots groops  and social movements whose "militancy' (?) or 
political engagements is derived from christian groups.

Vilas, Carlos (mexico). Casually, I 've recently told of a book published
 in English: Magnus,B., Cullenberg,S (eds)(1995)(Routledge) 
"Whiter Marxism? Global Issues in International Perspective", where 
there is a chapter wiritten by Carlos Vilas about Latam marxism. I 
believe it must be good. (BTW, there is also in that book a critical 
appraisal of Foucalt...).

And, obvioulsy, if you want to make the "synthesis" yourself, one 
should give a look to Sandino, Farabundo Marti, Jose Marti (Cuba), 
Ernesto (che) Guevara, and... Fidel.

Pls. tell me if you find something in English over there. I am 
curious.

Salud,

Alex

> 


Alex Izurieta
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
Tel. 31-70-4260480
Fax. 31-70-4260.755
   4260.799