[PEN-L:11195] Re: On censorship
Ajit, The question was addressed to the list, but I appreciate your response. My principle difference with you, I suppose, is an estimate about Karl's willingness to be engaged. As a union organizer, I encountered all sort of folks in the course of a campaign. They came to the workplace with all their prejudices and stereotypes. In order to create the basis of solidarity that is fundamental to building a union, you have to start with folks where they are when you meet them, using the experiences of the organizing drive and struggle with the employer to draw lessons and suggest alternative ways of viewing the world and their coworkers. There comes a time when a worker's prejudice and hatred may be so overwhelming and divisive that it threatens the unity of the organization and its capacity to act. In those instances, you sometimes have to break off engagement in order to keep from being paralyzed by division. Later, under other circumstances, it may be possible to reopen dialogue or rekindle relationships. This list is not a workplace, however. No ones job rides on the outcome of the discussions here. Yet we too can be paralyzed by division. All the engagement occurs in the interactions between participants. We don't have other ways of interacting with someone like Karl. The choice boils down to having to put up with his unending stream of abuse, responding to it in an effort to change his view of the world, or putting him off the list. The problem with engagement in that case is that it freezes out all other topics for discussion, since Karl seems to thrive on the attention he receives and through his paranoid view of the world, he becomes even more self-important. I cannot recall a single instance in which Karl indicated a willingness to actually have a discussion over differences he had with others. Invariably he interpreted all criticism as a personal affront or evidence of a conspiracy against him; in response, he merely escalated the level of his abusiveness and arrogance. That makes political discourse more than just difficult. In solidarity, Michael At 07:42 PM 7/7/97 -0700, Ajit Sinha wrote: >At 01:40 PM 7/7/97 -0700, you wrote: > If, rather than >>sexism, Karl had expressed equally damaging racism, would those who have >>spoken in favor of allowing him to remain continue to be so inclined? Karl >>and others like him have many venues on the Internet to spew their hurtful >>vituperation. This list does not have to be one of them. >> >> >>in solidarity, >>Michael > > >If you are asking this question of me. My answer is most certainly I would >have reacted the same way. Let me tell you a story. A few years ago at the >URPE summer conference I attended a workshop on how to teach race and gender >cources. A very good friend of mine (a white woman) narrated a story about a >student in her class who was out and out and quite vocally racist. She had >to throw this guy out of the class. I told the workshop then that she might >have reacted that way because of being white. I would have never thrown that >guy out of my class. You need to engage these people. Some of these people >are loudly asking for help. They are asking for education in a >psychologically abnormal manner. By the way, I'm a feminist. Cheers, ajit sinha > >
[PEN-L:11194] Re: On censorship
Rakesh, Why should the burden be on Maggie or any other women on this list to respond to sexism? When I challenged Karl around his sexism, it was not out of some noble sense of chivalry nor because I did not believe women on the list could not respond for themselves, but because I found it personally offensive in addition to feeling a personal responsibililty not to remain silent. I don't think Maggie needs help or protection from Karl, but the fact that she does not doesn't relieve men on this list from a responsibility to repond to instances of sexism just as whites bear a special duty to address racism. I also don't think we need Karl's paranoid personal abuse on the list to have a good discussion about feminism or anything else. In fact, his vitriole actually makes having such a discussion more difficult. From what I have seen in my limited time on this list, there are very few participants who shrink from difficult questions or seek to avoid controversy. IMHO what got Karl booted was not the fact that he posed intellectually challenging questions. It was his demeaning personal abuse, invective, and often irrational ranting. In solidarity, Michael At 04:19 PM 7/7/97 -0700, rakesh bhandari wrote: > >>patience and toleration and then exercised your responsibility. Otherwise, >>what is the point have having a moderated list at all? If, rather than >>sexism, Karl had expressed equally damaging racism, would those who have >>spoken in favor of allowing him to remain continue to be so inclined? Karl >>and others like him have many venues on the Internet to spew their hurtful >>vituperation. This list does not have to be one of them. > >But, Michael E, Maggie hasn't yet asked for protection from Karl. As I do >think it is an important question how racism *and forms of anti-racism* >contribute to social divisiveness and irrational social analysis, I was >looking forward to a deep discussion about the nature of feminism. For >example, in my dept, there is a simple refusal by many grad students to >engage systematically people like Robert Epstein, the Chicago libertarian >law professor, and Yehudi Webster, the iconoclastic author of The >Racialization of America, because they are both opposed to race-based >remedies (though for very different reasons). Webster argues that >race-based remedies can only reinforce the system of racial classification >and the pernicious realist theory of races upon which it is based. For this >reason, he argues against race-based remedies despite whatever advantages >they may really bring. I have offered a criticism of his argument in my >disseration, but I was helped immeasurably by engaging with it. I was >hoping there would be some productive consequences from a critical >investigation of feminism. And for this reason, I oppose the ban on Karl >(though I think his being booted from marxism-international for violation >of its post limit is more than legitimate). It would seem to me that the >only reason to ban Karl would be that everyone who disagreed with him would >not take time to answer him systematically--leaving Maggie with all the >work. > >All the best, >Rakesh > > >
[PEN-L:11193] A work on monopoly and its antidote
==> The public library system here in Milwaukee holds 14 copies of "The first $20 million is always the hardest: a Silicon Valley novel." This level of representation is almost unheard of for a new author working with a less than universal theme, and redeems the unfortunate title, which misleads about the book's focus and literary flavor. Though author Po Bronson is associated with Wired magazine, this work does not reflect the tendentious theorizing and messianic hype that sometimes make Wired an exhausting and dubious reading experience. Here's Bronson in his own epilogue, which tells as much as any browser needs to know for an informed choice. valis Occupied America Author's Note When I told people in Silicon Valley I was writing a novel about their industry, so many of them asked me, "Is it about Bill Gates?" that for a while I considered titling this novel "Not Gates." I guess if you were going to let some air out of the business, he would be the biggest doughboy. A lot of people wanted me to bring him down, but I was more interested in writing about today's entrepreneurs than today's moguls. There is an important double entendre to "Not Gates," though. The basis of the computer is the silicon transistor, three layers of silicon that can hold a small electrical charge. Transistors are connected into three types of simple logic gates: the AND gate, the OR gate, and the NOT gate. The function of a NOT gate is to turn a 1 into a 0. When electrical power comes into a NOT gate, the charge is canceled. While investigating the power dynamics of Silicon Valley on assignment for Wired magazine, I kept hearing stories that repre- sented, in effect, NOT gates: entrepreneurs who had been impeded, cheated, or canceled by the gatekeepers of power. Unfortunately, their experiences were also NOT stories, certainly not magazine stories, which are more about the powerful than the powerless, more about those companies who went public than all those who went belly-up. So in order to expose the NOT gates, I turned to fiction. Maybe this book is about Bill Gates implicitly. By having masterminded a near monopoly on desktop computer operating systems, he is the ultimate gatekeeper of power in Silicon Valley. More than any other person, he decides which gates are AND, which are OR, and which are NOT. What was going on in Silicon Valley in 1995 was that thousands of enterprising minds were busily negotiating his gates, attempting to pass through. By 1996, though, things were different. Quite suddenly, so many of those enterprising minds were attempting to bypass Gates's gates entirely, inventing a new paradigm of technology that ignored operating systems. If they couldn't go through, they would go around. It was an inspiring surge of can-do ingenuity. As of this writing, those efforts may or may not succeed. This book is for all those who are making the attempt and to all those who remind us that the human creative spirit is irrepressible.
[PEN-L:11192] Re: On censorship
At 09:02 PM 7/7/97 -0700, you wrote: >Ajit told a story about leaving a disruptive student in class. Let me >refer to my own experience. > >As a grad. student in Berkeley, I volunteered at the Prescott School in >Oakland, where a young Berkeley gratudate was trying to maintain order >is a class of 30 or so students. Nothing was being learnt because of >the constant disruption. I tried helping to tutor a few of the more >disruptive students one-on-one. Later, the teacher and I decided that >we had to resort to triage. I took some of the most disruptive students >out of the class room so we could fool around outside and talk. They >did not learn anything, but they were not learning anything in the >previous situation. The teacher thought that the other 25 might have a >chance if the classroom were less noisy. ___ Mike, I appreciate both yours and Paul's position. But my point was not necessarily about how to deal with disruptive students. It was more about how to deal with racist and sexist people in a situation when you are in the position of power. In this context, ie. when you are in the position of power, and not when the powerful is applying racism and sexism at you, I think we should show a high level of tolerance. This, of course, would creat some disruptions and chaotic situations. But then, that is the price we need to pay. Being an Indian, I find chaos to be a normal situation. By the way, I think you have done a splendid job moderating pen-l over the years. Disagreement once in a while is but natural among thinking people. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 916-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
[PEN-L:11191] Re: On censorship
At 08:38 PM 7/7/97 -0700, you wrote: >Ajit, I think you have misplaced the question. If the person is a Nazi- >skinhead-type, there is no point to trying to change him/her (the few >pyschological breaks that do occur are not where your energy needs to be >placed). These people need to be DEFEATED. > >Now, leaving the person in the class may be productive as a means of >educating others in the class how to DEFEAT this person (and I don't >mean the "instructor" doing it; the class as a whole will probably do a >much better job). But sometimes such a person can be so disruptive that >it really is exactly that--a disruption of learning. So, as my second >point, I wouldn't judge without being there what would have been best to >do. Paul ___ I think that's a good point, Paul. But my comments at the workshop was highly appreciated. At least I felt that way. ajit > > >* >Paul Zarembka, supporting the RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY Web site at >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka, and using OS/2 Warp. >* >
[PEN-L:11190] Re: On censorship
Ajit told a story about leaving a disruptive student in class. Let me refer to my own experience. As a grad. student in Berkeley, I volunteered at the Prescott School in Oakland, where a young Berkeley gratudate was trying to maintain order is a class of 30 or so students. Nothing was being learnt because of the constant disruption. I tried helping to tutor a few of the more disruptive students one-on-one. Later, the teacher and I decided that we had to resort to triage. I took some of the most disruptive students out of the class room so we could fool around outside and talk. They did not learn anything, but they were not learning anything in the previous situation. The teacher thought that the other 25 might have a chance if the classroom were less noisy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11189] More India ink
(or at least electronic ink. Sorry. I couldn't resist.) I had written:> Currently, if I am not mistaken, India is pursuing the free-market uber alles strategy pushed by the US/World Bank/IMF axis.< Anthony comments>> That India's free-market policies are being externally orchestrated cannot be supported.<< I didn't say that its policies are "externally orchestrated." The word I used was "pushed," as with a dope pusher. Addicts play a role in the story of drug addiction; it's not just the pusher. >>There is a long history of IMF aid to India, starting with Mrs. Gandhi. She borrowed a huge amount of money to reduce her dependence on domestic political support.<< Not being a dependista, I am not surprised by this story (though I appreciate the insights). Not even the most dependent country (and India is not one of those) has its entire policy history dictated by the IMF/WB. But the Bretton Woods institutions are pretty important. In the 1970s, the WB were pushing loans as the solution to underdevelopment. Many leaders of third world countries took the bait, including I. Gandhi. (You mention only the IMF. Was the WB and international private banking involved too?) I doubt that the WB could predict the debt crisis -- in fact, my reading suggests quite the opposite -- but then when the smoke cleared the international debt strengthened Bretton Woods control, so they could push their policy line (which got more free-marketeer in the 1980s). >>Domestic politics has been critical to India's outward orientation. Yes, today the IMF/WB are pushing for reforms ... but they are also being engineered internally.<< Domestic policy is always important. Just as the old pro-Soviet CPs didn't simply respond to the beck and call of Moscow but also responded their own rank and file, etc., the local ruling classes have their own agendas which influence the outcome of Bretton Woods pushing. >>The same bureaucracy that managed India's state controlled economy is today trying to introduce privatization, etc. ... There is also a sizeable middle class, a class that has no interest in maintaining the state sector (even if a many of them benefited from it) and many of the middle class members have global connections, through education, trade, skills, capital, etc. ... << Interesting story: awhile back, we had a candidate visiting (whose name escapes me) who presented a paper on privatization. His thesis: the same class of people made big money on both nationalization and on privatization. This doesn't apply to the bureaucracy that managed I's state-controlled economy, however. Maybe it's more like the xUSSR, where many of the bureaucratic class hoped to become capitalists. Is this reasonable? Too many messages today. I'll abstain tomorrow. -- Jim Devine
[PEN-L:11188] Re: On censorship
Addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Reply to note from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 7 Jul 1997 19:42:58 -0700 (PDT) > ... A few years ago at the > URPE summer conference I attended a workshop on how to teach race and gender > cources. A very good friend of mine (a white woman) narrated a story about a > student in her class who was out and out and quite vocally racist. She had > to throw this guy out of the class. I told the workshop then that she might > have reacted that way because of being white. I would have never thrown that > guy out of my class. You need to engage these people. Some of these people > are loudly asking for help. They are asking for education in a > psychologically abnormal manner. By the way, I'm a feminist. Cheers, ajit sinha Ajit, I think you have misplaced the question. If the person is a Nazi- skinhead-type, there is no point to trying to change him/her (the few pyschological breaks that do occur are not where your energy needs to be placed). These people need to be DEFEATED. Now, leaving the person in the class may be productive as a means of educating others in the class how to DEFEAT this person (and I don't mean the "instructor" doing it; the class as a whole will probably do a much better job). But sometimes such a person can be so disruptive that it really is exactly that--a disruption of learning. So, as my second point, I wouldn't judge without being there what would have been best to do. Paul * Paul Zarembka, supporting the RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY Web site at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka, and using OS/2 Warp. *
[PEN-L:11187] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)
In his famous speech to the U.N. >on the ugly machinations of U.S. Imperialism, the Defense Minister >Krishna Menon (friend of both Nehru and Chou En-Lai) alluded to the >behind-the-scenes machinations going on of which India was an >unwilling participant (the slogan in India right before the border >war was "Hindi-Chini Pai Pai". ___ I thought the slogan was "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai". Bhai, of course, means brother in hindi. Does "Pai" means brother in Malyalum Jim? Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:11186] Re: On censorship
At 01:40 PM 7/7/97 -0700, you wrote: If, rather than >sexism, Karl had expressed equally damaging racism, would those who have >spoken in favor of allowing him to remain continue to be so inclined? Karl >and others like him have many venues on the Internet to spew their hurtful >vituperation. This list does not have to be one of them. > > >in solidarity, >Michael If you are asking this question of me. My answer is most certainly I would have reacted the same way. Let me tell you a story. A few years ago at the URPE summer conference I attended a workshop on how to teach race and gender cources. A very good friend of mine (a white woman) narrated a story about a student in her class who was out and out and quite vocally racist. She had to throw this guy out of the class. I told the workshop then that she might have reacted that way because of being white. I would have never thrown that guy out of my class. You need to engage these people. Some of these people are loudly asking for help. They are asking for education in a psychologically abnormal manner. By the way, I'm a feminist. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:11185] Re: India's International Independence
India has had a certain amount of autonomy during the Cold War era but would have had considerably more if it had played its cards right. It still does. Recall the CTBT accord which India has not signed yet although no effort has been spared into pressuring India. I should also add that Indians tend to be very "touchy" about criticisms of India, especially wrt US policy. There has always been an anti-Americanism (witness the far less anti-Britishness) because of meddling in regional politics. US arrogance wrt India is pronounced because India is one of the poorest countries, a recipient of international aid, and yet votes against the US in most UN resolutions! On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, James Devine wrote: > Jim Craven writes:>>the notion that the governments of India have been in > any position to leverage U.S. vs USSR rivalries for the benefit of India is > simply not in accordance with the known historical facts. << > > I was reporting what is commonly said about India's status in the context > of the cold war, but I am perfectly willing to be corrected. It seems to > me, however, that India's ability to co-found the "Non-Aligned Movement" > and to engage in a certain amount of economic planning indicates that it > had a certain autonomy during that era, despite the US success in messing > with its policies. Currently, if I am not mistaken, India is pursuing the > free-market uber alles strategy pushed by the US/World Bank/IMF axis. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, > are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney. That India's free-market policies are being externally orchestrated cannot be supported. There is a long history of IMF aid to India, starting with Mrs. Gandhi. She borrowed a huge amount of money to reduce her dependence on domestic political support. Domestic politics has been critical to India's outward orientation. Yes, today the IMF/WB are pushing for reforms (and honestly India does need reforms although not the recipe approach) but they are also being engineered internally. The same bureaucracy that managed India's state controlled economy is today trying to introduce privatization, etc. This needs to be investigated. There is also a sizeable middle class, a class that has no interest in maintaining the state sector (even if a many of them benefited from it) and many of the middle class members have global connections, through education, trade, skills, capital, etc. In other words, some major social changes are under way that are also reponsible for pulling in economic reforms. Cheers, Anthony D'Costa
[PEN-L:11184] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: > Jim Craven: > > Interestingly, since the late > >1960s, the notion of the USSR as a "Social Imperialist" formation has > >been very widespread in India and many Indians denounced the > >relations with the USSR as being equivalent in nature and impact as > >those with the British in the past and Americans and others in the > >present. > > Louis P: > What does this mean other than there is a large Maoist contingent in India? > Rakesh raised the question of Soviet "exploitation" of India over on the > Spoons list in a "state capitalism" thread, but could provide no numbers > only a reference to a book that did. Does anybody believe that the Soviet > Union had the same kind of bloodsucking relationship to India that England > did? England owned tea plantations. What did the USSR own? > It was the CPI (ML) (take your pick for the faction) who perceived the Soviet relationship as exploitative. The reasons were simple although necessarily eqivalent to the British colonialism. One must remember that the CPI (Mao-Lenin) was a breakaway group from the Communist Party of India (siding with the Soviet Union and following the stagist approach of social change) and the CPI (M), which was more critical of the CPI's siding with the national bourgeois party. Naturally, CPI (ML) saw the Soviet Union siding with the national bourg, treating the India as capitalist, whereas the CPI (ML) saw India still as semi-feudal. These interpretations of realiy were the sources for the split and the CPI (ML)'s characterization of the exploitative relationships. As for the relationship itself, it was ambiguous. The Sov Union did not own any assets but the pattern of trade was the classic colonial type: exports of tea (largest buyer), coffee, and other natural resources, some labor-intensive manufactures (garments), India's imports were heavy machinery, armaments, and some oil. It is true that the political relationship was strong enough not to characterize it as exploitative. But the Sov Rouble was overvalued, and even though India's Rupee was overvalued, the exchange rate was not in India's favor. Fortunately, since both countries were short of foreign exchange barter trade was resorted and under the global circumstances India's relationship with the Soviet Union was useful to India. The Sov Union has always supported in times of regional hostilities, in which predictably the US always sided with India's enemies. This relationship of course had a price as we all know now, given India's technological and economic infrstaructures. But that could change. > Craven: > The arming of Pakistan and so-many other > >machinations in the region (divide-and-rule donations to > >various political parties, arming groups like the Tamil > >Tigers, social systems engineering through culture/technology > >transfers etc) suggest that India- - like Vietnam-- is regarded still > >as an enemy and potential threat from the "demonstration effect" > >point of view. > > > > Louis P: > Vietnam on the US enemy's list? Where has Jim been for the last 5 years or > so? Poor Vietnam is under the US's thumb, as recent Doonesbury cartoons > decrying the coolie labor conditions of Nike factories there dramatizes. As > far as India is concerned, isn't it the case that it is privatizing like > mad and considered the next big "capitalist miracle" about to explode? > India will never be a capitalist miracle. It has a certain rhythym (take your pick of the institutional matrix governing Indian capitalism) that does not allow the massive expansion. That does not mean that growth rates stuck at the "Hindu rate". Far from it in the 1980s India's growth was very respectable, 6-8% pa. As for privatization, yes but not wholesale, in bits and pieces, and in ad hoc ways. My own feeling toward the state sector in India is that it should reorganize/restructure. Except for a few firms they are classic white elephants, especially manufacturing ones and extremely inefficient. Try Indian banks for service or for that matter any government agency. On the other hand India's political climate (particularly organized TUs) and left political parties (rightly so) will not allow the unchecked neo-liberal policies toward labor. Privatization will come about by letting the state sector die a natural death, by not expanding the state sector and by allowing the private sector to increase their holdings of assets in sectors perviously banned. A few sectors like media, insurance, banking, airlines are areas of strong nationalist sentiments. But I feel this is simply a bogeyman. Cheers, Anthony D'Costa
[PEN-L:11183] political correctness and pen-l
I do not want to beat a dead horse, but Karl was not "censored" on the alter of "political correctness." I had brought up my problems with Karl before he raised hackles with his comments on homosexuality and on feminism. His consistently insulting style was certain to create flames, almost regardless of the subject. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11182] Re: India (II)
> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 7 Jul 97 15:33:32 +800
> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 7 Jul 97 15:33:32 +800
> Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> Mon, 7 Jul 1997 15:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 15:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PEN-L:11177] India (II)
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: Progressive Economics
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-PMFLAGS: 34078848
>
> Jim C. writes: >> The so-called "planning" in India is like the "planning"
> one finds in the U.S. The State "plans" and "manages"--even
> "constrains"--certain inter-capitalist rivalries in the interest expanded
> reproduction of the system as a whole. The "State-owned/controlled" sectors
> and enterprises always represented essentially "socialization of costs"
> necessary for returns that are increasingly privatized and concentrated;<<
>
> I wasn't saying that India was socialist, i.e., with a government
> controlled by workers and peasants. The planning instead indicated the
> relative independence of the Indian ruling class from the U.S.
>
> >>the Government of India did exercise some "independence" and they
> gravitated toward forming and building the movement partly as a result of
> their experiences with not only the U.S. and Britain, but also as a result
> of their experiences with
> the USSR. <<
>
> Right. So, I agree that >>I think actually we are not far off here. <<
>
>
> 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.
>
Response:
I think that Jim is correct here in pointing out the "relative"
independence of the Indian ruling class relative to other so-called
"Third World" countries. The British, more than other colonizers,
were adept at creating/using functionaries ("Brown Englishmen") and
locally-adapted administrative systems and local rulers for their
purposes and to minimize some of the visible presence of foreign
control and the local bourgeoisie got in on the ground floor
with the Indian Constitution and First Five Year Plan in creating
mechanisms and structures that assured more independence from foreign
control than found in other countries (see Charles Bettleheim's "India
Independent" and Dhilip Hiro's "Inside India Today")
Jim Craven
*--*
* James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, *
* Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected *
* Clark College* will never know." *
* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * *
* (360) 992-2283 * *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]* *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11181] Re: On censorship
>patience and toleration and then exercised your responsibility. Otherwise, >what is the point have having a moderated list at all? If, rather than >sexism, Karl had expressed equally damaging racism, would those who have >spoken in favor of allowing him to remain continue to be so inclined? Karl >and others like him have many venues on the Internet to spew their hurtful >vituperation. This list does not have to be one of them. But, Michael E, Maggie hasn't yet asked for protection from Karl. As I do think it is an important question how racism *and forms of anti-racism* contribute to social divisiveness and irrational social analysis, I was looking forward to a deep discussion about the nature of feminism. For example, in my dept, there is a simple refusal by many grad students to engage systematically people like Robert Epstein, the Chicago libertarian law professor, and Yehudi Webster, the iconoclastic author of The Racialization of America, because they are both opposed to race-based remedies (though for very different reasons). Webster argues that race-based remedies can only reinforce the system of racial classification and the pernicious realist theory of races upon which it is based. For this reason, he argues against race-based remedies despite whatever advantages they may really bring. I have offered a criticism of his argument in my disseration, but I was helped immeasurably by engaging with it. I was hoping there would be some productive consequences from a critical investigation of feminism. And for this reason, I oppose the ban on Karl (though I think his being booted from marxism-international for violation of its post limit is more than legitimate). It would seem to me that the only reason to ban Karl would be that everyone who disagreed with him would not take time to answer him systematically--leaving Maggie with all the work. All the best, Rakesh
[PEN-L:11180] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)
> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 7 Jul 97 15:34:21 +800 > Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Louis P: > >> What does this mean other than there is a large Maoist contingent in India? > >> Rakesh raised the question of Soviet "exploitation" of India over on the > >> Spoons list in a "state capitalism" thread, but could provide no numbers > >> only a reference to a book that did. Does anybody believe that the Soviet > >> Union had the same kind of bloodsucking relationship to India that England > >> did? England owned tea plantations. What did the USSR own? > > Look Proyect, the reference has the numbers. I don't have a scanner, nor > the time to read and summarize complex analyses in unrelated fields (I am > no genius). You had simply dismissed as outlandish that the USSR practiced > any form of imperialism in the third world, you suggested that it would be > impossible to provide statistical proof of such an absurdity (even going to > the extent of suggesting that Russia was exploited by its Eastern European > satellites). > > I suggested to you, ridiculously thinking you may be interested in a > counter-opinion, a substantial critique of Soviet-Indian *trade* as > unequal. > > You obviously have no interest in tracking it down, and analyzing it. You > won't even mention the title here. By the way, the author is London School > of Econmics Ph.D., and full professor at the Indian Institute of Management > in Calcutta. He also reads Russian, which I thought you may find > interesting. > > By the way, it would surprise me if he wrote this as propaganda for the > Maoist Indian parties as you seem to insinuate by the way you have > juxtaposed sentences; in the collection he seems to be most sympathetic to > Trotsky-inspired Marxism of Mandel (offering several criticisms of Samir > Amin and Arrighi Emmanuel). So what was probably your ad hominem dismissal > of this work as petty bourgeois Maoism won't wash either. I wouldn't be > surprised if you were attempting to insinuate that I was a Maoist as well. > There is something deeply disturbing about the way you argue and insinuate. > Really, you give me the creeps. > > > Check it out. > > Nirmal Kumar Chandra, "USSR and Third World: Unequal Distribution of Gains" > in The Retarded Economies: Foreign Domination and Class Relations in India > and other Emerging Nations. (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1988). The > analysis was written in 1977. > > Rakesh > I would like to add my two cents here. During "Emergency Measures" under Indira Gandhi, some of the most vicious repression was practiced--and sanctioned by the "Socialst" USSR and so-called "Socialists/Communists" of the CPI. Teachers were given quotas to produce names of students for forced sterilization before they could receive their paychecks. Fourth-year medical students (some friends of mine) were told they would either participate in giving vascetomies or face dismissal from medical school. Villages all had "village informers" who were given pay and jobs for informing. All sorts of private feuds spilled over with people being accused of being "Naxalites" as a form of revenge. And all of this was openly sanctioned by the Governments of the USSR and members of the so-called CPI. The India-USSR relations contained a slicker veneer than those between India and UK or America, but just look and the period and what exactly did the USSR leave in India if one does not want to look at what was taken out. Many Indians understood this and it had nothing to do with Maoism or whatever--they simply heard the rhetoric and then looked at what exactly was being left/built by the USSR and what policies of the Indian government were being supported by the USSR and their puppets in the CPI. On the issue of "Maoists" and other self-declared "Socialists and Communists"in India, I know something about the different parties in Kerala and how they were perceived. Members of the CPI were generally perceived as being puppets and mimickers of the USSR and advocates of wholesale transplantation of USSR policies/ideologies even when they were clearly not appropriate. CP-M (which includes some "Maoists")was in control of State Government in Kerala several times because they were known as the most honest, they had deep roots in the villages, they had callouses on their hands--not just their asses and tongues-- from hard work at very basic levels. Naxalites operated deep underground in Kerala and were very active in Andra Pradesh as well as in the North. The few Trotskyites were urban-based and known for "armchair-quarterbacking" revolution everywhere, faction fighting and wrecking and making revolution nowhere--especially where they actually were. Most of the Indian Socialists and Communists I met were more interested in concrete work in concrete contexts rather than quote mongering, erudite/esoteric renditions, debating footnotes from the works of Marx et al or even fac
[PEN-L:11179] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)
>> Louis P: >> What does this mean other than there is a large Maoist contingent in India? >> Rakesh raised the question of Soviet "exploitation" of India over on the >> Spoons list in a "state capitalism" thread, but could provide no numbers >> only a reference to a book that did. Does anybody believe that the Soviet >> Union had the same kind of bloodsucking relationship to India that England >> did? England owned tea plantations. What did the USSR own? Look Proyect, the reference has the numbers. I don't have a scanner, nor the time to read and summarize complex analyses in unrelated fields (I am no genius). You had simply dismissed as outlandish that the USSR practiced any form of imperialism in the third world, you suggested that it would be impossible to provide statistical proof of such an absurdity (even going to the extent of suggesting that Russia was exploited by its Eastern European satellites). I suggested to you, ridiculously thinking you may be interested in a counter-opinion, a substantial critique of Soviet-Indian *trade* as unequal. You obviously have no interest in tracking it down, and analyzing it. You won't even mention the title here. By the way, the author is London School of Econmics Ph.D., and full professor at the Indian Institute of Management in Calcutta. He also reads Russian, which I thought you may find interesting. By the way, it would surprise me if he wrote this as propaganda for the Maoist Indian parties as you seem to insinuate by the way you have juxtaposed sentences; in the collection he seems to be most sympathetic to Trotsky-inspired Marxism of Mandel (offering several criticisms of Samir Amin and Arrighi Emmanuel). So what was probably your ad hominem dismissal of this work as petty bourgeois Maoism won't wash either. I wouldn't be surprised if you were attempting to insinuate that I was a Maoist as well. There is something deeply disturbing about the way you argue and insinuate. Really, you give me the creeps. Check it out. Nirmal Kumar Chandra, "USSR and Third World: Unequal Distribution of Gains" in The Retarded Economies: Foreign Domination and Class Relations in India and other Emerging Nations. (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1988). The analysis was written in 1977. Rakesh
[PEN-L:11178] Re: Feminism is sexist?
At 05:46 AM 7/6/97 -0700, Maggie Coleman wrote, inter alia: >In fact, men do criticize women as a gender constantly. This is pervasive >throughout society. Example #1. Who exactly do you think is being >criticized by the press as being welfare cheats? All those white guys with >union jobs? All those white, male, tenured professors teaching economics? > Example #2. Women's appearance. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard >one of my co-workers criticize a woman's weight while overlooking his own >beer belly. Or, the way women dress: women who have blue collar jobs look >too masculine, women who wear mini skirts are asking to get raped, and forget >about women's suits in business--there is no way to dress to avoid criticism. > Example # 3. How women perform the reproductive activities assigned to them >(by men). Women who pursue careers are 'bad' mothers. Women who stay home >to take care of their children while on public assistance are lazy. > Basically, you sitting and having coffee (served by the waitress in >her properly subservient position) and thinking to yourself about how sexist >feminists are provides me with the picture of every self-satisfied man I've >ever watched who ordered women around while thinking of how liberal he >was! I reply: While I agree with these statements, I also think that the problem is not limited to M/F relations. There is a general tendency to view members non-dominant groups through social stereotypes associated with that group, whereas such stereotypes are carefully avaoided in viewing members of the dominant group. For example, the fact that women usually get the short end of the stick on the job market, or publically display their emotions is often construed as a " proof" that women are by nature less rational. However, the fact that men have much higher incarceration rate than women mysteriously says nothing about the "nature" of men -- all those guys in jail are simply individuals who happn to break the law. Of course, the same holds for politics. When dissidents are harassed in Cuba, this is a proof of the "rogue" nature of the Cuban regime; when the same thing happend in the US, however, this says nothing about the nature of the US political system. Noam Chomsky aptly summarised it as follows" "In the special case of the United States, facts are irrelevant." Yet another example. A documentary sponsored by unions or ennironmental groups is viewed in this society as potentially biased or at least representing special interests; whereas the fact of business sponsorship cretes no such perceptions. What underlies these double standards is that power hates day light -- it always hides itself beneath a facade: gods, natural laws, rationality, superior efficiency and what not. Using dominant class or group markers in everyday life discourse would bring the power issue to the lime light. Using stereotypes to describe non-dominant groups, however, accomplishes two things: it directs teh attention away from the dominant group focusing on subordinate groups instead, and it explains the inferior position of these groups by some supposedly "natural" characteristic shared by the members of that group. That way, power relations are more likely to go unchallenged. >>> It seems to me that much of the the generalities of a critical nature >>> made about men as a gender have a sexist character to them. It would >>> therefore seem that much of the so called feminist movement is sexist >>> and seeks to create a reactionary polarization within the working >>> class along gender lines thereby reinforcing division within the >>> working class. >This is an interesting conglomeration of contradictory statements. Are you >saying that all generalities about men are sexist? Hmm, so we are to see men >as individuals. O.k., but you refuse to accord the same individuality to >feminists who we must see as a group of sexists. Then, you define feminists >as a "so-called ... movement." Well, if it's not a movement, how can it make >overarching sexist statements? Finally, you say feminism divides the working >class. Does that mean feminism is ok for other classes? How about >professionals, should they be allowed to be feminist? Or, does this mean >that working class men should continue to be allowed to exploit the labor of >women and children within the home? If this is the case, I suppose you would >agree that whites in the working class should be allowed to continue to hold >on to their racist attitudes too? > >>>This in turn sustains the politically weak nature of >>> the working class. >Well, I am so glad to see you agree with someone. The Republicans who penned >the "Contract with America" also blamed unwed mothers, and women who seek >roles outside the home, as the primary enemy of a healthy economy in the >United States. You must be so proud to be espousing the same logic as Newt >Gingrich. > >>> >>> In short sexism is prevalent bot
[PEN-L:11177] India (II)
Jim C. writes: >> The so-called "planning" in India is like the "planning" one finds in the U.S. The State "plans" and "manages"--even "constrains"--certain inter-capitalist rivalries in the interest expanded reproduction of the system as a whole. The "State-owned/controlled" sectors and enterprises always represented essentially "socialization of costs" necessary for returns that are increasingly privatized and concentrated;<< I wasn't saying that India was socialist, i.e., with a government controlled by workers and peasants. The planning instead indicated the relative independence of the Indian ruling class from the U.S. >>the Government of India did exercise some "independence" and they gravitated toward forming and building the movement partly as a result of their experiences with not only the U.S. and Britain, but also as a result of their experiences with the USSR. << Right. So, I agree that >>I think actually we are not far off here. << 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:11176] addendum on India, USSR v US
Addendum (had to leave office) The real nature of Indian-USSR relations became the subject of widespread discussions in India--among more than Maoists-- especially in the 1970s when the pro-Soviet CPI endorsed "Emergency Measures" by Indira Gandhi's Government. How any so-called "Communists" or "Socialist system" could endorse wide-spread forced sterilizations (more concentrated in Muslim areas), assassinations of Naxalites, total suppressions of all core civil liberties, total martial law etc was the subject of many debates--formally suppressed in the media under provisions of "emergency measures." Just as the U.S. was prepared to tolerate--even facilitate--wholesale human rights abuses in places like Chile, El Salvador etc to maintain U.S.-client-State relations, so the Government of the USSR and the pro-Soviet CPI endorsed Indira's Government and emergency measures to maintain their special patron-client relationship. I once spoke with the head of the CPI in Kerala (also Dean of the Law Faculty at Kerala University) who said that the CPI endorsement of "emergency measures" just about finished the CPI and was instrumental in the rise of CP-M in Kerala and elsewhere (he tried to defend the endorsement on the grounds of "primary vs secondary contradictions/enemies" but was clearly in pain trying to do so). Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, * * Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected * * Clark College* will never know." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11175] Re: On censorship
Michael, Others have said it, but I will add my voice to theirs. You have done a fine job of keeping this list moving forward (even when it does so by stumbling) without exercising an overly heavy hand. I have been in the past an advocate of the liberal use of the delete key as a remedy to noxious or worthless posts, but to what extent does the list have to subject itself to personal invective and sexist abuse in the name of "free speech"? Karl seems to me to be a deeply disturbed individual with whom it is very difficult, if impossible, to conduct a substantive respectful dialogue or to express principled differences. When I challenged some of his sexist ravings I, in turn, became the target of his verbal abuse. I can tolerate that to a point and tried to refrain from merely responding in kind. But here is why I believe you made the right decision. There are all too few women who participate regularly in these discussions. Maggie is one of the few, and I almost always enjoy and learn from her contributions. The presence of such a venomous sexist on this list will make it all the more likely that women who have subscribed will simply drop away, or the few who are willing to post will shrink from doing so. Why should they have to endure repeated abuse simply because someone chooses to take advantage of opportunities presented by open subscription. As list moderator, you showed patience and toleration and then exercised your responsibility. Otherwise, what is the point have having a moderated list at all? If, rather than sexism, Karl had expressed equally damaging racism, would those who have spoken in favor of allowing him to remain continue to be so inclined? Karl and others like him have many venues on the Internet to spew their hurtful vituperation. This list does not have to be one of them. in solidarity, Michael At 08:32 AM 7/7/97 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: >I do not consider the fate of Karl to be censorship. I don't think that >anyone on this list disagrees with everything on this list. > >I had already written to Karl on the list about his style of behavior -- >not his opinions. I am more concerned about maintaining a satisfactory >signal-noise ratio. > >I am sorry that my action has upset some people. > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 916-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
[PEN-L:11174] Re: India's International Independence
> Jim Craven writes:>>the notion that the governments of India have been in > any position to leverage U.S. vs USSR rivalries for the benefit of India is > simply not in accordance with the known historical facts. << > > I was reporting what is commonly said about India's status in the context > of the cold war, but I am perfectly willing to be corrected. It seems to > me, however, that India's ability to co-found the "Non-Aligned Movement" > and to engage in a certain amount of economic planning indicates that it > had a certain autonomy during that era, despite the US success in messing > with its policies. Currently, if I am not mistaken, India is pursuing the > free-market uber alles strategy pushed by the US/World Bank/IMF axis. > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, > are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney. > Jim, I think actually we are not far off here. The so-called "planning" in India is like the "planning" one finds in the U.S. The State "plans" and "manages"--even "constrains"--certain inter-capitalist rivalries in the interest expanded reproduction of the system as a whole. The "State- owned/controlled" sectors and enterprises always represented essentially "socialization of costs" necessary for returns that are increasingly privatized and concentrated; the fist Constitution of India was almost a carbon copy of the 1938 Constitution written by and for the British and the first Five Year Plan did nothing to challenge--in fact it enhanced the interests of--the Tatas, Birlas etc or the ruling monopoly capitalist families of India (see Charles Bettleheim's India Independent for one view from the outside of someone who knew India very well). On the "Non-Alligned Movement", the Government of India did exercise some "independence" and they gravitated toward forming and building the movement partly as a result of their experiences with not only the U.S. and Britain, but also as a result of their experiences with the USSR. The U.S. took the position that the so-called "Non-Aligned Movement" was in fact very much alligned--with the USSR--and was a not-so-covert proxy for the USSR and as a result India and other States suffered denial of IMF/World Bank loans, embargoes and non- access to critical technologies (perhaps "suffered" is not the right word as it is clear that whenever the U.S. "transfers" technologies or grants, loans, credits or investment, they take out much more than they leave and what they leave is essentially relations/institutions for continuation and expanded reproduction of imperial relations and structures). Further, the arming and actions of the various regimes in Pakistan and the covert arming of anti-Government groups inside India was part of a classic social-systems-engineering and destabilization campaign aimed at keeping India divided and weak by having to devote precious resources to deal with border and internal campaigns; this left India squeezed between the superpowers and certainly without any real leverage viz a viz the USSR vs US rivalries. Further, it has been only recently that any kind of political/economic rapproachement between India and the U.S. has been initiated (the late 60s and 70s and even 80s witnessed all sorts of States--even formally defined as "terrorist" by the U.S.--being granted loans, credits, technologies, forms/levels of foreign investment routinely denied to India by the U.S. and allies of the U.S. as a result of U.S. pressure. Notice that to-date Clinton has not even bothered to visit India (the second and about-to-be most populated country in the world) or have top-level representation from India. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, * * Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected * * Clark College* will never know." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11173] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)
Jim Craven: > > Interestingly, since the late > >1960s, the notion of the USSR as a "Social Imperialist" formation has > >been very widespread in India and many Indians denounced the > >relations with the USSR as being equivalent in nature and impact as > >those with the British in the past and Americans and others in the > >present. > > Louis P: > What does this mean other than there is a large Maoist contingent in India? > Rakesh raised the question of Soviet "exploitation" of India over on the > Spoons list in a "state capitalism" thread, but could provide no numbers > only a reference to a book that did. Does anybody believe that the Soviet > Union had the same kind of bloodsucking relationship to India that England > did? England owned tea plantations. What did the USSR own? > > Craven: > The arming of Pakistan and so-many other > >machinations in the region (divide-and-rule donations to > >various political parties, arming groups like the Tamil > >Tigers, social systems engineering through culture/technology > >transfers etc) suggest that India- - like Vietnam-- is regarded still > >as an enemy and potential threat from the "demonstration effect" > >point of view. > > > > Louis P: > Vietnam on the US enemy's list? Where has Jim been for the last 5 years or > so? Poor Vietnam is under the US's thumb, as recent Doonesbury cartoons > decrying the coolie labor conditions of Nike factories there dramatizes. As > far as India is concerned, isn't it the case that it is privatizing like > mad and considered the next big "capitalist miracle" about to explode? > Response: The assertions here are so varied, that I'll respond in point form. 1. The notions of political/economic relations between the USSR and India have analogous effects with those relations between India and the UK in the past go far beyond those who are self-professed Maoists in India. When I was in India in the early 80s, I saw work from economists at the Center for Development Studies that illustrated interest rates on USSR loans to India 2-3% points above the going IMF/World Bank rates for countries with much higher default risk levels; the usual enclaved/disarticulated patterns of investment flows from the USSR to India (heavy industry, trucks, cement, defense )that exacerbated rather than ameliorated intra-India inequalities were common;India was one of the few countries licensed to produce Soviet weapons (relatively highly educated workforce, high productivity extremely low wages) and operated for Soviet weapons contractors much like what enclaved areas of Mexico do for U.S. corporations; barter arrangements between the USSR and India (textiles and specialized agricultural products in return for heavy machines, machine tools etc) were such that the shadow prices given for purposes of figuring "barter equivalence" and the money prices for exports were well under average world prices for comparable commodities. Further, there were many instances reported where once Soviet technologies were acquired--with the result of increased dependence on the USSR for critical inputs and replacement parts--the forms of acquired technological dependence were used as leverage for political purposes--e.g. UN votes etc (much like what the U.S. does with its client States); I personally saw and used Soviet textbooks in Indian Universities that went well beyond the usual primers etc in Political Economy and many of those texts served as outright propaganda for idealized versions about the Soviet System--sans contradictions and some ugly features--and about the necessity of the Soviet-Indian relations for any hope of Indian development (these texts closely resembled--in tone and imperial arrogance--the kinds of texts sent by the U.S. to the so-called "Third World" countries (you people are poor and ignorant and without us you have no hope of sustained development or "protection" from the U.S. and other encircling imperialist powers) 2. Yes there are Nike plants in Vietnam and yes they are certainly exploiting the Vietnamese, but to say that Vietnam is therefore "under the thumb" of the U.S. ignores many present-day and historical realities. We still hear the usual drumbeat about the MIA issue and hatred of Vietnam (the first nation to decisively beat the world's largest imperial war machine) goes on and on in the culture, in the political polemics, in the very late and very guarded diplomatic relations between the States etc. Hatred of the government of Vietnam went so far as to cause even covert alliances by the U.S. Government with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The U.S. Government has still never forgotten India's role in the Non-Alligned Movement, India's votes in the U.N., India's past relations with the USSR, India's stand on the Vietnam War and India's refusal to participate in embargoes of States designated as "terrorist" by the U.S. Yes privatization and monopoly capitalism is alive and
[PEN-L:11172] Joseph/Karl Carlile makes it two in a row
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f To: "Karl Carlile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: M-I: 3 posts a day limit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Louis R Godena), [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 22:38:31 +0300 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Karl, unfortunately you are suspended from posting for a week because of overposting. You have 7 messages today in marxism-international, and they are cross-posted to marxism-general as well. This is completely unacceptable behaviour, one extra post that was overlooked may be ignored, but seven is not a mistake, it is a deliberate disregard of the rules of marxism-international. Zeynep --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
[PEN-L:11171] India's International Independence
Jim Craven writes:>>the notion that the governments of India have been in any position to leverage U.S. vs USSR rivalries for the benefit of India is simply not in accordance with the known historical facts. << I was reporting what is commonly said about India's status in the context of the cold war, but I am perfectly willing to be corrected. It seems to me, however, that India's ability to co-found the "Non-Aligned Movement" and to engage in a certain amount of economic planning indicates that it had a certain autonomy during that era, despite the US success in messing with its policies. Currently, if I am not mistaken, India is pursuing the free-market uber alles strategy pushed by the US/World Bank/IMF axis. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
[PEN-L:11170] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)
Jim Craven: > Interestingly, since the late >1960s, the notion of the USSR as a "Social Imperialist" formation has >been very widespread in India and many Indians denounced the >relations with the USSR as being equivalent in nature and impact as >those with the British in the past and Americans and others in the >present. Louis P: What does this mean other than there is a large Maoist contingent in India? Rakesh raised the question of Soviet "exploitation" of India over on the Spoons list in a "state capitalism" thread, but could provide no numbers only a reference to a book that did. Does anybody believe that the Soviet Union had the same kind of bloodsucking relationship to India that England did? England owned tea plantations. What did the USSR own? Craven: The arming of Pakistan and so-many other >machinations in the region (divide-and-rule donations to >various political parties, arming groups like the Tamil >Tigers, social systems engineering through culture/technology >transfers etc) suggest that India- - like Vietnam-- is regarded still >as an enemy and potential threat from the "demonstration effect" >point of view. > Louis P: Vietnam on the US enemy's list? Where has Jim been for the last 5 years or so? Poor Vietnam is under the US's thumb, as recent Doonesbury cartoons decrying the coolie labor conditions of Nike factories there dramatizes. As far as India is concerned, isn't it the case that it is privatizing like mad and considered the next big "capitalist miracle" about to explode?
[PEN-L:11169] Re: interimperialist rivalries (IV)
Jim Devine wrote: > In the cold war era, a country like India could get the US and USSR > competing with each other, getting some aid from both. The USSR also seemed > to give a certain amount of breathing room to anti-capitalist or > anti-colonial movements: for example, Cuba could escape US domination by > appealing to the USSR for help (though after a few years that meant > subordination to the USSR). The USSR meddled in the US sphere of influence > (just as the US meddled in the USSR sphere), giving encouragement to such > movements. (Of course, USSR-supported movements were pushed to be top-down, > bureaucratic, and extremely pro-USSR in their focus, just as the US pushed > their "friends" (e.g., Solidarity in Poland) to be pro-US and > pro-capitalist. Response: With all due respect to Jim Devine who provides so many valuable insights through this medium, the notion that the governments of India have been in any position to leverage U.S. vs USSR rivalries for the benefit of India is simply not in accordance with the known historical facts. India was more or less pressured into the China-India Border War by JFK's Administration through threats of various types of embargoes, use of food as a weapon and denial of transfers of critical technologies/foreign investment/IMF credit--which continues even today. In his famous speech to the U.N. on the ugly machinations of U.S. Imperialism, the Defense Minister Krishna Menon (friend of both Nehru and Chou En-Lai) alluded to the behind-the-scenes machinations going on of which India was an unwilling participant (the slogan in India right before the border war was "Hindi-Chini Pai Pai". With the increasing divisions between China and the USSR and India's increasing isolation from global markets, sources of foreign investment and credit, the Indian Government increasingly sided with the USSR for technology, defense, foreign investment and credit purposes yet also was also increasingly involved in the formation of the so-called "Non-Alligned" Movement. The irony is that while the Cold War rhetoric and machinations were escalating, U.S. Banks loaned over $25 billion to the USSR while maintaining an effective credit/investment embargo on India--the exception was in agriculture where India served as a market for U.S. fertilizers/pesticides/farm capital which were, by the way, only marginally useful due to the land tenure system of India. During the 1980s, States such as Iraq and Iran--declared "terrorist States" by the U.S. (analagous to Ted Bundy chastizing someone for being a "wife beater")--were receiving technologies, credit, military assistance (including sensitive intelligence) and foreign investment formally denied to India--that remain denied to India. In fact, the U.S. Government was far more hostile to India--and declared more formal and informal sanctions against India--as a result of India's role in the Non-Alligned Movement than as a result of India's "special relationship" with the USSR. Interestingly, since the late 1960s, the notion of the USSR as a "Social Imperialist" formation has been very widespread in India and many Indians denounced the relations with the USSR as being equivalent in nature and impact as those with the British in the past and Americans and others in the present. Today in India, the U.S. embassy in Madras City as well as in New Delhi are hotbeds of CIA machinations in India. The Tamil Tigers, for example, involved in the assassination of Rajiv Ghandi, were trained on bases in Israel (on the same bases as their enemies the Sinhalese-- see Victor Ostravsky) and armed by the U.S. and Israel through cutouts and proxies. Today, all Americans who go anywhere in the south of India are under continual CBI suveillance--and for good reason. In India, there is among the common people a spirit (in Sanscrit the word is "Altmaapeemannum" or self-respect and the U.S. imperialists regard this spirit--which includes being willing to do without foreign investment, technologies and credit if the price of receiving such as more U.S. penentration/domination--as extremely dangerous to U.S. interests/postures and potentially infectious to other regions as well. The arming of Pakistan and so-many other machinations in the region (divide-and-rule donations to various political parties, arming groups like the Tamil Tigers, social systems engineering through culture/technology transfers etc) suggest that India- - like Vietnam-- is regarded still as an enemy and potential threat from the "demonstration effect" point of view. *--* * James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, * * Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected * * Clark College* will never know." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663
[PEN-L:11168] Re: On censorship
MICHAEL: PERLEMAN:I had already written to Karl on the list about his style of behavior -- not his opinions. I am more concerned about maintaining a satisfactory signal-noise ratio. KARL: So you ignore opinions and focus exclusively on style. What trite! You are seemingly an academic and yet you dont know that their is a relationship between style and content; style and opinions. One cannot be separated form the other. I suppose you dont like the style of this message either. Perhaps I should gneuflect. Are you concerned about a satisfactory "signal-noise ratio" in relation to Michael Devine calling me an obnoxious person. As I have siad you and a tiny clique have plotted for some time now to have me expelled from the list. At least one of them is on at least one of the marxism lists. At least one of these persons has consistently been striving to control and contain at least one of the marxism lists. I have oppossed this on at least more than one occassion. He has striven to mount a campaign to have a variety of people expelled from more than one of the marxism lists. I have expressed my opposition to this. Because at least one of the modoerators opposed this he launched into a disgusting abusive attack on that individual. Clearly he has been attempting to achieve a similar situation on Pen-l. You and his lackeys have obviously cooperated. WIth lots of kisses, Karl
[PEN-L:11167] Re: censorship
KARL CARLILE: James Divine states and I quote: "Even though I prefer collective shunning as a way to deal with obnoxious characters who invade pen-l". Calling me "obnoxious"constitutes a personal abusive attack on me and in way contitutes a criticsim of my politics. The fact that I am expelled form the mailing list while this person can freely engage in this kind of abusive slander says a lot about pen-l and the moderator, Michale Perlamn responsible for expelling me. 7 Jul 97 at 9:18, James Devine wrote: Even though I prefer collective shunning as a way to deal with obnoxious characters who invade pen-l, I do not consider Michael Perelman's expulsion of Karl Carlisle from pen-l to be "censorship." It's Michael's living room and we're having (or trying to have) a serious intellectual discussion from a left-wing political perspective. Michael can kick out those who drool on his rug, put LSD in his punch, or start hitting his guests (you get the metaphor). It would be more like censorship if the person kicked out were polite but expressed deviant positions. But Karl does not fit that description. In any event, there are a lot of other discussion groups where Karl can express his gods-given right to free speech. Maybe eventually he'll learn how to be polite rather than deliberately provoking flame wars. Maybe eventually he'll get a life, so he won't have to be so deliberately provocative. Maybe he could set up his own web page so that people who are interested in his views can find out what they are. I hope that the folks who yell "censorship" also consider the daily newspaper or the other news outlets to be engaged in censorship. Every day, the editor of the L.A. TIMES (for example) decides that some stories and many letters to the editor shouldn't be published, often for the most corrupt reasons. "Jimmy" 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. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:11166] Global Capital and the State
Bill Lear responds to my Sunday sermon: >>... it seems that these
"public" goods must also, critically, include neutralization of the
democratic threat. So far, the beginnings of the state apparatus
that Jim outlines are succeeding splendidly at that necessary task,
as these newer global elements of governance are layered behind
current state hierarchies which are increasingly impervious to
meaningful democratic control.<<
I agree. That's why I put the phrase "public goods" in quotation
marks. The decision about what a "public good" is, how it is
provided, who benefits, etc. is made by a very small group of rich
and powerful capitalists and their "technocrats." ("Technocrats" is
in quotation marks because the word literally means "technicians who
rule." But they don't really.) They should be called "collective
goods," except that there is some benefit to those of us outside the
collective. E.g., because our jobs are dependent on capitalism's
health (measured by the profit rate), both the elite and the
majority lose if there's a world depression. We gain (and they lose)
because it opens up new possibilities for political change, but such
change is far from automatic. (It would be _nice_ if "the worse, the
better" thinking worked in practice, but history shows over and over
again that it doesn't.)
>>... the masters of the universe have other reasons to actively
avoid constructing anything too closely resembling a state. A state
can be dangerous because it can be too obvious; once seen, it could
stimulate an appetite for democratic participation, which would
necessitate construction of yet another layer of elaborate lies (the
farces called elections, etc.) to mollify this hunger, an
undertaking which is far from cost-free to elites.<<
Yes, this is one of the reasons why world government is not on the
agenda right now. Of course, it could be organized like the UN,
which has a democratic general assembly -- but none of the
nation-states represented are run democratically -- and an even less
representative security council.
>>One should add that much of the function of states is being taken
over by private financial markets. The capitalization of everything
not nailed down, material or spiritual is all too apparent... This
is another reason why elites might be loathe to create a global
state --- the market is succeeding rather well at dominating just
about everything ...<<
The problem is that though private financial markets do okay when it
comes to trading shares in denationalized utilities, they do not do
well at avoiding panics and slumps.
I had written >... So far, this [global] competition has served
capital very well. But if it causes a global crisis, we should
expect moves to end the competition. Maybe a global New Deal? Could
the NGOs that harrass the World Bank be the source of the FDRs of
the future?<
>>... perhaps one should nevertheless ask: will these structures of
governance, should the party for the wealthy turn sour, again be the
source of not only the rather more benign FDRs, but also the Hitlers
of our future?<<
Quite possible, though it's even more likely that something within
the spectrum between FDR and AH will prevail. The more that workers
and other oppressed groups are democratically organized at the grass
roots and united internationally for a long-term battle, the more
likely that the global state (if it happens) will be relatively
benign.
Terry M. writes of two strategies: >>... One is Jim D's competitive
austerity of which the U.S. and Britain are the exemplars. [Indeed,
it would not be inaccurate to describe it as the Anglo-Saxon
Strategy.]<<
Maybe it's Anglo-Saxon, but the World Bank imposes such a strategy
on a lot of other countries. It's called a SAP (as in a sock filled
with BBs used to hit you on the back of the neck).
>>The other promotes competitiveness through the control of
monopolized markets, technology and scarce skills. This is the
so-called "high productivity" strategy. The proceeds of a successful
implementation of this strategy are to be divided between capital,
labor and social services. It hopes this income will maintain local
demand. This might be labelled the Continental Strategy. The problem
is not that this strategy cannot work (it's working very well in
Ireland at the moment) but that it requires extraordinary luck to
remain at the cutting edge of technology and skills. Sooner or later
the high productivity economy is overtaken by competition and the
austerity strategy imposed. <<
Also, this strategy is being discouraged by the international powers
that be.
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:11165] censorship
Even though I prefer collective shunning as a way to deal with obnoxious characters who invade pen-l, I do not consider Michael Perelman's expulsion of Karl Carlisle from pen-l to be "censorship." It's Michael's living room and we're having (or trying to have) a serious intellectual discussion from a left-wing political perspective. Michael can kick out those who drool on his rug, put LSD in his punch, or start hitting his guests (you get the metaphor). It would be more like censorship if the person kicked out were polite but expressed deviant positions. But Karl does not fit that description. In any event, there are a lot of other discussion groups where Karl can express his gods-given right to free speech. Maybe eventually he'll learn how to be polite rather than deliberately provoking flame wars. Maybe eventually he'll get a life, so he won't have to be so deliberately provocative. Maybe he could set up his own web page so that people who are interested in his views can find out what they are. I hope that the folks who yell "censorship" also consider the daily newspaper or the other news outlets to be engaged in censorship. Every day, the editor of the L.A. TIMES (for example) decides that some stories and many letters to the editor shouldn't be published, often for the most corrupt reasons. "Jimmy" 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:11164] The definite report on U.S. aircraft over Cuba -- forwarded
The following was received from the Canadian organisation Science for Peace. Jesse Vorst, Society for Socialist Studies, Winnipeg, Canada For information contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Lorch) or Roberto Yepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Technical Considerations on US biological aggression against Cuba Cuba has issued a report with technical considerations that further sustain charges that a US plane overflying the island's territory, was indeed responsible for the spread of the Thrips Palmi Plague. The report was published in Granma on July 1st, 1997. It follows in its entirety: TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE U.S. DEPARTMENT'S STATEMENTS ON THE ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE U.S. S2R AIRCRAFT WHILE FLYING OVER CUBAN NATIONAL TERRITORY ON OCTOBER 21st, 1996. On May 5th this year, the U.N. Secretary General distributed as a U.N. General Assembly official document (A/52/128, dated 4/29/1997) a Report on the appearance in Cuba of the Thrips Palmi plague. The above report makes a thorough description of the facts of the overflight along the "Giron" corridor, within Cuban territory, by the S2R aircraft, with registration No. N3093M of the U.S. Civil Aircraft Registry operated by the U.S. State Department. The findings of the research, just as concluded by the above mentioned report, permit to sustain with a high degree of certainty, that the appearance of the Thrips Palmi in Cuba is related to the spewing of unknown substances over the national territory by the afore- mentioned U.S. aircraft. On May 6, the U.S. State Department made statements on the Report presented by Cuba. In those statements, trying to justify the spraying of substances over Cuba, it was expressed that the pilot followed prudential air safety measure to mark his location with smoke and that all small aircraft of this kind used by the United States are equipped with smoke-generating systems. It was also stated that during long flights, the sprinkling system are not operational because the tanks normally used for the pesticides are used in the case to store the fuel necessary for the journey. Such arguments prove thoughtless and unprofessional, as unquestionably evidenced by the following technical considerations: Questions relating to the use of the smoke generator as an air traffic procedure. - The norms and regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) do no make any reference whatsoever to any regulation establishing the use of smoke generators to signal the position of flying aircraft and it is not a known practice. - The aircraft was flying under an IFR (Instrumental Flight Rules) flight plan, where the responsibility for the mutual separation of aircraft during the flight is assumed by the Air Traffic Controller leading them, and not by the pilots, as the U.S. smoke generator version argues. - It is absurd for the pilot to have been unsettled to such an extent by the approach of a Cubana de Aviacion aircraft that he decided to activate the alleged smoke generator without ever reporting this to the Air Traffic Controller who was leading him and who was responsible for his separation, which certainly is a set procedure. - Also significant is the fact that the approach made him turn on the alleged smoke generator and there was no related report from the aircraft captain on arriving at his destination airport, which also certainly is a set procedure. - Nor did the pilot report in-flight that he had any technical problem on board. Cuba has the radio recordings between the aircraft and the air traffic controller. On the use of the smoke generator. - In the consulted official publications (Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1992-1993, Aviation Week & Space Technology of 3/16/92), the smoke generator does not appear as S2R-T65 aircraft standard equipment. - Small, mid-size, and large commercial aircraft, as well as crop duster planes manufactured and operated all over the world, are not equipped with the smoke generator and it is not required by ICAO. - The only ordinary practice is the installation of smoke generators in aerobatic aircraft in exhibition flights and other related activities. On the use of the herbicide tank for carrying fuel. It is known that this kind of aircraft, as well as other similar ones, can use the tank normally used for carrying herbicides or other elements, as fuel tank during long flights. In the case of the N3093M flight on October 21, 1996, there are elements that show the non-use of the herbicide tank to carry fuel. These can be summarized as follows: - The flight request submitted to the relevant Cuban authorities says that it is a ferry flight, which, according to the aeronautical phraseology, means that this aircraft was carrying no load or, which is the same, the herbicide tank was empty, since it is the only compartment where this aircraft carries cargo. - This aircraft has a usable capacity of 228 gallons (863 liters) in its fuel tan
[PEN-L:11163] On censorship
I do not consider the fate of Karl to be censorship. I don't think that anyone on this list disagrees with everything on this list. I had already written to Karl on the list about his style of behavior -- not his opinions. I am more concerned about maintaining a satisfactory signal-noise ratio. I am sorry that my action has upset some people. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11162] Re: shun him!
I recently came on to this list, because I was hoping for some sort of antidote to the one sided class war that is currently raging in this country. The class and race divide continue to grow deeper and deeper, and we are told by those who wield power, that the solution to this is for those who have little,to have even less, and those who have the most to get even more!?!? I thought that I might read some intelligent discussion on what needs to be done to reverse the road that this country and this world seems to be headed. Unfortunately, all I read is the same old doctrinaire slogans. Now we are even getting censorship. It is apparantly permissable to apologize for the crimes of the Mao's cultural revolution, or Stalin's purges, or the Kim dynasty of North Korea, but do not violate political correctness by offending the sensibilities of feminism. I find the postings of Karl or Joseph, or whatever his name is to be boring, rambling, and rather pointless. The posts of feminism were no exception. Instead of censoring him, he could either be ignored, or just maybe, the postings could have been used as a springboard for an intelligent discussion regarding the strategy, tactics, and methodology of feminism. That is, do feminists sometimes put much effort into staking out their own territory at the expensive of progressivism in general? Such a question could also be applied to various other interests on the left. (Minorities, gays, greens, etc.) I suppose that I have just succeeded in becoming the next person to be banned. It does not matter, because I am pulling out to protest the censorship of Karl. I will leave the rest of you to pat each other on the back, and pretend that it is still the Summer of Love. Gordon
[PEN-L:11161] Re: Capital and the State
Eric raises the question of the creation of hegemony by international capital vs national capital. I want to first observe that to unselfconsciously discuss as we have been doing national vs. international capital IN THE METROPOLE is one candidate for the indicators of qualitative change. Perhaps another is that capital is being categorized by its relationship to the international economy rather than along some other axis. The concept of "competitiveness" as a guide to national policy is the strategy under which national policy is subordinated to the ideological hegemony of international capital. This notion is very effective in overcoming the oppositions that Eric observes by identifying the national interest with effective (i.e. profitable) participation in the international market. Competitiveness is also effective in that it provides an umbrella for two different strategies. One is Jim D's competitive austerity of which the U.S. and Britain are the exemplars. [Indeed, it would not be inaccurate to describe it as the Anglo-Saxon Strategy.] The other promotes competitiveness through the control of monopolized markets, technology and scarce skills. This is the so-called "high productivity" strategy. The proceeds of a successful implementation of this strategy are to be divided between capital, labor and social services. It hopes this income will maintain local demand. This might be labelled the Continental Strategy. The problem is not that this strategy cannot work (it's working very well in Ireland at the moment) but that it requires extraordinary luck to remain at the cutting edge of technology and skills. Sooner or later the high productivity economy is overtaken by competition and the austerity strategy imposed. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:11160] Re: Feminism is sexist?
KARL: Now I know you deliberately misrepresent what I say since you could not possibly be quite that stupid. Anybody that reads my message will see that you distorted what I said.. It is obvious that a cabal on this list is lloking for a pretext to expel me form this list becuae they are unable to seriously challenge my mail. Expelling simply reveals the reactionary nature of the cabla that controls it. On 6 Jul 97 at 18:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 97-07-06 16:34:18 EDT, you write: > >KARL: More misconstructions of my position.I certainly did not say >all. I said MUCH:"much of the genralities made about men as a gender >have a sexist character". How can one take what you say seriously >when you misrepresent postings at this most elementary of levels. > > Karl, I reprinted your ENTIRE message and replied to it line by line. I am not going to do this again--clearly you don't like owning up to your own quotes. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:11159] Re: shun him!
KARL: I attacked sexism Billy boy. Do you know anything? - On 6 Jul 97 at 22:05, Bill Burgess wrote: Shunning is better than cutting someone out of the list, but it takes a high degree of agreement and self-discipline among listers. I sometimes despair at the little room that is often allowed for (what I think are) ideas worth hearing, or if not worth hearing, at least better heard than held secretly. However, Karl's comments were sexist in a way that I don't think most of us would tolerate in a face-to-face conversation, or at any public event we had any responsibility for. I say thank you Michael P. for kicking him out. This is not censorship. It is our right to a democratic atmosphere for discussions, and that requires prompt action against the kind of blatant and aggressive sexism I read in Karl's first couple of messages (I am assuming the rest were more of the same, because I didn't read through them). Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150 Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:11158] Re: shun him!
KARL: Who is most? We dont know that. Where is the democracy and openess. This expulsion was carried out by a small cabal wo desire to control the list for themsleves. Just imagine what these people would be like if they had state power. Thei nastiness might make Stalin shudder. I have a good idea who some of these people are. THey are hiding at them moment. Perhaps they will crawl out from under the rock and squeak. - On 6 Jul 97 at 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Shunning is better than cutting someone out of the list, but it takes >a high degree of agreement and self-discipline among listers. > >I sometimes despair at the little room that is often allowed for >(what I think are) ideas worth hearing, or if not worth hearing, at >least better heard than held secretly. However, Karl's comments were >sexist in a way that I don't think most of us would tolerate in a >face-to-face conversation, or at any public event we had any >responsibility for. > >I say thank you Michael P. for kicking him out. This is not >censorship. It is our right to a democratic atmosphere for >discussions, and that requires prompt action against the kind of >blatant and aggressive sexism I read in Karl's first couple of >messages (I am assuming the rest were more of the same, because I >didn't read through them). > > >Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Most folks who've expressed opinions have supported Michael's decision to kick Karl off the list. I think Bill above has articulated something like my thoughts: PEN-L is a commons regime and it may sometimes require defense against those who would despoil it. Michael: I think you do a great job of keeping PEN-L healthy. In my opinion it has just about the highest signal to noise ratio of any email list I'm aware of, even though I have disagreements about all sorts of things with many people on the list and can't always read everything I want for lack of time. Thanks! _ Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "They say that it's never too late, but you know you don't get any younger. Well I better learn how to starve the emptiness and feed the hunger. -- Indigo Girls _ Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:11157] Re: shun him!
Ajit, It is good to see that there some people on this mailing lsit who possess some kind of principled politics. As per ususal there are a few people on the list who wish to keep it to themselves. THey are not intereseted in free speech. They only pretend to. - On 6 Jul 97 at 23:55, Ajit Sinha wrote: At 02:17 PM 7/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >I have removed Karl from pen-l. Although I have had private >communications asking me to do so, I waited until the sentiment >seemed stronger. I think that we have reached that point. > >This is the least entertaining part of pen-l, but at least it is an >issue that comes only infrequently. -- Michael Perelman ___ I seiously protest against this move. If a progressive intelectual community will show such intolerance then future of democracy is indeed bleak. In my opinion Karl could easily be ingaged into a debate on feminist politics, and Maggie's response was slowly moving things in that direction. Too bad it wasn't given a chance. ajit sinha Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:11156] Re: pen-l
KARL: Ah the fascists need not have any fear with people like you about. Clearly I must have been making a positive impact when your politics force you to take such action. Indeed I am flattered that that my importance is such on your piece of private mailing property that you are forced to censor my messages by preventing me from remaining on the list. I did not theink you and your firends politics is such that you felt that threatend by my presence. I can just imagine how you correct the scripts of some of your students when they say things you dont agree to. Ah well I have to go now since my granny wants me to have tea and cakes with her in the little coffee shop down the road.. -- On 6 Jul 97 at 14:17, Michael Perelman wrote: Karl, I am removing you from the pen-l list. Sorry things did not work out. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yours etc., Karl
