[PEN-L:12334] Re: NAFTA
Last weeK I dashed off a criticism of some "talking points' against NAFTA fast-fastacking that had been posted on PEN-L. I argued they blamed Mexicans for increased bad food and (illegal) drugs in the US; that blaming NAFTA for job losses let capitalism off the hook; and that citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico was hypocritical. I thought these were yuppie-Perot reasons for opposing NAFTA. - Several people replied that it was unregulated markets in Mexico (not Mexicans) that were being blamed for bad food. Max Sawicky complained my "translation" mirrored the mainstream media's characterization of anti-NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist. Unfortunately I do think this characterization of the *campaign* against NAFTA is (partly) true. Not that the pro-NAFTA forces are any less guilty, and worse. Both frameworks are rotten. We should reject, not support Perot, Buchanan type arguments by clearly opposing NAFTA on the basis of the interests of working people in both (and all) countries. Complete silence on one side is complicity with the dominant voice. Michael Pereleman noted that it is not blaming Americans to assert that WTO regulations make it difficult to keep steroids and growth hormones out of food in European countries. I'm not sure how this point connects to NAFTA on Mexico. Should be oppose increasing access to out markets by all countries whose health and safety regulations are less stringent than our's (i.e. most of the world)? Are pesticides really the problem or is capitalism the problem? I agree with most of Erik Leaver's points on food (and I was relieved that apparantly I was not the only one to feel the talking points were one-sided). In my opinion, another good food-related reason to oppose NAFTA is how it has helped push indigenous farmers off communally-owned land in Mexico. I think many farmers in the US, who are also being pushed off their land by the banks and agribusiness can identify with this. I also like it because it gets out of the usual framework of thinking of our interests as consumers. No one commented on the arguments about NAFTA reductions in border inspections being responsible for more illegal drugs in the US. It is hard to *not* translate this into a call for more border cops, inspections, searches, etc. with all this means for immigrants, refugees and ordinary working people. This is the Perot-Buchanan-Democrat-Republican line. For a world without borders! I had said that "blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine". Max Sawicky replied: "Self-evident rubish. It implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's job is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh." I'm still scratching my head on this one. The (original) claim was that "...NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs." NAFTA caused those job losses. If you *don't mention* the role of capitalism, corporate greed, etc. they are not included as causes. No NAFTA, no job losses caused, no problem. It seems to me Max's approach is to wait until NAFTA is killed by Ross Perot arguments and *then* get on with the left's job of explaining how rotton capitalism is. Erik Leaver posted some points about the tendentious use of statistics on NAFTA's job effects. We had the same in Canada about the impact of Canada-US 'free' trade: some anti 'free' traders made wild claims about job losses due to its implementation and completely ignored the effect of the recession or capitalist crisis. When this line became untenable the fallback was a near-conspiracy theory that the recession was caused by the Bank of Canada's high interest policy ...implemented at the behest of *US* corporations. Its not domestic capitalists but foreign capitalists that are blamed, in other words not capitalism at all, but foreigners. I had complained about the 'border ecology' argument. Shouldn't we favour a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market in the world? Are jobs for Mexican workers only OK if the pollution stays away from out border? Or should they all locate in Mexico City? I'm sure we all favour rational, balanced, minimally-polluting economic development in Mexico, but they can't wait for world socialism for us to support it, and to do so without giving up anything on protecting ecology everywhere. Another point to link our interests in the US and Canada with those in Mexico against these trade deals: the ne-nationalization of Mexico's petroleum industry, which is another blow against their right to develop independently of imperialism. Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:12336] Re: the beautiful poor
This post reminds me of the Kathleen Turner's line in Prizzi's Honor. Jack Nicholson learns with shock that his girlfriend is a hit-person with many jobs under her belt. Expressing his amazement to her, she replies, "Well, it's not that many if you take it as a proportion of the population." Now Doug, I thought you liked numbers, especially as they pertain to ratios (%):). How about getting the stats on widow burning? This is an old "internal" versus "external" debate. An understanding of social change in India informs us that local institutions have interacted with those introduced from the outside. There is a significant variation across regions: dowry deaths seem to be taking place in northern Hindi speaking belt (centered around Delhi and other urban centers). Paradoxically it is associated with the middle classes. As for widow burning you need to update your information. The last case I heard was in the 1980s, in a village in rajasthan, perhaps one of the most economically underdeveloped state. As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to eliminate. === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12337] Re: the beautiful poor
In a message dated 97-09-14 14:28:04 EDT, you write: The way to say it without sounding like a chauvanist is to say it like a feminist. There is no cultural basis for asserting that Sr. Nirmala is acting out of an Indian cultural perspective. The beauty of culture is its adaptability. The Indian pantheon of religions include many female deities, and their is no Hindu sanction against abortion. The cultural imperialism of Europe and the patriarchy of Roman Catholicism (objected to by most Catholic women I might add) is what Sr. Nirmala is dutifully regergitating as per the requirements of subservience in her Catholic church heirarchy. The rigidity of the backward patriarachal Euro-Centrated position you find objectionable in Sr. Nirmala comes from Rome and hundreds of years of Vatican mysogynist jibberish. It hails from no where else. So what about dowry, widow burning, restrictions on property ownership, and all that stuff? Doug Hmmm, diverse points galore; 1. I DO consider myself a feminist, and was trying to think of the feminist response-- while you present part of a feminist response, Doug is right, women aren't exactly treated as **revered equals** in Indian society. In addition to the points he made, the use of sonograms in India these days is used primarily to abort female children. I guess that's better than drowning them at birth... India is one of the few countries in the world with a female SHORTAGE. There are only about 93 women for every 100 men--hmmm, kinda blows the theory that shortages increase the price of an object. The primary problem I have is that it seems any critique of another country by someone from the USA frequently gets redressed with charges of cultural chauvanism. I was politely trying to find a way of saying that the Catholic Church increases the oppression of women in an already oppressive society. 2. However, I certainly agree that catholicism always puts the most backward/patriarchal spin on any local culture. For instance, before Catholicism took hold in Wales, women's decison making percentage in the household was a direct result of the percentage of marriage property they provided. A twice or thrice widowed woman would have more say over the household than her husband. All unmarried women were virgins--virginity had nothing to do with sex. Further, women could seek divorce from an unfaithful or abusive husband. The catholics stopped that shit dead in its tracks. I am sure that,** :-)as a feminist:-)**, you could supply more examples. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12340] Re: NAFTA
Bill Burgess wrote: Michael Pereleman noted that it is not blaming Americans to assert that WTO regulations make it difficult to keep steroids and growth hormones out of food in European countries. I'm not sure how this point connects to NAFTA on Mexico. Should be oppose increasing access to out markets by all countries whose health and safety regulations are less stringent than our's (i.e. most of the world)? Are pesticides really the problem or is capitalism the problem? In California, we have been lucky to have passed legislation to protect ourselves from pesticides -- though these regulations are weak. There is also some fear that less regulated Mexican trucks can pose a danger on our roads. Why should we not have the right to pass such regulations in a city or state or country? Yes, capitalism is the problem, but biological processes cannot distinguish between capitalist poisons and those from other forms of society. The immediate problem is that capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection via local control. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 916-898-5321 916-898-5901 fax
[PEN-L:12341] language-thinking
Devine writes that depending on one's definitions one may separate thought and language. That's true, but some definitions are closer to the truth than others. Even if we define thinking per se as something that "occurs within an individual's brain" (a very liberal view, I might add) such private thinking still requires the use of language. Just try thinking without words. Chess too involves language; how can you play (think) without knowing the rules (words, symbols) of chess? No words can be expressed without thinking; all words carry meaning. It is just that some people think little when they talk. I agree that ideas which are not put into action have little effect on history. But this does not mean that you can separate actions from words; it simply means that some ideas are put into actions whereas others are not. ricardo
[PEN-L:12344] language vs. thinking
Ricardo writes notes that I wrote that depending on one's definitions one
may separate
thought and language. That's true, but some definitions are closer to the
truth than others. Even if we define thinking per se as something that
"occurs within an individual's brain" (a very liberal view, I might add)
such private thinking still requires the use of language.
What's a different, and more accurate, definition of thinking than the one
I provided? What's a non-liberal definition of thinking? Why was my
(admittedly incomplete) definition of thinking liberal? do we reject all
things liberal?
Just try thinking without words. Chess too involves language; how can you
play (think) without knowing the rules (words, symbols) of chess?
This misses the point. Thinking -- including that involved with
chess-playing -- definitely _uses_ words, so that thinking _without_ words
is probably impossible. But that doesn't mean that language is the only
tool that thinking uses, which would make thinking and language well-nigh
identical. In fact, I bet that if one doesn't use language to define the
spatial relationships between the pieces on the chessboard, it makes it
easier to play chess. ("the white King is at Queen Knight's third, there's
a friendly pawn immediately past it, etc., etc.)
In addition to words, our minds use intuition, spacial vision, etc. Just
as, according to Howard Gardner, there are 8 kinds of intelligence, the
mind is multi-dimensional. It can't be reduced to one dimension, such as
language.
No words can be expressed without thinking; all words carry meaning. It
is just that some people think little when they talk.
I agree. But there's more going on that simply thinking.
I agree that ideas which are not put into action have little effect on
history. But this does not mean that you can separate actions from words;
it simply means that some ideas are put into actions whereas others are not.
I agree with this.
In addition, a clarifying note: the expression of words (on paper or in
speech or electronically) is a kind of action (social practice). There are,
however, some types of action that are more important in terms of their
impact on the historical process than others. My lecturing in the
classroom, for example, is less important than the work being done outside
my office window (at this moment) digging the foundation for a new building.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html
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:12345] Consistency and Respect
It's good that people on the list are quick to defend Buddhists, even from relatively oblique references that might be interpreted as indicating a lack of respect. Can a similar level of courtesy and respect be extended to Muslims? I'm a little surprised that an anti-Muslim joke could go up on the list with little comment (save an alert note by Harry C) and no apology (Sept 8, the one about Kuwaiti women walking ten paces ahead due to landmines) and then the same person who posted that joke would go after Max's Buddha-can-you-spare-a-dime aside, which strikes me as far less offensive in terms of the cultural stereotypes it calls upon. I think Michael E is completely sincere and said some smart things, especially on stereotypes being a general problem and not just a concern of those stereotyped. But it is worrying that we have a climate in which anti-Muslim stereotypes go largely unchallenged and perhaps are not even perceived as such. Best, Colin
[PEN-L:12350] Thai Bubbles
The Thailand version of Asian miracle is real in terms of macroeconomic performance, the growth of manufacturing, and real changes in standards of living for an extraordinary number of Thais. But the miracle is only part of the story. Poverty, environmental degradation, urban congestion, AIDS, regional tensions and ethnic conflicts, real estate and property speculation, scams and scandals, and a military with political/economic power are also part of the Thai miracle. Bangkok is a mess. All of these problems are well recognized by all walks of life in Thailand. Surely a great case study in development and underdevelopment. One concern with the collapse of the Thai/SE Asian bubble is whether somehow it could spread over to East Asia or even this side of the Pac Rim. Probably not -- Thai/SEA imports from the industrial countries are probably too small, but maybe next time will be different. While it is true that China and Vietnam increasingly receive more Japanese investment, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia will not suffer much once the collapsed bubble is digested. Japanese MNC's have carefully extended their domestic *keiretsu* networks into SEA and they cannot (or will not) extract themselves from these networks. After all, long-term markets, resources, and all the related institutions and infrastructure are in place. One must remember also that Japanese investment is in real plant and equipment, not in terms of speculative land purchases or even an aircraft carrier. (The Thai military just bought a used one). The fascinating thing about the Thai bubble collapse is how the political and economic powers will try to use the IMF resources and domestic "austerity" measures to impose the costs of speculation and underdevelopment problems on Thai workers and farmers. Will the Thai fat cats really be required to swallow the costs of the bloated bubble? Or can they push it off on someone else? Personal note/rumblings: last year I spent a week in Chachoengsao province (east of Bangkok) and stayed with my colleagues from an earlier time. It was lots of fun. The town of Chachoengsao has its own urbanization problems and even traffic jams! There was now a shopping mall with a multistory parking garage on the edge of town, and urban sprawl in lots of places. The first night we ate at a restaurant on the river and planned the week. One of my requests was to talk to farmers about their problems and concerns. They were slightly taken aback: "where are the farmers"? No longer just a short bike ride from town. Anyway after talking to rice, fish, shrimp, and mango farmers, I came to the conclusion that the Thai miracle wasn't the same as all of the nice macroeconomic performance reports coming out of Bangkok. Rice farmers in particular were bitter about low prices, angry that many of them were renting land from absentee landlords, and disgusted that the government did virtually nothing to support them.And this is in a province which monsoon rails and irrigation works make for an ideal farming setting. Some farmers, those that owned their land, did the best. The shrimp and mango farmers have their environmental problems -- and no EPA in sight. Many of the farmers' sons and daughters are drawn (propelled?) into the many factories in the Bangkok area; one fish farm was worked by Cambodians. During a previous trips, I visited one of those factories -- the Nike factory in Bangkok. A large amount of Nike's shoe production has been moved elsewhere in SE Asia. Part of the time stumbling around the countryside I was with one or two of my former colleagues. The rest of the time I was solo and used local transportation and hoofed it here-and-there and talked to farmers where-ever I could. In many ways the country-side had not changed in three decades or since my previous visit 8 years earlier. But a significant amount of the housing stock was much better (ie stucco houses instead of wood), there were more paved roads, and small mechanic tractors had replaced the water buffalo. The kids were clearly better fed, clothed, and healthier compared to my first time to Chachoengsao. One time I came across a beautiful new housing project going up -- it was about 70 km from Bangkok. It was such a contrast to the housing stock of the farmers in the immediate vicinity. In fact there was a lot of new housing (homes, apartments) be constructed and the finished ones might stay vacant for up to 2 years until they sold. That is, the development costs and prices were such that it might be two years before the bubble economy generated buyers. With the collapse of the bubble, there is a tremendous amount of housing, apartments, and shopping centers with not enuf buyers and customers. The people, as always, were very friendly and easy to engage in conversation. (All of the above is not very rigorous in terms of a research project, but good enuf to collect some observations and reflections.) The real
[PEN-L:12352] Re: the beautiful poor
For clarification: My remarks were intended to remind our colleague of the Catholic church hierarchy requirements that clerics and nuns spout the party line. Sr. Nirmala was responding as per the requirement of her oath of office to a question about abortion. As a nun she was not "free" to make a remark outside of the peremeters of Catholic churches official line. She may also be a Brahmin, or a Raiders fan for all I know, but I think she spoke not out of a culturally Indian perspective (which you who are more aware than I may feel free to attack) but out of her office as the spokesperson for the convent founded by the now dead Teresa. In either event I believe it is anyone's perrogative to point out the feminist question. And while it is true that the leading cause of death last year in India for women was burning, the leading cause of death in the workplace in California for the last two years was ALSO violence, perdominantly at the hands of a disgruntled former (male) lover/spouse, and only occasionally by a sexual harrasser that the company had failed to discipline. Anthony P D'Costa wrote: Now Doug, I thought you liked numbers, especially as they pertain to ratios (%):). How about getting the stats on widow burning? This is an old "internal" versus "external" debate. An understanding of social change in India informs us that local institutions have interacted with those introduced from the outside. There is a significant variation across regions: dowry deaths seem to be taking place in northern Hindi speaking belt (centered around Delhi and other urban centers). Paradoxically it is associated with the middle classes. As for widow burning you need to update your information. The last case I heard was in the 1980s, in a village in rajasthan, perhaps one of the most economically underdeveloped state. As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to eliminate. This, and an offlist communication, make me worry that I've been misunderstood. I thought the original posting that I was reacting to (appended below) overstated the case, treating sexism and callousness towards the poor as purely western impositions. I'm not trying to excuse anything, or divert attention from the crimes of imperialists. Doug The way to say it without sounding like a chauvanist is to say it like a feminist. There is no cultural basis for asserting that Sr. Nirmala is acting out of an Indian cultural perspective. The beauty of culture is its adaptability. The Indian pantheon of religions include many female deities, and their is no Hindu sanction against abortion. The cultural imperialism of Europe and the patriarchy of Roman Catholicism (objected to by most Catholic women I might add) is what Sr. Nirmala is dutifully regergitating as per the requirements of subservience in her Catholic church heirarchy. The rigidity of the backward patriarachal Euro-Centrated position you find objectionable in Sr. Nirmala comes from Rome and hundreds of years of Vatican mysogynist jibberish. It hails from no where else.
[PEN-L:12354] Re: Consistency and Respect
Maybe I am an insensitive type. Yes, as Doug pointed out, the Bhudda joke cast aspersions -- but not on Bhuddists, but on Gore and Clinton. The Kuwaiti joke was suggesting that sexism exists in the Muslim world. It does. Sometimes, it even crops up closer to home. We should be sensitive to others, but we also need to maintain a sense of humor. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 916-898-5321 916-898-5901 fax
[PEN-L:12356] Re: language vs. thinking
I had written: In addition, a clarifying note: the expression of words (on paper or in speech or electronically) is a kind of action (social practice). There are, however, some types of action that are more important in terms of their impact on the historical process than others. My lecturing in the classroom, for example, is less important than the work being done outside my office window (at this moment) digging the foundation for a new building. ellen starbird asks: Why on earth would you think, even using your own analysis, that words not acted on are less significant than deeds; that the work building a building across the way is LESS significant than you class room lecture? Words that have no impact on anyone's action can't produce any art or food or clothing. They can't produce social change. They can't further the maintenance of the status quo. They're just hot air, like politicians' promises (except that the latter unfortunately encourage some people to vote for their creators). Of course, many words do make people happy, encourage people to do art, to produce food or clothing, to change (or maintain) the world. But those are not the words I was talking about. On the second, it's the construction that's changing the world more than my teaching rather than vice-versa. It's because my students don't seem interested in anything but grades and I'm not very good at capturing their imaginations. BTW, I endorse what Michael Perelman said about "Consistency and Respect." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html "Elvis is god." -- religion for the 1990s.
[PEN-L:12358] Re: the beautiful poor
I am sorry but I don't rely on 60 minutes for my news on India. Sixty
minutes sounds good on TV and sometimes genuinely so. There are dowry
deaths and like I said found in certain regions, concentrated among
urban lower/middle middle classes. I am fully aware of Sati and there
is no confusion on my part.
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor Senior Fellow
Comparative International Development Department of Economics
University of WashingtonNational University of Singapore
1900 Commerce Street10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Tacoma, WA 98402-3100 USA Singapore 119260
Ph: (253) 692-4462
Fax: (253) 692-4414
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 97-09-15 04:59:44 EDT, Anthony DaCosta writes:
The last case I
heard was in the 1980s, in a village in rajasthan, perhaps
one of the most economically underdeveloped state.
As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a
problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to
eliminate.
Cheers, Anthony
According to a 60 minutes slot last winter ('96-'97), dying by being burned
is one of the leading causes of death for married women in India. I think
you are confusing the old practice of a woman being burned with the corpse of
her husband with the "accidental" burning of live women while the husband is
still alive. Women are no longer burned alive at the death of their
husbands--the problem is that they are burned in kitchen accidents while the
husband is still alive so he can remarry. If he divorces his wife, he has to
return her marriage portion, and there's no profit in that. Apparently, a
man and his family can live quite well on the successive dowries of multiple
wives. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12360] Re: NAFTA
Bill Burgess wrote: Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local control". First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) nationalities. I am not sure what the template means. If California passes a law that restricts pesticide use, it can be challenged as a restraint of trade. Sometimes such protective legislation is just proectionism, but often it is not. If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of sand, or some such metaphor. I am not saying that our stance on trade should be based on something like "protection via local control". But you can write off much opposition to capitalism as tilting at windmills. However, the result can be defeatism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12361] the ugly rich
PBS carried a one-hour, Pew Trust sponsored program called "Affluenza" tonight about American consumerism. The first 45 minutes were quite good though the last part on responses focussed solely on individualist strategies for dropping off the treadmill, not even a hint of actually challenge corporate control of production. Still, the program made some good marks in talking about credit cards and the role of related money problem in breaking up families and in pointing out some of the advertising tactics being aimed at children. The equation between high consumption and environmental damage was a little too facile for my taste but reasonable on the whole. could be a good resource for small group meetings or classes. they said you can order the video at 1-800-937-5387. Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
[PEN-L:12363] Re: slurs
At 09:48 12/09/97 -0700, Jim D. wrote: Sure, but is fighting on the language front the _best_ way to empower those without power? If a moralistic perspective that "you guys have to speak 'correct' language all the time" alienates potential allies, is the language battle the best way? Wouldn't fighting for affirmative action be better than insisting that everyone use the "correct" terms? An overemphasis on "correct" language seems to be a phenomenon of bureaucracy rather than a grass-roots fight for empowerment. In the Pentagon, "correct" language flows from the top: you can't call them "civilian casualties"; they should be called "collateral damage." Corporations also have their "correct" language: we don't call them "profits" anymore, while you must call employees "partners" if you want to be promoted. My impression, which may easily be wrong, is that the strongest advocates of correct language on the left are those with either a bureaucratic position or a bureaucratic mentality. That is, they see the imposition of the correct rules on others as somehow the only way to solve social problems. For example, instead of getting the male and female firefighters together in the fire station to discuss -- and fight about -- how to deal with sexism (probably with some facilitation of the discussion from the leaders), the person with the bureaucratic mentality thinks that simply pushing the men to follow rules (no pin-ups in the public spaces, etc.) will solve the problem. It reflects a profound distrust of the firefighters' ability to think for themselves, to figure out solutions, etc. It may reflect fear of unionization. I don't think critique of language is about establishing the same power relation the other way round. You are continuousley thinking from the point of view of somebody who is in position of power; e.g. how do you control adolescent speach etc. How do you call yourself 'progressive' or 'revolutionary' with such identity with power? Put yourself on the other side, man! Be a teenager and subvert the language imposed on you by the adults. Continuously? "identity with power"? how do you know how I think? does my language simply reflect my thinking? can you read my mind? I now know that I shouldn't play poker with you. Frankly, I don't think insisting on correct language is the teenaged way to subvert racism, sexism, capitalism, etc. Teenagers tend toward action more than words. I think they're right, though the actual action they choose might be misguided (it depends on which teenager you're talking about). Put it this way: a sit-in would be more effective, even though sit-ins have their own limitations. The overemphasis on language is like insisting that politicians make good promises without insisting that they follow through and actually make good on their promises. Sure, it's great to hear good promises, but what's important is that they are put into action. I'm sorry I don't understand what this is all about. Sounds more like Jorge Bush and Denesh DeSuza led attack on "pc" even though "pc" was their own creation and not Duke University's. I don't think language politics has much to do with "pc" or imposing anything on anyone. It is simply a critique of everyday language that exposes the hidden, and at times not so hidden, social power structure--vary much a similar game as Marx's CAPITAL was about the capitalist economy. Now, if CAPITAL helps workers to launch a revolt and attack on capitalist's exploitation, then would you call it workers imposition on the freedom of the capitalists to exploit? The problem with whole sale language critique is that it creates discomfort for all of us at one time or the other. That's why we all need sense of humour. But it is the victimizers who need sense of humour and not the victims, in any given particular situation. Both you and Michael Perlman seem to be asking the victims to have sense of humour, which is a bit troublesome. By the way, there is a popular joke in America, and I'm sure you must know it, that goes like this: "I'm all for multiculturalism as long as 'they' behave like us". I think people who are too sensitive about others being sensitive should remind themselves of this joke. Cheers, ajit sinha in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html 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:12362] Re: the beautiful poor
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, anzalone/starbird wrote: For clarification: My remarks were intended to remind our colleague of the Catholic church hierarchy requirements that clerics and nuns spout the party line. Sr. Nirmala was responding as per the requirement of her oath of office to a question about abortion. As a nun she was not "free" to make a remark outside of the peremeters of Catholic churches official line. She may also be a Brahmin, or a Raiders fan for all I know, but I think she spoke not out of a culturally Indian perspective (which you who are more aware than I may feel free to attack) but out of her office as the spokesperson for the convent founded by the now dead Teresa. In either event I believe it is anyone's perrogative to point out the feminist question. And while it is true that the leading cause of death last year in India for women was burning, I do not recall who said this first but here's a real problem: when some opinion repeated many times becomes the truth. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the leading cause of women's deaths in India was by burning. What is this...some internet gossip? the leading cause of death in the workplace in California for the last two years was ALSO violence, perdominantly at the hands of a disgruntled former (male) lover/spouse, and only occasionally by a sexual harrasser that the company had failed to discipline. Anthony P D'Costa
[PEN-L:12359] Re: NAFTA
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote (about our difference on blaming NAFTA for job losses): The left's job is to strive for practical, incremental gains in a way that points to larger solutions. I agree with this, but I disagree you can "point to larger solutions" by blaming job losses on NAFTA in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from Perot et all. I'm not suggesting maximum program everywhere, all the time, but the left should raise proposals in a way that unites our side and brings out our common interests, not reproduces those that e.g. are imposed by imaginary lines on the earth's surface. Now we seem to be getting closer to your argument, which seems to be a brief for trade liberalization so that Mexico can escape its underdevelopment. Is this how you think Mexico will develop? It sounds like by your criteria, to paraphrase you, "capitalism in Mexico 'with freer access to the richest market in the world' would be just fine." Except that I did try (whether adequately or not) to "point to the larger solution" in both the US/Canada and Mexico. And yes, I am in favour of 'trade liberalization' if by that is meant freer access for oppressed countries to world markets. Aren't you? This does not mean support for NAFTA or other trade agreements that are designed to consolidate the power of imperialism (and in this are not different than all their other economic policies, even if this one is more weighty than some). Your alternatives seem to consist of: a world without borders capitalism is rotten a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market . . . dispossession of Mexican peasants from their land oppose denationalization of Mexican oil To clarify: it was * against* the "dispossession of Mexican peasants from their [communal] land". Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local control". First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) nationalities. If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of sand, or some such metaphor. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:12357] UNCTAD REPORT
11 September 1997 Press Release TAD/1847 UNCTAD SOUNDS WARNING ON GLOBALIZATION ADVANCE RELEASE GENEVA, 11 September (UNCTAD) -- The big story of the world economy since the early 1980s has been increasing integration through the unleashing of market forces. But there is also another story, one that is attracting increasing attention in the 1990s: social and economic divisions among, and within, countries are widening. The conclusion that evidence is mounting that slow growth and rising inequalities are becoming more permanent features of the world economy is documented by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in its Trade and Development Report 1997, and it is a wake-up call to policy-makers everywhere. Rising inequalities pose a serious threat of a political backlash against globalization, one that is as likely to come from the North as well as from the South. Such a backlash could reverse beneficial reforms achieved in developed and developing countries over the past decade. And, it may provoke a roll back of some of the more longstanding achievements of economic integration. The 1920s and 1930s provide a stark, and disturbing, reminder of just how quickly faith in markets and economic openness can be overwhelmed by political events. UNCTAD, however, also argues that it is possible to design policies to manage integration into the world economy that can reconcile rapid growth and distributional objectives. The TDR 1997 documents, in detail, seven troublesome features of the contemporary global economy: -- Although there are significant exceptions at the country level, overall the world economy is still growing too slowly -- whether to generate sufficient employment with adequate pay or to alleviate poverty (see later in this press release); -- Gaps between developed and developing countries, as well as within the latter, are widening steadily. In 1965, average GNP per capita for the top 20 per cent of the world's population was 30 times that of the poorest 20 per cent; 25 years later, in 1990, the gap had doubled -- to 60 times; -- The rich have gained everywhere, and not just in comparison to the poorest sections of society; "hollowing out" of the middle class has become a prominent feature of income distribution in many developing and developed countries; -- Finance has been gaining an upper hand over industry, and rentiers over investors. In some developing countries, debt interest payments have reached 15 per cent of GDP; trading in existing assets is thus often much more lucrative than creating wealth through new investment; -- The share of income accruing to capital has gained over that assigned to labour. Profit shares have risen in developed and developing countries alike. In four out of five developing countries, the share of wages in manufacturing value added today is well below that in the early 1980s; -- Increased job and income insecurity is spreading. As rising interest charges have eaten into business revenues, corporate restructuring, labour shedding and wage repression have become the order of the day in much of the North as well as parts of the South; -- The growing wage gap between skilled and unskilled labour is becoming a global problem. Already an established trend in many developed countries, absolute falls in the real wages of unskilled workers -- 20 to 30 per cent in some cases -- have been common in developing countries since the early 1980s. There should be no doubt, UNCTAD warns, that the burden of international economic disintegration, if it were to take place, would -- as during the Great Depression -- be borne by those who can least afford it. Managing Countries' Entry into World Economy Contrary to much current economic thinking, UNCTAD says that increased global competition does not automatically bring faster growth and development. Nor do growth and development automatically bring about a reduction in inequality. No economic law exists that will make developing economies converge automatically towards the income levels of developed countries if they only open up. Rather than the "big bang" approach widely adopted in recent years in many parts of the world, UNCTAD urges a carefully phased liberalization into the world economy -- tailoring the process to the strength of the economy concerned, as well as that of the country's institutions. Government policies devised to manage integration into the world economy can also be put to good effect in reconciling rapid growth and distributional objectives, it argues. Managing Profits for Development The prevailing notion that, faced with globalization forces, policy-makers in developing countries may have lost their room to pursue development objectives actively is not accepted by UNCTAD. Their role is as important as ever, the TDR 1997 says, as "growth and income distribution both depend on how
[PEN-L:12355] Re: the beautiful poor
I'm sorry, I should have made my point better. I meant to point to the fact that hierarchies of class and sex are not just the result of Western imposition. It is anyone's prerogative to point out the feminist question, I couldn't agree with that more. Violence against women is everywhere and I would never object to anyone's pointing that out. Doug anzalone/starbird wrote: For clarification: My remarks were intended to remind our colleague of the Catholic church hierarchy requirements that clerics and nuns spout the party line. Sr. Nirmala was responding as per the requirement of her oath of office to a question about abortion. As a nun she was not "free" to make a remark outside of the peremeters of Catholic churches official line. She may also be a Brahmin, or a Raiders fan for all I know, but I think she spoke not out of a culturally Indian perspective (which you who are more aware than I may feel free to attack) but out of her office as the spokesperson for the convent founded by the now dead Teresa. In either event I believe it is anyone's perrogative to point out the feminist question. And while it is true that the leading cause of death last year in India for women was burning, the leading cause of death in the workplace in California for the last two years was ALSO violence, perdominantly at the hands of a disgruntled former (male) lover/spouse, and only occasionally by a sexual harrasser that the company had failed to discipline. Anthony P D'Costa wrote: Now Doug, I thought you liked numbers, especially as they pertain to ratios (%):). How about getting the stats on widow burning? This is an old "internal" versus "external" debate. An understanding of social change in India informs us that local institutions have interacted with those introduced from the outside. There is a significant variation across regions: dowry deaths seem to be taking place in northern Hindi speaking belt (centered around Delhi and other urban centers). Paradoxically it is associated with the middle classes. As for widow burning you need to update your information. The last case I heard was in the 1980s, in a village in rajasthan, perhaps one of the most economically underdeveloped state. As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to eliminate. This, and an offlist communication, make me worry that I've been misunderstood. I thought the original posting that I was reacting to (appended below) overstated the case, treating sexism and callousness towards the poor as purely western impositions. I'm not trying to excuse anything, or divert attention from the crimes of imperialists. Doug The way to say it without sounding like a chauvanist is to say it like a feminist. There is no cultural basis for asserting that Sr. Nirmala is acting out of an Indian cultural perspective. The beauty of culture is its adaptability. The Indian pantheon of religions include many female deities, and their is no Hindu sanction against abortion. The cultural imperialism of Europe and the patriarchy of Roman Catholicism (objected to by most Catholic women I might add) is what Sr. Nirmala is dutifully regergitating as per the requirements of subservience in her Catholic church heirarchy. The rigidity of the backward patriarachal Euro-Centrated position you find objectionable in Sr. Nirmala comes from Rome and hundreds of years of Vatican mysogynist jibberish. It hails from no where else.
[PEN-L:12353] On the other hand ...
The ONIONNumber One In News * 10 September 1997 _ News In Brief _ GEOPOLITICAL BALANCE OF POWER SOMEHOW UNAFFECTED BY DEATH OF PRINCESS LONDON--In a development that has baffled experts, the geopolitical balance of power has been strangely unaffected by the death of Princess Diana, considered by many to be the world's most important person. According to reports, there have been no measurable changes in treaty alignments, trade agreements, defense budgets, poverty levels, international tariffs, taxation proposals, human-rights measures, world fiscal policy, education programs, deficit reduction, literacy rates, distribution of power, birth rates, public irrigation, disease research, pollution levels, distribution of wealth or any other major global trends since her death on Aug. 31. "I don't get it," said Oxford University professor Sir Jeremy Eton-Shropshire. "This is clearly one of the biggest news events of the century, yet it's almost as if the death of Diana is an event of no demonstrable significance." _ www.theonion.com
[PEN-L:12351] Re: language vs. thinking
Why on earth would you think, even using your own analysis, that words not
acted on are less significant than deeds; that the work building a building
across the way is LESS significant than you class room lecture? ellen
starbird
Ricardo writes notes that I wrote that depending on one's definitions one
may separate
thought and language. That's true, but some definitions are closer to the
truth than others. Even if we define thinking per se as something that
"occurs within an individual's brain" (a very liberal view, I might add)
such private thinking still requires the use of language.
What's a different, and more accurate, definition of thinking than the one
I provided? What's a non-liberal definition of thinking? Why was my
(admittedly incomplete) definition of thinking liberal? do we reject all
things liberal?
Just try thinking without words. Chess too involves language; how can you
play (think) without knowing the rules (words, symbols) of chess?
This misses the point. Thinking -- including that involved with
chess-playing -- definitely _uses_ words, so that thinking _without_ words
is probably impossible. But that doesn't mean that language is the only
tool that thinking uses, which would make thinking and language well-nigh
identical. In fact, I bet that if one doesn't use language to define the
spatial relationships between the pieces on the chessboard, it makes it
easier to play chess. ("the white King is at Queen Knight's third, there's
a friendly pawn immediately past it, etc., etc.)
In addition to words, our minds use intuition, spacial vision, etc. Just
as, according to Howard Gardner, there are 8 kinds of intelligence, the
mind is multi-dimensional. It can't be reduced to one dimension, such as
language.
No words can be expressed without thinking; all words carry meaning. It
is just that some people think little when they talk.
I agree. But there's more going on that simply thinking.
I agree that ideas which are not put into action have little effect on
history. But this does not mean that you can separate actions from words;
it simply means that some ideas are put into actions whereas others are not.
I agree with this.
In addition, a clarifying note: the expression of words (on paper or in
speech or electronically) is a kind of action (social practice). There are,
however, some types of action that are more important in terms of their
impact on the historical process than others. My lecturing in the
classroom, for example, is less important than the work being done outside
my office window (at this moment) digging the foundation for a new building.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html
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:12349] Re: Comp.Econ.Sys. course bibliography
Eric, I would appreciate a copy. Thanks, Larry Shute Eric Schutz writes: I have just updated a bibliography on socialist economics that I sent out to pen-l'ers in 1991, suitable for use in courses on, e.g., Comp. Econ. Sys. I'll be happy to e-mail the new version (about 200-titles) to pen-l'ers on request. -- Laurence Shute Voice: 909-869-38500 Department of Economics FAX: 909-869-6987 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 3801 West Temple Avenue Pomona, CA 91768-4070 USAe-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
[PEN-L:12348] The beautiful torched
Yes, this revolting practice is more common than any patriotic Indian will admit. Aside from women's groups, general and _ad hoc_, there is little consistent concern, government and police included. A victim's family must have some clout to obtain even a glimmer of justice. We might wonder whether the reassuring doctrine of reincarnation, adhered to in some convenient variant by the scrambling petit bourgeoisie, lends a shabby metaphysical cover to this behavior, not to speak of its likely effect on the prospects for revolution. Can someone on the list argue otherwise? Mother India, you have some nasty warts! valis Occupied America Women [in India] are no longer burned alive at the death of their husbands--the problem is that they are burned in kitchen accidents while the husband is still alive so he can remarry. If he divorces his wife, he has to return her marriage portion, and there's no profit in that. Apparently, a man and his family can live quite well on the successive dowries of multiple wives. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12347] Re: the beautiful poor
On Mon, September 15, 1997 at 07:59:21 (-0700) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2. However, I certainly agree that catholicism always puts the most backward/patriarchal spin on any local culture. ... What about in Central America? How did the Jesuits relate to the Catholic hierarchy, and to the women and the poor there? Bill
[PEN-L:12346] Re: Chilian Soc. Sec. reform
Joe, Best quick reference I've seen is by Vicente Navarro, In These Times, March 3, 1997 "Chasing Chile - right over the cliff". Best, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, jf noonan wrote: Can somebody give me a quick (online) reference to some stuff about the privatization of Social Security in Chile? I know I've got some stuff at home, but I want to reply to a query I got elsewhere now. Thanks. -- Joseph Noonan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12343] Re: NAFTA
From: Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12334] Re: NAFTA Last weeK I dashed off a criticism of some "talking points' against NAFTA fast-fastacking that had been posted on PEN-L. I argued they blamed Mexicans for increased bad food and (illegal) drugs in the US; that blaming NAFTA for job losses let capitalism off the hook; and that citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico was hypocritical. I thought these were yuppie-Perot reasons for opposing NAFTA. - Several people replied that it was unregulated markets in Mexico (not Mexicans) that were being blamed for bad food. Max Sawicky complained my "translation" mirrored the mainstream media's characterization of anti-NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist. Unfortunately I do think this characterization of the *campaign* against NAFTA is (partly) true. Not that the We all understand there are some perfectly awful people opposing free trade for perfectly awful reasons. But this reality does not support the blanket characterization of anti-NAFTA forces that you "dashed off." pro-NAFTA forces are any less guilty, and worse. Both frameworks are rotten. We should reject, not support Perot, Buchanan type arguments by clearly opposing NAFTA on the basis of the interests of working people in both (and all) countries. Complete silence on one side is complicity with the dominant voice. Michael Pereleman noted that it is not blaming Americans to assert that WTO regulations make it difficult to keep steroids and growth hormones out of food in European countries. I'm not sure how this point connects to NAFTA on Mexico. Should be oppose increasing access to out markets by all countries whose health and safety regulations are less stringent than our's (i.e. most of the world)? Are pesticides really the problem or is capitalism the problem? . . . one-sided). In my opinion, another good food-related reason to oppose NAFTA is how it has helped push indigenous farmers off communally-owned land in Mexico. I think many farmers in the US, who are also being pushed off their land by the banks and agribusiness can identify with this. I also like it because it gets out of the usual framework of thinking of our interests as consumers. This is really your first reason, other than that 'capitalism is the problem,' and it is entirely well-taken and a staple of anti-free trade politics. It happens that politically the argument appeals more to middle-class liberals than to U.S. farmers, but that's secondary. No one commented on the arguments about NAFTA reductions in border inspections being responsible for more illegal drugs in the US. It is hard to *not* translate this into a call for more border cops, inspections, searches, etc. with all this means for immigrants, refugees and ordinary working people. This is the Perot-Buchanan-Democrat-Republican line. For a world without borders! The issue here is inspections and searches, not "cops" in the generic sense. In this respect, a world without borders means a world without law enforcement, a dubious appeal, notwithstanding the ineffectiveness of current anti-drug measures. I had said that "blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine". Max Sawicky replied: "Self-evident rubish. It implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's job is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh." I'm still scratching my head on this one. The (original) claim was that "...NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs." NAFTA caused those job losses. If you *don't mention* the role of capitalism, corporate greed, etc. they are not included as causes. No NAFTA, no job losses caused, no problem. It seems to me Max's approach is This was your entire post, verbatim (emphasis added): "Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary approach. Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine. Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico is incredible hypocracy. These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose NAFTA for **good** reasons!" Blaming NAFTA does not imply any benign, summary assessment of capitalism. It merely engages a specific issue. You could criticize the treatment for being reformist and incrementalist, but that's not the same as being 'yuppie' or 'Perotist' and implying an indifference to the interest of the working class. to wait until NAFTA is killed by Ross Perot arguments and *then* get on with the left's job of explaining how rotton capitalism is. The left's job is to strive for practical, incremental gains in a way that points to larger solutions. "Capitalism is rotten" is not a program, either incremental or long-term. Erik Leaver posted some points about the tendentious use of statistics on NAFTA's job effects. We had the same in Canada about the impact of Canada-US
[PEN-L:12342] messiah?
Valis writes: Any serious consideration of Doug's question finally compels a study of Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad, Malaysia's quite messianic PM. Heck, that is nothing. I have a student whose first name is Messiah. On the other hand, singer-songwriter Dan Bern tells us that _he_ is the Messiah. is this a great _fin de siecle_ or what? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html 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:12339] Re: the beautiful poor
In a message dated 97-09-15 04:59:44 EDT, Anthony DaCosta writes:
The last case I
heard was in the 1980s, in a village in rajasthan, perhaps
one of the most economically underdeveloped state.
As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a
problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to
eliminate.
Cheers, Anthony
According to a 60 minutes slot last winter ('96-'97), dying by being burned
is one of the leading causes of death for married women in India. I think
you are confusing the old practice of a woman being burned with the corpse of
her husband with the "accidental" burning of live women while the husband is
still alive. Women are no longer burned alive at the death of their
husbands--the problem is that they are burned in kitchen accidents while the
husband is still alive so he can remarry. If he divorces his wife, he has to
return her marriage portion, and there's no profit in that. Apparently, a
man and his family can live quite well on the successive dowries of multiple
wives. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12338] Re: Asia's future
In a message dated 97-09-14 19:07:16 EDT, Doug writes (er asks): Any thoughts on whether the financial crises in Thailand and Malaysia mark the end of the Asian miracle, or are just a little bump in the road with minimal real world fallout? I think the Asian miracle will take a while to die--buuut, I think alot of the growth in specifically Thailand and Malaysia has been from the over working of natural resources which are beginning to fade away. For example, in Thailand, artificial shrimp and sea farming has destroyed ancient mangroves and local ecology. The farms have a short life span, they destroy the local independent economy, and then move on, sort of like strip mining the sea and leaving nothing in their wake. In Malaysia, there has also been a strong destruction of local ecologies and economies without adequate long-term replacement. They are probably both going to have to rely more on production type industries. Since the 1980s, there has been some movement in Malaysia to increase wages--which means that many foreign corporations will probably close shop and seek better exploitation rates elsewhere. I don't know about the labor movement in Thailand, but that close to Laos, China, and Vietnam, I can't imagine that there isn't something 'cooking'. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
