Re: Fast Track: Not Dead Yet
Never underestimate the power of pork, not to mention graft and greed. At 09:56 PM 10/30/97 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: I thought that Congressional leaders were very reluctant to schedule a vote whose outcome they didn't know in advance. This is beginning to sound like the NAFTA vote, which looked dicey at first, but finally the recalcitrants came around to do their class duty Doug
New Zealand Employment Contracts Act
Symposium on the New Zealand Employment Contracts Act The California Western International Law Journal is publishing a special symposium issue that will explore the impact of the New Zealand Employment Contracts Act of 1991 (ECA) on labor relations both in New Zealand and abroad. The authors in the symposium include a wide range of New Zealand employer representatives, labor leaders, jurists, as well as leading New Zealand academics in the fields of law, industrial relations, and economics. In addition several articles by United States and Australian authors provide an international perspective on the ECA. The ECA has been the subject of international attention and controversy. The following are some opinions on the ECA: "If we pay attention to the experiment known as the ECA, we are confronted with fundamental questions. How can and should work in modern society be organised? Why do or should unions exist? How must and should labour law be drafted?" - Ellen J. Dannin, Working Free: The Origins and Impact of New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act "[The draft ECA] is designed to ensure that New Zealand has an industrial system that will allow workers to enjoy genuine increases in living standards and that will increase productivity. It is designed to take New Zealand away from the adversarial mentality of the nineteenth century" - National Minister of Commerce Philip Burdon, Parliamentary Debates on the ECA "So, it comes down to what we want as a society. Do we want a society that has a great spread of incomes so you have very poor or very wealthy, or do we want a society which treats everybody with some respect and dignity. And if we want to treat everybody with some dignity, then I think the state has to intervene on behalf of those who are less powerful and the most open to exploitation, the most vulnerable in society." - Service Workers Union National Secretary Rick Barker, first anniversary of the ECA Introduction by Ellen Dannin, California Western School of Law Contributors: Gordon Anderson Business School, Victoria University of Wellington Anne Boyd New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Brian EastonEconomic And Social Trust On New Zealand Richard Epstein University of Chicago Law School Maxine Gay New Zealand Trade Union Federation Malcolm MacLean University of Queensland / New Zealand Trade Union Federation Clive GilsonDepartment of Strategic Leadership and Management, University of Waikato Terry Wagar Wilfred Laurier University Thomas Goddard New Zealand Employment Court Raymond Harbridge Graduate School of Business and Government Management, Victoria University of Wellington Aaron Crawford Graduate School of Business and Government Management, Victoria University of Wellington John Hughes Department of Law, University of Canterbury Jane Kelsey Department of Law, University of Auckland Roger Kerr New Zealand Business Roundtable Anne KnowlesNew Zealand Employers' Federation Andrew Morriss School of Law and Department of Economics, Case Western Reserve University Erling RasmussenDepartment of Management Studies and Labour Relations, University of Auckland John Deeks Department of Management Studies and Labour Relations, University of Auckland Chester Spell Department of Strategic Leadership and Management,University of Waikato Nick Wailes Department of Industrial Relations, University of Sydney, Australia If you would like to order copies of the Symposium issue on the Employment Contracts Act you may do so by either subscribing to the Journal or purchasing the single volume. The California Western Law Review and International Law Journal are published twice a year by the California Western School of Law. Annual subscriptions are $20.00 per volume. Foreign subscriptions are $25.00 (surface mail). Single issues of our previous volumes are available at the Law Review offices. Please contact the Review to determine the price for these issues. Single issues of the current Law Review and International Law Journal are being offered for $12.00 per volume or $15.00 for orders outside the U.S. Please send check to: California Western Law Review/International Law Journal California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Or contact us directly at (619) 525-1477 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fast Track: Not Dead Yet
I thought that Congressional leaders were very reluctant to schedule a vote whose outcome they didn't know in advance. This is beginning to sound like the NAFTA vote, which looked dicey at first, but finally the recalcitrants came around to do their class duty Doug
Re: [PEN-L] Re: Reading Comprehension 101
Gerald Levy wrote: PS: Who suggested, in all seriousness, that the "intelligent use of bourgeois statistics" could serve as a substitute for Marxian empirical studies? Henry Rollins?
additions to the LBO website
A couple of recent additions to the LBO web site: * Gina Neff's report on the RESULTS Microcredit Summit - capitalist uplift with an est connection. * The Fed's latest numbers on U.S. wealth distribution: forget what you heard about the 1980s - it's the 1990s when the rich have really gotten richer. * Juicy cash flow - what drives the stock market. All are accessible from the home page. Sometime soon I'll be adding historical figures on U.S. income distribution and poverty, but that'll have to wait a bit. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
Re: [PEN-L] Re: everything's groovy
A ponzi scheme, as Tom wrote, might be an accurate conception of the political drive to privatize social security. Assuming the money stays in the US, wouldn't a large redirection of SS trust funds away from the bond market and into the stock market likely reduce bond prices (by eliminating the decifit-reducing bias of SSTF T-bill absorption) and increase stock prices, thereby increasing short-term returns in both financial markets? Jeff Fellows -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Re: everything's groovy Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 6:46PM Jerry wrote, Whether the losses are recovered or not by the mutual funds "investors", before you consider whether these people are going to pull their $ out of the market, you have to consider their alternatives. Given the rates of interest on savings accounts, what choices do most of these small-timers (including many retired working people) have? Some of those other choices (like municipal bonds) might be undesirable for other reasons. I agree. But the issue isn't just whether "these people pull their money out of the market", it's whether these people and others borrow *more* money to put it *into* the market. There is considerable choice on that one. A Ponzi scheme that doesn't attract new investors is a sad thing to behold. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Marx on colonialism
Lou: I am still confused by: The real culprit in all this teleological totalitarianism was not Marx, nor Hegel. Nor the Enlightenment thinkers before Hegel. Nor Descartes who got the whole totalitarian rational-thought campaign going. You have to go back to Plato who put Reason on a pedestal and started the mechanisms that led to the Gulag Archipelago. (1) Are you opposing all teleological theories? I may be missing nuance, but you seem later on to endorse the notion that an imperialism that imposes capitalist relations does help to move a society toward socialism. Could you spell this out a bit more? (2) Isn't it just a bit forced to blame this all on Plato? Does teleology really follow from rationalism? Why? On interpretations of Indian history in general, the main point to add is that "India" should not be assumed to have been static before British colonialism. In other words in addition to putting the "Asiatic Mode" in the trashcan, we should also be skeptical of other stagnationist theses. It can be argued that the Brits delayed industrial capitalism through suppression of industry and indigenous finance, and that in many regions they actually stabilized and reinforced a crumbling feudalism. Best, Colin PS Ajit seems right in challenging Michael's exculpation of Marx on India. If you think about it you can get anybody off the hook for anything they write by this kind of maneuver. Marx was not a careless writer and did think about the political impact of what he published so it's surely appropriate to hold him accountable.
list of basic econ/social institutions
Larry Shute asks for a list of the basic institutions. I would define an "institution" as any organization created by people. 1) capitalism (the "capitalist mode of production"), a macro-societal institution that includes: a) markets. Not only are there major institutions within these markets (corporations, oligopolies, etc.) but markets themselves have human-created rules and mechanisms. Markets _are_ institutions. One problem with NC econ. is that they treat markets as somehow being natural rather than creations of human beings. b) the state political organizations. The separation of the state from the rest of society into being a specialized sector is a key factor differentiating capitalism from other modes of production. Similar to the state in many ways, but acting in a decentralized way are: c) not-for-profit organizations, including industry self-regulation organizations. (For the life of me, I don't get why these play little or no role in econ. textbooks. My life is surrounded by them.) d) imperialism (the globalizing drive of capitalism. maybe not an institution itself). Bureaucracies are very important institutions in corporations, the state, political organizations, and not-for-profits. They also play a role in: 2) labor unions informal labor organizations. 3) patriarchy: this a long-lived system of male privilege that precedes capitalism and has so far persisted in post-capitalist societies (bureaucratic socialism). 4) ethnic or racial domination. Cutting institutions a different way (following and adding to Robert Heilbroner), one can think of 4 major ways that people organize themselves: 1) tradition, custom, convention. (The role of custom is being accepted more and more by economists these days. A colleague of mine just told me of one at the University of Chicago's economics department who emphasizes the role of customs.) 2) command, bureaucracy, top-down rule. 3) markets, competition. 4) democracy, bottom-up rule. It reveals a lot about Heilbroner that he missed the last one (and that many economists have followed him on this). In personal communication, however, he did indicate that he was willing to accept #4 as a friendly amendment. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/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 "The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damned greedy." -- Herbert Hoover
Day Three In The Struggle Against Bill 160
On Wednesday, October 29, the Ontario government sent its lawyers into court to seek an injunction against the province's 126,000 teachers who are waging a political protest against Bill 160 by staying away from work. The government is asking the courts to expedite the matter so as to get its injunction granted by Monday. Meanwhile, the struggle of the teachers is gaining broader support. It is estimated that about 60,000 support staff are refusing to cross picket lines. The Ontario Catholic Bishops have taken a stand in support of the teachers, describing their fight against Bill 160 and in defence of public education as a "moral struggle." Aside from maintaining pickets at the schools, teachers and supporters are carrying out many other activities. With the Ontario government having launched a $1 million "law and order" campaign against the teachers, the teachers unions are carrying out their own advertising to explain their positions. They have also issued an Open Letter opposing the efforts of the government to confuse people about the various issues at stake in educational reform to prevent the actual content of Bill 160 from coming under public scrutiny. (see article on page 1) Teachers have also taken their protest to the "public hearings" being conducted on Bill 160 by the Ontario government. In Ottawa on October 30, teachers set up a picket outside of the hotel where hearings were being held. The hearings, ostensibly held to consult the public, are falling into greater and greater disrepute as the government insists that no substantial changes can be made to the legislation. The Ontario government has uninvited prohibited teachers from attending the "public" hearings which were scheduled for a mere 7 days in various parts of Ontario. TML DAILY, 10/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: truth
Date sent: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:08:16 +1100 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: truth Ajit, I agree that Althusser's theory of knowledge can meet some of the objections I raised (via Hindess and Hirst). Still, his overall theory has too many problems: 1) It lacks a concept of agency. This, of course, is true of Marxism in general, which tends to reduce agency to class action. But Althusser aggravated this problem by rejecting the early Marx. Without the early Marx one foregoes the rich intellectual tradition of German philosophy, which Lukacs sought to resurrect, although in a very limited way. 2) It pretends to be a "science" of politics, and it is therefore elitist, and potentially anti-democratic, just like Leninism. 3) Habermas is by far more profound... At 15:43 16/10/97 -0400, Ricardo wrote: Ajit's basic claim is that all claims to objective truth assume the objectivity of truth. Whichever way they turn, the defenders of objectivity cannot avoid making this assumption. And Ajit will keep on reminding them of it. However, this does not exculpate Ajit of his own "arbitrary" positions. That Althusser is not the answer has been long shown by Hindess and Hirst, who argue that although Althusser distinguishes the concepts of reality from reality itself, the basic concepts of historical materialism are still thought to approapriate the essence of reality. That is, Althusser still conceives the "economic instance" as determining in the last instance the essential character of all other instances. So, although Althusser questions the correspondence of concepts to the world, and insists that these concepts not be confused with the real itself, he still maintains that the concepts of historical materialism designate, or correspond to, the essence of the real. Other domains of reality are acknowledge as significant, but the essential nature of society is thought to be determined by the "structure in dominance". ___ This is much too serious a question, and I don't think this post will do justice to it. I agree with you that The thesis or rather just a statement that the economic instance is *determinant in the last instance* is problematic to say the least. It threatens Althusser's thesis of 'overdetermination' and 'structural causality'. The question is, are we in the last instance reduced to a transcendental cause? Let me try to rethink the issue. Althusser's mode of production or the social formation is made up of three instances, namely: economic, ideology, and politics. The economic instance is constituted by a complex relation between the forces and the relations of production. It is itself a structure dominated by the relation of production. The ideological instance is constituted by the constitution of individual subjectivities and its relation to the world. Similarly, politics has its own apparent relations but largely left ignored by the theory. All these instances have relative autonomy and they overdetermine the structure, where one instance is in dominance (Note that dominance is not the same thing as determinant. Economic instance is dominant in the capitalist mode but Ideology was dominant in the feudal mode. I will explain what I mean by dominance in the foot note). The structure gets its classification or its name on the basis of what relations pertain between forces and relations of production, such as feudalism, capitalism, etc. The fundamental thing to understand here is that Althusser's, as well as Marx's, central organizing principle is REPRODUCTION. If a mode of production is an object of history, then it must have historical viability, i.e. it must be able to reproduce itself. In this case, the Ideology as well as Politics must be such that it is 'supportive' rather than antagonistic to the relationship pertaining at the level of economics. For example, it may be difficult to conceive of modern day capitalism with similar Ideology and the influence of the church as was the case in the medieval period. If these instances stood quite antagonistic to each other then the structure would not last, and would collapse into some other structure. The causal relation for this kind of rupture of the structure Althusser does not speculate about. For him, Marxism is a revolution in theory and not a theory of revolution. Thus the reference to the economy being the determinant in the last instance is not in the sense of ACTIVE CAUSE determining or shaping the other instances according to its wishes-- as Althusser said, the lone hour of the last instance never comes. It is rather the determining instance in the context of a given mode of production reproducing itself. The given mode of production is defined by its economic relation. ___ Moreover, on
Re: Stags
Hi folks, Can anybody expalin to me in a clear way what is meant by the term STAG in stock market parlance. I know what is meant by bear and bull. Rebecca
Re: [PEN-L] Re: Reading ( Memory) Comprehension 101
Gerald Levy wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: PS: Who suggested, in all seriousness, that the "intelligent use of bourgeois statistics" could serve as a substitute for Marxian empirical studies? Henry Rollins? Perhaps the following will help refresh your memory: the above was suggested on the Internet on 10/25/87 by someone who claims to be a Marxist. '87? I can't remember - was Henry still in Black Flag then? When *did* they break up? Doug
[PEN-L] Re: Reading ( Memory) Comprehension 101
Doug Henwood wrote: PS: Who suggested, in all seriousness, that the "intelligent use of bourgeois statistics" could serve as a substitute for Marxian empirical studies? Henry Rollins? Perhaps the following will help refresh your memory: the above was suggested on the Internet on 10/25/87 by someone who claims to be a Marxist. Jerry
Re: VOTE SCHEDULED ON FAST TRACK NOVEMBER 7
Drive a steak through it's heart now lads, that's the best. Then there'll be no temptation next year. ellen Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:53:43 -0800 Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "michael perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: VOTE SCHEDULED ON FAST TRACK NOVEMBER 7 Max said that it was dead. Why would they bother to vote on it? I said it was on its deathbed. Latest scuttlebut is the other side hopes a vote will get undecideds off the fence and onto their side. We'll see. Like Dracula, it will rise again next year or thereafter (more likely thereafter), but since Congress plans to adjourn by about November 21, if it goes down on 11/7 it's probably dead till 1999. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 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. ===
Re: Reason, Abu-Lughod
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Ricardo Duchesne wrote: This statement is both wrong in fact and theory. The Gulag was a creation of Stalin, whose ascendancy to power was made possible, to a large degree, by Lenin's creation of a highly centralized political party - as Trotsky had predicted back in 1903. (Yes, I know about the letters. But up until them, Lenin relied, without much complaint, on Stalin's hard, merciless, callous political methods. What "hard, merciless, callous, political methods" did Stalin practice while Lenin was still alive? Accepting the land policy of the majority party among peasants (SRs) and welcoming them into the government? Bending over backwards to maintain the support of peasants (the NEP)? Upholding the right of national self-determination? Were there any "confessions" by German agents who had managed to worm their way into the Party' leading bodies while pretending to be revolutionaries for several decades? Bill Burgess
[PEN-L] Re: Reading Comprehension 101
Stephen E Philion wrote: Gery, I think you are experiencing problems with reading comprehension. Did Doug actually say that "everything's groovy" or was he being facetious? I somehow suspect the latter. I would welcome any proof that he was being anything but facetious. Yes, Doug wrote "everything's groovy" (no problems with reading comprehension on my part). Yes, I suspect that he was also being facetious. Jerry PS: Who suggested, in all seriousness, that the "intelligent use of bourgeois statistics" could serve as a substitute for Marxian empirical studies?
Microsoft responds
Press Release Wednesday, October 29, 1997 MICROSOFT ACQUISITION REDMOND, Washington In direct response to accusations made by the Department of Justice, the Microsoft Corp. announced today that it will be acquiring the federal government of the United States of America for an undisclosed sum. "It's actually a logical extension of our planned growth," said Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. "It really is going to be a positive arrangement for everyone." Microsoft representatives held a briefing in the oval office of the White House with U.S. President Bill Clinton, and assured members of the press that changes will be "minimal". The United States will be managed as a wholly owned division of Microsoft. An initial public offering is planned for July of next year, and the federal government is expected to be profitable by "Q4 1999 at latest", according to Microsoft president Steve Ballmer. In a related announcement, Bill Clinton stated that he had "willingly and enthusiastically" accepted a position as a vice president with Microsoft, and will continue to manage the United States government, reporting directly to Bill Gates. When asked how it felt to give up the mantle of executive authority to Gates, Clinton smiled and referred to it as "a relief". He went on to say that Gates "has a proven track record," and that U.S. citizens should offer Gates their "full support and confidence." Clinton will reportedly be earning several times the $200,000 annually he has earned as U.S. president, in his new role at Microsoft. Gates dismissed a suggestion that the U.S. Capitol be moved to Redmond as "silly", though did say that he would make executive decisions for the U.S. government from his existing office at Microsoft headquarters. Gates went on to say that the House and Senate would be abolished. "Microsoft isn't a democracy," he observed, "and look how well we're doing." When asked if the rumored attendant acquisition of Canada was proceeding, Gates said, "We don't deny that discussions are taking place." Microsoft representatives closed the conference by stating that United States citizens will be able to expect lower taxes, increases in government services and discounts on all Microsoft products. About Microsoft Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software for personal computers, and democratic government. The company offers a wide range of products and services for public, business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing and free society every day. About the United States Founded in 1789, the United States of America is the most successful nation in the history of the world, and has been a beacon of democracy and opportunity for over 200 years. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the United States is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation.
Re: [PEN-L] Re: everything's groovy
Fellows, Jeffrey wrote: A ponzi scheme, as Tom wrote, might be an accurate conception of the political drive to privatize social security. Assuming the money stays in the US, wouldn't a large redirection of SS trust funds away from the bond market and into the stock market likely reduce bond prices (by eliminating the decifit-reducing bias of SSTF T-bill absorption) and increase stock prices, thereby increasing short-term returns in both financial markets? But the USG budget will be balances, so there won't be any more T-bonds to buy! Doug
MAI Hearing Dates (Ottawa) (fwd)
Message from Bill Blaikie, MP NDP (opposition party) Ottawa From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blaikie, Bill - M.P.) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Olsen) Organization: House of Commons / Chambre des communes Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:19:33 -0500 Subject: RE: MAI hearings To: Bob Olsen From: Office of Bill Blaikie Re: MAI Sub-Committee Mr. Olsen: - The Sub-Committee looking at the MAI is called: "The Sub-committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment" - The Sub-Committee was struck last thursday (Oct 23) by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. - At this time it looks like they will meet in the week of Nov.17-21 to hear presenters. Bill (Blaikie MP) is pushing for meetings to start earlier. - The Sub-Committee is to report by December 8, 1997, so unfortunately time is very limited. - If you wish to make a presentation contact the Clerk of the Sub-Committee: Richard Rumas (613) 996-1664 Sub-Committee members: (9 total) Government Chair: Bob Speller Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Trade Minister) Sarmite Bulte Raymond Folco Robert Nault Opposition Members Bill Blaikie (NDP) Charlie Penson (Reform) Maud Debien (BQ) Benoit Sauvageau (BQ) Scot Brison (PC)
Reading Comprehension 101
I think it's time to go back to using "smileys" ( ;-), etc.) to indicate the role of irony, sarcasm, subtle jokes, etc. Who wants a flame war? not I. (Shucks. I had to clarify my own answer to discourage people from thinking that I was asking the question the way one asks "anyone for tennis?") BTW, does anyone know of a relatively good mainstream economics book? BTW2, the message at the bottom of my signature this time is a joke. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/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 "Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the 1990s.
Re: Institutions
Paul, Many thanks for your comments. However, I probably didn't make myself that clear. What information about the actual workings of the Canadian/US economy would you like your students to know before they leave school? For example, they need to know what GATT is, and what's happening with it. They need to know about the workings of the Social Security Act. NAFTA and other "free-trade" associations. The EU. and so on. As an Institutionalist/Marxist, I'm very familiar with Commons and teach him in some of my courses. What I'm really looking for are suggestions which could form the backbone of a economics major senior graduation exam, as well as something that could more usefully serve in the introductory course. I agree with you about the "neoclassical fraud" -- what would you like to see put in its place for an introductory course in economics? I have the feeling that economics majors leave the university without any real knowledge of the actual conditions of industrial life. Thanks again for your input. Larry Shute Thanks for your message at 10:52 PM 10/29/97 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your message was: Larry Shute asked for a list of the most important institutions in the market to try to educate his colleagues about the important constraints on the neoclassical fraud (er. sorry "model") of the economy. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a viable approach to the problem. Commons defined an institution as "collective action in control of individual action." That means that "an institution" is anything that constrains market behaviour -- from collective agreements and labour union behaviour to oligopoly pricing behaviour, to church teaching on the moral depravity of working on Sundays. That is, there are no 10 (20, 30, 100) most important institutional constraints/ Institutionalism is a paradigm -- that is institutions form a web of behaviour that (like the neoclassical paradigm) produce a resulting behaviour that one can expect and pattern a policy on. But it is not 10 (20, 30, 40 ) institutions that one can model in the neoclassical sense. One should look at Veblen's classics on this: The Theory of Business Enterprise, Absentee Ownership, The Engineers and the Price System. These are particularly enjoyable reading in the current context of the 'meltdown' of the stock market. I am sure that Thorstein is chuckling in his grave. Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba.
Re: Reason, Abu-Lughod
Date sent: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:02:44 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Marx on colonialism Project writes: The real culprit in all this teleological totalitarianism was not Marx, nor Hegel. Nor the Enlightenment thinkers before Hegel. Nor Descartes who got the whole totalitarian rational-thought campaign going. You have to go back to Plato who put Reason on a pedestal and started the mechanisms that led to the Gulag Archipelago. This statement is both wrong in fact and theory. The Gulag was a creation of Stalin, whose ascendancy to power was made possible, to a large degree, by Lenin's creation of a highly centralized political party - as Trotsky had predicted back in 1903. (Yes, I know about the letters. But up until them, Lenin relied, without much complaint, on Stalin's hard, merciless, callous political methods. Wrong in theory because it makes no sense for a Marxist to hold a philosopher responsible for a major historical happening like totalitarianism. Project is adopting an idealist position in line with Platonism by holding "Reason" responsible for totalitarianism! Project: Marx was wrong in adopting the Asiatic Mode of Production as the key to explaining British domination over India, China et al. More recent research puts the rest of the world on roughly the same level as Western Europe prior to the age of colonialism. I especially recommend Janet Abu-Lughod's "Before European Hegemony 1250-1350". What Marx did say about India is not simply that capitalism was going to civilize the barbaric Indians. He thought that capitalism was revolutionizing the means of production, but that genuine PROGRESS was achievable only through socialism. The 2nd International enshrined the view that Great Britain was "civilizing" India, but Marx's writings tended to have much more tension around the question of the British role. Without downplaying the scholarly merits of Abu-Lughod's book - a book whose views are consistent with Ajit's critique of the AMP - I don't think she ever convincingly demonstrates that Europe was merely on the same economic level as Asia. But I am ran out of time now, so that's all I can say. ricardo There have been attempts by the Analytical Marxists to breathe new life into the British "civilizing" mission thesis, especially from John Roemer: "There are, in the Marxist reading of history, many examples of the implementation of regimes entailing dynamically socially necessary exploitation, which brought about an inferior income-leisure bundle for the direct producers... Marx approved of the British conquest of India, despite the misery it brought to the direct producers, because of its role in developing the productive forces. Thus, the contention is proletarians in India would have been better off, statically, in the alternative without imperialist interference, but dynamically British imperialist exploitation was socially necessary to bring about the development of the productive forces, eventually improving the income-leisure bundles of the producers (or their children) over what they would have been." The following paragraph in Marx's 1853 article, "The Future Results of British Rule in India", presents a more richly dialectical presentation of the possibilities India faced after England's conquest. "All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what will they not fail to do is lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation. "The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether." What could be clearer? Marx adds an enormous proviso when he talks about the "progress" that capitalism brings. Unless there is socialist revolution, capitalism has done nothing except revolutionize the means of production. This has nothing to do with the ameliorative scenarios developed by Oxford dons like G.A. Cohen and John Roemer. Marx's understanding of the problems facing India under colonial rule, while flawed, are by no means like the imperialist apologetics found in "economist" readings. Marx was for socialism, not telegraphs, railways and smokestacks. Louis Proyect
US profitability
Trevor Evans writes: But its interesting to note that today's Financial Times (29 October, p. 14) carries an article by someone called Ricahrd Waters, which says: 'Leaving aside the effects of lower taxes and declind interest rates, the profits miracle looks much less impressive. A return on sales of about 25 per cent before interest , taxes and depreciation leaves the profitability of the average US company below the peak levels hit in both the 1970s and 1980s. ...' I don't think that the "return on sales" is relevant. It's like the big grocery chains complaining about their small profit margins. What matters is the profit rate on capital invested. Also, Andrew Glynn has an article on profitability in the September 1997 issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics, in which he produces figures showing that the profit share and the profit rate in the US have risen since the early 1980s, but that they are still considerably below their level in the mid-1960s. He's right (and I have an unpublished and unfinished ms. on this). But the rapid rise of profit rates during the 1990s is also quite important. How good profitability is depends on one's frame of reference. And more than one frame of reference seems relevant. that's enough for today. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
Re: Marx on colonialism
Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:00:37 -0800
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
devine writes:
Marx was also quite critical of _European_ societies. One of his mottoes
was "ruthless criticism of all existing" and sometimes he took it to
curmudgeonly extremes. If I remember correctly, he wrote a book about
Gladstone (a British P.M.) and the Crimean War that was quite mean to those
Brits. He also embraced the then-fashionable habit of using ethnic
stereotypes, including those against two groups to which he himself
belonged (Jews and Germans). (This fashion started becoming unfashionable
only in the 1940s.)
Yes, Marx said many bad things about many people from
many places, including Europe. But this misses the whole point at
issue here: that Marx said many derogatory remarks about non-
European people IN THE NAME OF EUROPEAN COLONIZATION!
Still, I am glad you abandoned your rosy picture of Marx on
colonialism. Of course, there are some in pen-l who want to
whitewash the whole issue, or blame Hegel and Plato. Let me remind
them of some of the remarks Marx made about non-Europeans, all of
which are cited in an excellent article
by Nimni "Marx, Engels and the National Question" (SS, 1989):
On Spaniards and Mexicans: "The Spaniards are indeed degenerate. But
a degenrate Spaniard, a Mexican that is the ideal. All vices of the
Spaniards - Boastfulness, Grandiloquence, and Quixoticism - are found
in the Mexicans raised to the third power."
On Chinese: "It is almost needless to observe that, in the same
measure in which opium has obtained the sovereinglty over the
Chinese, the Emperor and his staff of pedantic mandarins have become
dispossessed of their own sovereignty. It would seem as thought
history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could
rise them out of their hereditary stupidity"
On Lasalle: "It is now perfectly clear to me that, as testified by his
cranial formation and hair growth, he is descended from the negroes
who joined Moses' exodus from Egypt (unless his paternal mother or
grandmother was crossed with a nigger). Well this combination of
Jewish and Germanic stock with the negroid substance is bound to
yield a strange product".
Now, Marx did also make derogatory remarks against Scandinavians and
eastern Europeans - those outside mainstream European civilization -
but they don't appear to have the same condescending manner. And, I
might add, these citations listed above are pale by comparison to some
other remarks Marx made against Africans.
Having said this, I would not jump to the conclusion that Marx was a
racist in the sense that we understand that term today.
ricardo
If Michael P. or someone else who knows this stuff can tell us, I'd
appreciate knowing what old Chuck's attitudes toward Europeans.
Also, as Michael pointed out quite correctly, Marx did write a lot about
European colonialism in the "third world" beyond the "modern theory of
colonization" chapter at the end of CAPITAL, vol. I. But did Marx have a
_theory_ of looting and forced-labor colonialism as developed as his theory
(or Wakefield's theory) of settler colonialism? ("Looting" was typically
the first type of colonialism, followed by creation of forced labor
systems, as with the haciendas or encomiendas in the Spanish New World.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/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.
Teachers Issue Open Letter (Canada)
The Ontario Teachers Federation has issued an Open Letter to the people of Ontario addressing the issue of Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, and their struggle against it. Entitled "Bill 160 Will Not Improve Education," the Open Letter states that "Bill 160 is about the government giving itself the tools to cut up to $1 billion from classroom education - quickly and quietly - without the slow and messy business of open consultation and discussion. Bill 160 had little or nothing to say about any of the government's reforms. Instead, Bill 160 shifts control over students, teachers and schools from local communities to Cabinet." The teachers say that the government is deliberately trying to create confusion about its proposed reforms so that Bill 160 does not come under public scrutiny and the Open Letter addresses various ways in which the government is doing this. For example, the Harris government is playing on the fact that many parents are unhappy with the quality of education received by students by saying that the teachers are for the status quo. The Open Letter states: "Teachers have always been open to meaningful change. The changes being proposed in Bill 160, however, will not improve education in Ontario." The Open Letter argues, for example, that reducing teachers preparation time will not improve education, as the government claims. It will only achieve the aim of cutting 6,000 to 10,000 teachers from the system. The letter states: "Reducing the number of teachers will reduce the amount of individual contact that teachers can have with their students and the number of programs that can be implemented. Already, vital programs such as junior kindergarten, adult education, science and technology, arts and music have been eliminated or cut back." The Harris government has also been claiming that it wants to take classroom size out of the realm of negotiations between teachers and school boards because the government wants to limit classroom sizes. It is suggesting that teachers have negotiated larger class sizes. The letter states: "Teachers, through the collective bargaining process, have been responsible for the reduction of class size. It is a bargaining goal of all five Affiliates of the Ontario Teachers Federation. Contrary to the government's claim, when allowed to bargain freely on this issue, teachers and school boards have consistently negotiated lower class size. It is only the funding cuts of recent years which have caused class sizes to rise." The Open Letter also addresses other issues on which the government has tried to generate confusion, such as the need for a common curriculum and standardized testing. The teachers ae in support of both, but they again point out that "it is up to the government to provide the financial resources to ensure that the new curriculum is implemented properly." TML DAILY, 10/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PEN-L] everything's groovy
Jerry wrote, Consider the options for working people who have savings (especially older workers): [blah, blah, blah, blah] One option not listed, investing in social change. Mutual aid, not mutual funds. Where's the imagination? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
VOTE SCHEDULED ON FAST TRACK NOVEMBER 7
Re: Marx on colonialism
Ajit: I have not read Plato. But Descartes definitely does not have any teleological theory of history. Plato? Highly recommended. Especially "Apology", the dialog about Socrates' death sentence. Recent scholarship argues that he had it coming to him, but I'll reserve judgment on that. Aristotle is very good also. The deal with Descartes is that he is the father of modern rational philosophy. The Enlightenment would not be possible without Descartes. (Of course, we Marxists would argue that the Englightenment would not be possible without the mercantile revolution. Lots of good literature on this as well.) Gandhi did not form any party nor was member of any political party. To implicate Gandhi with "nasty communal fights with Muslims" is sheer nonsense. Where you get your informations from? His disciples Nehru and Indira Gandhi certainly did. If we can blame Marx for Stalin, why not blame Gandhi for the Congress Party's repression and brutality. The point is that this is a poor method for understanding politics. This only proves my point. There is a clear teleological stages theory of history here. Crimes of capitalism, in this case colonialism, is pardoned because it was essential preparation for socialism. I think later on, e.g. in CAPITAL, he is no longer tied to such theory of history. Pardoned? This ascribes a moralistic quality to Marx and Engel's writings that does not apply. Engels wrote about the cruelty and exploitation of the factory system in "Origins of the Working Class in England." He did not "pardon" this system. He did just the opposite. He wrote a powerful denuciation of the system. By the same token, he understood (only partially) that this system was an inevitable product of the accumulation of capital. He developed a more scientific understanding as his partnership with Marx matured. Socialists do not "pardon" the emergence of capitalist property relations, nor do we put them on a pedestal. We take note of them and look for opportunities to transform them. This is ABC. Louis Proyect
FW: BLS Daily Reportboundary=---- =_NextPart_000_01BCE517.A33BE030
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- =_NextPart_000_01BCE517.A33BE030 charset="iso-8859-1" BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: State unemployment rates continued to show little change in September, as 45 states and the District of Columbia recorded over-the-month shifts of 0.3 percentage point or less. The national jobless rate of 4.9 percent was unchanged over the month. Nonfarm payroll employment increased in 42 states over the month As wages continued their gradual ascent, private industry employers saw their total compensation costs rise by 3.2 percent in the third quarter compared with a year earlier, according to BLS. Compensation costs climbed 0.8 percent between the second and third quarters, matching the increase posted in the prior three quarters Wage inflation is so gradual that even though the 3.6 percent rise in private industry wages is the largest since the last quarter of 1991, it is not worrisome, says an economist with the WEFA Group. It took five years for the wage component of the employment cost index to accelerate from a low of 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 1992 to the current 3.6 percent increase In looking at various industry and occupational groups, BLS found a few instances of pay gains above 4 percent. For private employers, compensation gains were 4.7 percent in service occupations .While the Sept. 1 increase in the federal minimum wage could be a factor in the services occupation increase, it is not possible to sort out the causes, BLS economist Wayne Shelly said. Also, the minimum wage would only apply to a minority of workers in services jobs, he said .(Daily Labor Report, page D-1) Consumer confidence falls 7 points in October as U.S. households turn more pessimistic about current business conditions and their expectations, the Conference Board says (Daily Labor Report, page A-6). An economic report indicated that workers' pay increases aren't getting bigger despite tight labor markets and a national jobless rate under 5 percent. A second report found that even before the plunge in stock prices, consumer confidence was dropping, which may weaken consumer spending in coming months, analysts said (Washington Post, page A27; Wall Street Journal, page A2). Wall Street is providing fewer jobs but more money to New York, says the New York Times (page A27) "The key contribution of Wall Street now is the income and the earnings - that's a shift from what happened in the 1980's," said John L Wieting, the New York Regional Commissioner for BLS. "Then it was a major force in job growth" Personal income grew more than inflation in all 50 states in the second quarter of 1997, with Arkansas reporting the largest gain, the Commerce Department reports (Daily Labor Report, page D-15). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Average Annual Pay Levels in Metropolitan Areas, 1996 -- =_NextPart_000_01BCE517.A33BE030 b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOzQcKAB4ACQAoBAAxAQEggAMADgAAAM0HCgAe gAEAFQAAAEZXOiBCTFMgRGFpbHkgUmVwb3J0AIcGAQ2ABAACAgACAAEDkAYAUAoAAB0D AC4AAEAAOQDAuCWzQeW8AR4AcAABEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAAgFxAAEA AAAbAbzkvP+WMtd2jFBCEdGoHgAgr5wCMAAhMYVxAB4AMUABDQAAAFJJQ0hBUkRTT05f RAADABpAAB4AMEABDQAAAFJJQ0hBUkRTT05fRAADABlAAAIBCRAB gAcAAHwHAABpDAAATFpGdaqROLP/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMDVAIAY2gKwHNldO4yBgAGwwKD MgPGBxMCg8YzA8UCAHBycRIgE4X+fQqACM8J2QKACoENsQtg4G5nMTAzFCALChQiMwwBFMBvdAWQ BUBCTEEF8ERBSUxZB/BFAFBPUlQsIFdFUERORVMacFkbME8AQ1RPQkVSIDLCORswMTk5NwqFCoWh GtBMRUFTG2AgHCA5G7E6IAYAAZAZ4CB16G5lbQtQbwbACfAFQH5yHxEEIAWgAjALgApQZIAgdG8g c2hvB+D0bGkCQGwfMBGxGBAfMG8LgAZRBTAfcGIEkBswYfkEIDQ1IUAfAgQgAHAhAWpoHzBEBAB0 BRAaAW/8ZiAIUApABtAHMCAQBZJTDbAhAG92BJAtJHEt2wRgAjBoIUEGkHQEICVBoDAuMyBwBJBj H+HyYSJRcG8LgCUhBcAh4FUEEC4e0FQkgW4fEGnjAiAHQCBqbwJgKbEgE5ElMjQuOShWIHcjYb8f UCIUJnQkYycjKeFOAiBKZgrAbShQYXkDYGzvAyAfeQuABQBlI2Ag8SKBHjQSICPFLYwDMCc4Nfou HQxBBCAsoCJQIGskgMZpBcAJwGFkdSqxI2DnKJIbMBTAaXYfEguANZCdJNF5L4UEkAQgc2EH4P81 BCEgAZADIAWgH4AJ8DgQvypyIHEjwCtBBAAfMGI3UPwzLhIgLCYigSRyJHA1MP0hAHE1oAAgLaE5 EgrAIPH/A/AnUSXgN8AKwT3hIaAjI/ZjJiILgGchEhoxKeEIUL05P2MhoCMBIQAoIDgsF/kjEHR3 CeEkYxHwIIEhANskNDwZcxswAMB0EbA/E/8kgTBGKQEjwDC0JHI2YQWx7yRwCdFEFzKUVyjSC4AX 4f85kwQAIUAhMDVmJHAfEC+AdyagO5IIYGcnYCRyOsA2/ywXOkMigTZvNARJkSRyC2D+cjQhBUAA kCzwO9JOwk8xdzxWJUEcwTEbMCGwSYJu3xnQLJAFsDpBA3BlGzA4EP55JBIvgCCBA3AkwT1UJHIh G1BGQSBHA2B1cA0p4UkFQCEgb2sgZv82gB8wPdIEIAIQLbQ0AjkDfwIgH+IlQSRyH3k54jbSZfZ4 IRI+sWUh4CtjA1I9ofcV8AfgJUEyS9k7hQIQCHDfJ1FQXBIgISEkcmMIcBZg7x/xS8pFlzKjSQOg FfBVgH8/EkqRNpBHETcQNtgkMm//PsBU4CpmCcBU0USRGjJckf9DUlWgB9ELgCPBT4En0y8R3zVQ C3EkEQbgVdE0KFYp4f5GBbFNBjd3GzA5G2YkQoCbFmAr0Tc6+hHwcnYlAP8rkWLXSDYnkCHhJHIi sing/jFFiFwmCYBaIQMgU4ADAOZtJaBW1nVsIQAjEGSi/wDQISAFwDuFa4Un0WLXMDd/UUpGIQCQ KwEhExYBJTB1+1VBXkJhNxAHkGP0UzhIoH55H2AGACSAL2A3UDgQafJkKeFBbEnAGzAt02/Kz1IA
Irish Presidential election
Some observations on the presidential campaign in the Irish Republic. Tomorrow there is to be a Presidential election in Ireland. There are five Presidential hopefuls: Mary McAleese, Mary Banotti, Dana, Adi Roche and Derek Nally. According to most o fthe opinion polls McAleese is tipped to win. She is a right wing Catholic academic with a very close relationship to the Catholic hierachy. Despite the office of presidency being mainly ceremonial race itself has had a decidedly political character. The contest has been primarily between the Fianna Fail and the Fine Gael candidates. It has been reduced to a contest between two forms of bourgeois nationalism. The nationalism that places greater rhetorical emphasis on the aspiration of achieving a 32 county Irish republic and the nationalism that supports the continuation of the thirty two county republic with improved relations between the 26 and the 6 county states. The former demonstrates a greater interest in the concerns of the Catholic population in the north. Essentially there obtains only a marginal difference between the two parties. The former laying greater emphasis on republican rhetoric and the latter less. Both are essentially happy with the status quo. Consequently the debate has been a false one. It has been a debate centred around rhetoric and posturing. Even at that the former party has presented this positon in a rather craven suppressed way. It lacks even the confidence to present its token republicanism in an explicit form. This is how little confidence it has in its own images. Indeed in many ways its politics on the surface are that of posturing, images, hints and innuendo. In this way FF presents itself as a multifaceted populist organisation: all things to all people. In this way republican minded voters are seduced into voting for it. Less republican minded voters, on the other hand, are seduced into voting for it because of their belief that it is only mildly and thereby sufficiently and harmlessly republican. FG, on the other hand, wants to present itself as the party of the high moral ground. The party that personifies moral disdain for anything tainted with Provo terrorism and intolerance towards the bigoted unionism. It seeks to present itself as the party that is most understanding and accommodating to unionism. The party with whom unionists can best do business. The party that can be nationalist and yet unionist at the same time. The party of the two sides. In this way they present themselves as the party that can best achieve political and institutional reconciliation of nationalism and unionism. FG wants to present itself as the good guy. The party of the high moral ground, the party free from corruption. Conversely they seek to present Fianna Fail as the amoral and corrupt party that is not concerned with the complexities of the national question and thereby demonstrates insensitivity to Unionism. However the point is that there is essentially no difference between the two political parties. They are both bourgeois partitionist parties. They are both free from the mytical moral ground. The differences being presented to us then are one's of perception rather than policy. Difference of image, rhetoric and style. In a sense both parties are Celtic myths: identity politics. Regarding the national question, economics, social issues and security there is no essential difference between them. Consequently to make themselves electable they must artificially manufacture surface differences. This is analogous to brand difference of commerce. Both parties, in terms of their immediate interests, are merely concerned with securing political power as a means of gaining a greater share of the booty. Capitalism is essentially indifferent as to which of the parties take power. Their primary function for capital is that of sustaining capitalism by deception: creating the illusion of choice. In addition competition between the two parties keeps them, in some ways, on their toes. It makes it harder for them while in power to grow so corrupt and authoritarian that the masses loose confidence in them. It also means that if any one of the parties makes a mess of things there is in existence a government in exile waiting to step into its place. This then serves to protect the system and guarantee capital's continued existence. The individual parties have to justify their existence by manufacturing false differences, surface difference that is not real difference at all. In the presidential election Fine Gael led by John Bruton devised a presidential strategy designed to put Mary Banotti in the Park. The strategy was to "taint" Fianna Fail's presidential candidate by mispresenting her as crypto terrorist. Bruton's remarks on Adam's support for McAleesse formed part of this ground plan. The leaks that followed formed further links in the plan together with Banotti's xenophobic remarks about McAleese which she latter retracted
Re: Marx on colonialism
At 08:16 29/10/97 -0800, Michael P. wrote: From: Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are trying to find an easy way out for Marx. Marx's writing on India is definitely problematic. After saying things like, I don't know what "easy way out" means. Marx himself describes his intentions in a letter to Engels. I have elaborated on this subject elsewhere, as I said before. I will refrain from posting more text since I suspect that this subject might be without much interest on pen-l. Your article on Switzerland was of course an indirect smack at the leading articles in the Tribune (against centralisation, etc.), and its Carey. I have continued this hidden warfare in my first article on India, in which the destruction of the native industry by England is described as revolutionary. This will be very shocking to them. [Marx to Engels, 14 June 1853; in Marx and Engels 1975, pp. 78-80] ___ Nowhere in this letter Marx is suggesting that he did not believe in what he wrote in his article on India. I think, to interpret Marx's articles on India as a vailed polemic against Carey would be quite problematic. It may imply that Marx was not a serious scholar-- how could a serious person go on to justify enormous amount of crime committed against a people in public, simply to piss somebody off? And particulary when he more or less belongs to the group of victimizers than the victims. This is no joke Michael. I don't know why this subject will be of no interest on pen-l, particularly when 'Clinton got cold' type of topics seem to be of enough interest on pen-l. And again you yourself have many times asked for more non-US or Euro centered topics to be discussed on pen-l. So what's wrong with this topic? Cheers, ajit sinha __ Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 916-898-5321 916-898-5901 fax
Re: Marx on colonialism
At 11:02 29/10/97 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Ajit: This is a serious problem with teleological theory of history, as well as the Marxist theory of praxis, which accepts the teleological theory of history. As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism is the 'true' theory and the road to truth (as Lenin did), then many crimes against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny. A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name of history and human destiny. Same goes with the philosophy of praxis (2nd and 11th Thesis on Feuerbach). Well, wait a second. The real culprit in all this teleological totalitarianism was not Marx, nor Hegel. Nor the Enlightenment thinkers before Hegel. Nor Descartes who got the whole totalitarian rational-thought campaign going. You have to go back to Plato who put Reason on a pedestal and started the mechanisms that led to the Gulag Archipelago. I have not read Plato. But Descartes definitely does not have any teleological theory of history. Ajit: It asserts that it would prove the correctness of the theory by practice. If the practice involves crime against humanity then that must be committed to prove the truthfulness of the theory (both Paul and Jim should take a note of it). That's why I think the Gandhian concern for compatibility between means and end is important. Louis Proyect: Gandhi? Didn't the party he form get involved in all sorts of nasty communal fights with the Moslems? I guess we have to put the Bhagvad-Gita in the prisoner's docket along with Plato's Republic. __ Gandhi did not form any party nor was member of any political party. To implicate Gandhi with "nasty communal fights with Muslims" is sheer nonsense. Where you get your informations from? ___ On the question of whether India was inherently a stagnant society or not: It seems to me that Marx, following Hegel, does want to come up with a 'materialist' theory, as opposed to Hegel's 'idealist' theory, of stagnating nature of Indian society. Marx was wrong in adopting the Asiatic Mode of Production as the key to explaining British domination over India, China et al. More recent research puts the rest of the world on roughly the same level as Western Europe prior to the age of colonialism. I especially recommend Janet Abu-Lughod's "Before European Hegemony 1250-1350". What Marx did say about India is not simply that capitalism was going to civilize the barbaric Indians. He thought that capitalism was revolutionizing the means of production, but that genuine PROGRESS was achievable only through socialism. The 2nd International enshrined the view that Great Britain was "civilizing" India, but Marx's writings tended to have much more tension around the question of the British role. There have been attempts by the Analytical Marxists to breathe new life into the British "civilizing" mission thesis, especially from John Roemer: "There are, in the Marxist reading of history, many examples of the implementation of regimes entailing dynamically socially necessary exploitation, which brought about an inferior income-leisure bundle for the direct producers... Marx approved of the British conquest of India, despite the misery it brought to the direct producers, because of its role in developing the productive forces. Thus, the contention is proletarians in India would have been better off, statically, in the alternative without imperialist interference, but dynamically British imperialist exploitation was socially necessary to bring about the development of the productive forces, eventually improving the income-leisure bundles of the producers (or their children) over what they would have been." The following paragraph in Marx's 1853 article, "The Future Results of British Rule in India", presents a more richly dialectical presentation of the possibilities India faced after England's conquest. "All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what will they not fail to do is lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation. "The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether." _ This only proves my point. There is a clear teleological stages theory of history here. Crimes of capitalism, in this case colonialism, is pardoned because it was essential preparation for
US profitability
Thanks to Doug for reporting Anwar Shaik's evaluation of profitability. But its interesting to note that today's Financial Times (29 October, p. 14) carries an article by someone called Ricahrd Waters, which says: 'Leaving aside the effects of lower taxes and declind interest rates, the profits miracle looks much less impressive. A return on sales of about 25 per cent before interest , taxes and depreciation leaves the profitability of the average US company below the peak levels hit in both the 1970s and 1980s. ... The likelihood that earnings growth is about to slow has already been a source of unease on Wall Street.' Also, Andrew Glynn has an article on profitability in the September 1997 issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics, in which he produces figures showing that the profit share and the profit rate in the US have risen since the early 1980s, but that they are still considerably below their level in the mid-1960s. Trevor Evans.
Re: [PEN-L] Re: everything's groovy
I was somewhat surprised myself to see Levy's embrace of mutual funds myself. I guess there must be something in V. 3 of Capital that explains all this. More to the point is the political questions involved with "small investor" psychology. One of the things that is bound to take place sooner or later is the privatization of social security, just as it did in Chile. The whole point of the mutual funds industry is to get people to accept the idea that this is the only "realistic" way to prepare for retirement. Another aspect of this is the need to get a broad section of the population to accept the logic of the capitalist system. A small stock-holder who owns 20 shares of Citibank is likely to go along with the cutback of 5000 jobs that is pending. Since this improves corporate profitability, the value of the share is increased potentially. This really gets ugly when you think about all the union retirement funds that are invested in the exact same companies that are attacking them. Frankly, there is no easy solution to this problem. It gets to the heart of the way that the capitalist system functions. I suspect that when the time comes for the ruling class to privatize social security, socialists will really have to come up with some strong arguments. Louis Proyect At 04:29 PM 10/29/97 -0500, you wrote: Gerald Levy wrote: Whether the losses are recovered or not by the mutual funds "investors", before you consider whether these people are going to pull their $ out of the market, you have to consider their alternatives. Given the rates of interest on savings accounts, what choices do most of these small-timers (including many retired working people) have? Some of those other choices (like municipal bonds) might be undesirable for other reasons. Never thought I'd see reasoning like that on PEN-L. People should keep their money in stocks because they have nowhere else to go. This, even though no one can explain why stocks should continue to yield 3 to 10 times the rate of GDP growth. The whole thing is like a damn seance. If we just put our heads together, we can conjure the returns! Doug
Re: [PEN-L] Re: everything's groovy
Doug Henwood wrote: Never thought I'd see reasoning like that on PEN-L. It's true: we have seen some weird reasoning on PEN-L recently. For instance, just the other day someone wrote re Wall Street that "everything's groovy"! People should keep their money in stocks because they have nowhere else to go. I didn't suggest that people "should" keep their money in stocks. What I suggested, instead, is that the decision by small-time "investors" to buy stocks (especially mutual funds plans) has to be looked at in relation to the other alternatives open to these people. Consider the options for working people who have savings (especially older workers): they can put their savings into a savings account and earn what amount of interest? Even with inflation at relatively "low" levels, they will feel the bite and might even see a reduction in their real savings. Or, they could buy bonds ... and have their savings tied up with very high penalties if they cashed them in early (assuming that is even an option). Or they could invest in the futures market which is even more risky than the stock market. Or they could speculate in gold, art, real estate, etc. (and stand a good chance of being taken to the cleaners). Or they could "invest" their savings on the ponies, the bookies, and lotto. Or, they could go on vacation or fishing and just spend their savings (and hope that they die early and don't end their days eating cat food). Jerry
Re: [PEN-L] Re: everything's groovy
I guess there must be something in V. 3 of Capital that explains
all this.
The particular issue that I raised ("investment" of savings by
working-class families in the stock market) wasn't considered by Marx.
However, Part 5 of V3, in particular the sections on credit and fictitious
capital, might be of interest re the crash.*
Jerry
* you might also want to take a look at Engels' comments on the stock
exchange in the "Supplement" to V3 (see pp. 1045-1047 in Penguin/Vintage
edition). **
** [NB: for those who have not read _Capital_ before, they should read
all of _Capital_ rather than jump to the "good stuff." Marx's advice
to the "French public" is of note here].
Re: Marx on Colonialism
Yes, I heard Kevin Anderson of "News and Letters" and author of "Lenin and Hegel" speak on the notebooks and their importance at a Socialist Scholars Conference a couple of years ago. The talk was provocatively titled "Marx as Multiculturalist." It whetted my appetite for their publication. Kevin stressed that the Marx of the notebooks is nothing like caricature of him that we get from some post-Colonialists, etc. I suspect that their publication will provide a missing link to Lenin's writings on the colonial world, which can by no stretch of the imagination be interpreted as a mandate for the "civilizing" mission of Western Europe. Louis Proyect At 12:14 PM 10/30/97 -0600, you wrote: In the last two years of his life Marx was engaged in an intensive study of pre-industrial cultures coming under colonial rule. The first comprehensive collection of his so-called "ethnological notebooks" will be published next year by Yale, under the title "Property and Patriarchy." The editor is David Smith, a sociologist at the University of Kansas. Smith, who recently lectured here about this, finds that Marx frequently expressed his dismay at the social destruction underway, and his sense that something valuable was being wiped out by European civilization. According to Smith, Marx was especially impressed by the gender equality he found in tribal societies. This text will represent Marx's most mature thinking on colonialism. Smith's editing project is huge, since apparently Marx composed these notes rather chaotically in six languages. I think this may be a very important resource from an historical and political standpoint, and may require us to revise our thinking about what a "marxist" position is on this subject.
Re: Marx on colonialism
The racist remark about the Albanians was made by a certain James Robertson, who is the grand poobah of the World Spartacist League, at a meeting in NYC. James Robertson and Karl Marx have little in common. Louis Proyect At 11:39 AM 10/30/97 -0800, you wrote: In response to Ricardo, I didn't know I had a "rosy picture" of Marx's theory of colonialism. What I said was that he didn't really have a _theory_ of colonialism beyond that of (white) settler colonialism. BTW, is it true (as some have alleged) that Marx refered to Albanians as "goat-fuckers"? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/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.
Re: list of basic econ/social institutions
Jim, Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions. I would also appreciate more specifics from anyone who would like to suggest. Larry Shute Thanks for your message at 11:33 AM 10/30/97 -0800, James Devine. Your message was: Larry Shute asks for a list of the basic institutions. I would define an "institution" as any organization created by people. 1) capitalism (the "capitalist mode of production"), a macro-societal institution that includes: a) markets. Not only are there major institutions within these markets (corporations, oligopolies, etc.) but markets themselves have human-created rules and mechanisms. Markets _are_ institutions. One problem with NC econ. is that they treat markets as somehow being natural rather than creations of human beings. b) the state political organizations. The separation of the state from the rest of society into being a specialized sector is a key factor differentiating capitalism from other modes of production. Similar to the state in many ways, but acting in a decentralized way are: c) not-for-profit organizations, including industry self-regulation organizations. (For the life of me, I don't get why these play little or no role in econ. textbooks. My life is surrounded by them.) d) imperialism (the globalizing drive of capitalism. maybe not an institution itself). Bureaucracies are very important institutions in corporations, the state, political organizations, and not-for-profits. They also play a role in: 2) labor unions informal labor organizations. 3) patriarchy: this a long-lived system of male privilege that precedes capitalism and has so far persisted in post-capitalist societies (bureaucratic socialism). 4) ethnic or racial domination. Cutting institutions a different way (following and adding to Robert Heilbroner), one can think of 4 major ways that people organize themselves: 1) tradition, custom, convention. (The role of custom is being accepted more and more by economists these days. A colleague of mine just told me of one at the University of Chicago's economics department who emphasizes the role of customs.) 2) command, bureaucracy, top-down rule. 3) markets, competition. 4) democracy, bottom-up rule. It reveals a lot about Heilbroner that he missed the last one (and that many economists have followed him on this). In personal communication, however, he did indicate that he was willing to accept #4 as a friendly amendment. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/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 "The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damned greedy." -- Herbert Hoover
Re: List of Basic Econ/Social Institutions in the Economy
Maybe my reply to Paul Phillips might help to clarify. Thanks for your message at 06:30 PM 10/29/97 -0600, valis. Your message was: Quoth Laurence Shute, in part: I would appreciate your help in compiling a list of the 50 -100 basic economic and social institutions in the US, possibly Canada as well. What are the basic institutions that you feel economics students should have a working knowledge of? Any and all suggestions are welcomed. 50 to 100 such? What in the world do you mean? Do you recall the title of Calvin's great book; what did _he_ mean? Well, where the criteria are so vague, assumption can take flight.
Re: Marx and irony
Lou again: I will continue to use humor in my posts. Doug Henwood gets my sense of humor and that's all that matters to me. Doug has, however, the privilege of knowing you better than most of us do. I will fiercely resist smileys, but I'd point out that mockery etc. are only evident as such if your underlying position is plain. Pleased though I am to know that Plato is off the hook, I'd still be grateful for clarification of your views on teleology and stages theories, which are important in assessing Marx's views on imperialism, no? Literal-mindedly, Colin
RE: URPE Web sight
Can anyone tell me URPE's web sight? http://economics.csusb.edu/orgs/URPE/urpehome.html ... Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get on MAI Hearings list (fwd)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Speller, Bob - Assistant 2)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ('Bob Olsen')
Organization: House of Commons / Chambre des communes
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:02:22 -0500
Subject: MAI hearings
Thank you for your e-mail concerning the upcoming hearings by
the Sub-Committee on Trade dealing with the MAI.
For further information on the hearings you can contact the
Clerk of the Sub-Committee, Mr. Richard Rumas, at (613) 996-1664.
Requests to appear before the Sub-Committee should be faxed to
Mr. Rumas at 947-9670 or by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sincerely,
Kim Meegan, Special Assistant to
Bob Speller, M.P., Chair of the Sub-Committee on Trade
..
Bob Olsen Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]:-)
Re: Marx, stages and teleology.
Colin Danby: I will fiercely resist smileys, but I'd point out that mockery etc. are only evident as such if your underlying position is plain. Pleased though I am to know that Plato is off the hook, I'd still be grateful for clarification of your views on teleology and stages theories, which are important in assessing Marx's views on imperialism, no? There are passages in Marx that give support to a "stagist" interpretation of history in some places and others that do not. The Communist Manifesto puts forward a rather schematic notion that the socialist revolution will follow the bourgeois revolution as it followed feudalism, etc. In his writings on the German revolution, Marx suggests that the workers might proceed directly to socialism after playing a central role in the anti-feudal struggle. The bourgeois and socialist revolution might be combined. Trotsky developed these ideas in his analysis of Czarist Russia. He put forward the idea that Russia might bypass the bourgeois-democratic revolution altogether because the bourgeoisie was not a powerful class. The notion of "stages" became fetishized in the Second International. Kautsky argued that capitalism had not exhausted its historical mission in places like Russia. This soon became a way to accomodate to capitalism ideologically. The question of teleology is a separate question altogether. I find very little evidence of "teleleology" in the strict sense in Marx. Marx thought that the class struggle was the locomotive of history. But this does not mean it is going forward toward some end, like a train on a track. He often wrote that terrible reversals were possible. Yes, the Communist Manifesto says that "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." But the 18th Brumaire also says: "Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day- but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions like those of the nineteenth century constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals -- until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta! (Here is Rhodes, leap here! Here is the rose, dance here!)" I believe that the 18th Brumaire is one of the best guides to understanding 20th century politics, with all of its false starts, reversals and tragedies. There certainly is nothing "teleleogical" about this work, but it certainly captures the ebb and flow of the time we live in. Louis Proyect
FWD: New Book (fwd)
State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-4356 Michael H Schwartz Professor Sociology 516 632-7703 27-Oct-1997 05:54am EST Dear All Clarence Lo and I have edited a timely book called Social Policy and the Conservative Agenda published by Blackwells, which takes a very close look at policy making during the Clinton Administration. We think it gives the best analysis thus far offered of why Clinton has enacted the conservative agenda with such regularity and failed to follow through on the many positive expectations of liberals and others. The essays are each directed at a particular policy area and are written by scholars who have specialized expertise in those areas, for example, Harvey Molotch on urban policy, Francis Fox Piven on AFDC, and Jill Quadagno on social security. Some of the essays are filled with juicy details about specific policy developments (e.g., civilianization of research, social security reform), others offer more general analyses about the how policy has been formulated in that area in the last 15 years of so (e.g., AFDC, family policy); some have both. Taken as a whole, we think the book breaks important new ground in understanding how the conservative policy trajectory established during the 1980s has maintained its momentum despite public reaction against it. Most significantly, it offers a strong analytic alternative to the rejuvenated consensus that governmental policy is somehow a reflection of public opinion. The overarching viewpoint focuses on how government is influence by the dynamics of the capitalist class, both through direct contact and through embedded class interest. While all the essays are intellectually challenging, most of them are accessible to students and other non-scholars. We think it could be usefully assigned in all manner of undergraduate courses-particularly those embracing politics and/or United State social structure. The book will be out in January in the U.S., so it could be assigned for Spring semesters, particularly those that begin in late January. Desk copies will be available in the next month or so. If you want to know more, let me know by return email. If you want a desk copy, send me mailing address, course you are considering it for and tentative enrollment. Feel free to forward this to anyone you think might be interested. I am attaching a table of contents for your perusal. Best Michael Social Policy and the Conservative Agenda edited by Clarence Y.H. Lo and Michael Schwartz Contents Introduction What Went Right? Why the Clinton Administration Did Not Alter The Conservative Trajectory in Federal Policy Michael Schwartz Part One: Welfare, Social Security, and the State of Austerity 1. Welfare and the Transformation of American Politics Frances Fox Piven 2. The Democratic Party and the Politics of Welfare Reform Ron Walters 3. Urban America: Crushed in the Growth Machine Harvey Molotch 4. Rhetoric, Recision, and Reaction: The Development of Homelessness Policy Cynthia Bogard, and J. Jeff McConnell 5. Social Security Policy and the Entitlement Debate: The New American Exceptionalism Jill Quadagno Part Two: Welfare-warfare Spending, Technology, and the Global Economy 6. Wealth and Poverty in the National Economy: The Domestic Foundations of Clinton's Global Policy Morris Morley and James Petras 7. America's Military Industrial Make-Over Ann Markusen 8. Big Missions and Big Business: Military and Corporate Dominance of Federal Science Policy Gregory Hooks and Gregory McLauchlan 9. Active-competitive Industrial Policy: From Elite Project to Logics of Action J. Kenneth Benson and Nick Paretsky 10. Where Are All the Democrats? The Limits of Economic Policy Reform Patrick Akard 11. Failure of Health-Care Reform: The Role of Big Business in Policy Formation Beth Mintz Part Three: Acting Out Conservative Ideology 12. The Malignant Masses on CNN: Media Use of Public Opinion Polls to Fabricate the "Conservative Majority" against Health-Care Reform Clarence Y.H. Lo 13. Popular Consensus or Political Extortion? Making Soldiers the Means and Ends of U.S. Military Deployments Jerry Lee Lembcke 14. Theorizing and Politicizing Choice in the `96 election Zillah Eisenstein 15. The Right Family Values Judith Stacey 16. Contradictions in the
Re: [PEN-L] Re: everything's groovy
At 12:09 PM 10/30/97 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: [SNIP] One of the things that is bound to take place sooner or later is the privatization of social security, just as it did in Chile. The whole point of the mutual funds industry is to get people to accept the idea that this is the only "realistic" way to prepare for retirement. It is commonly argued that the only things that are inevitable are death and taxes. I acknowledge the first but don't accept the second, and for the same reasons believe you are too quick to predict the inevitable privatization of social security. Not too long ago a lot of folks would have believed that Fast Track was nearly unstoppable. If you accept the notion that there are still some things that can be accomplished through organization and struggle, then the privatization of social security need not be so certain as you claim. This is not to underestimate what it will take to defeat it; only to recall that people can also act consciously as agents of their own futures. Another aspect of this is the need to get a broad section of the population to accept the logic of the capitalist system. A small stock-holder who owns 20 shares of Citibank is likely to go along with the cutback of 5000 jobs that is pending. Since this improves corporate profitability, the value of the share is increased potentially. The concept of "people's capitalism" has been around for more than a few years. Yet even in the instance of worker-buyouts, ESOPs, etc., we have witnessed cases where worker-"owners" have been willing to strike against the management of enterprises they are purported to own. The system employs many ideological tools designed to side-track worker discontent and derail opposition to profit-maximizing schemes. Some work better than others; some work in some cases and not in others; none have been found to achieve fully what they were intended or designed to accomplish -- which is why they keep cranking out new ones (or guzzying up old techniques). In a period of growing inequality, declining real incomes, contingency, longer working hours, outsourcing, etc., it may take a lot more octane than the additive of a handful of stocks to convince workers their fates are more aligned with management than with one another. This really gets ugly when you think about all the union retirement funds that are invested in the exact same companies that are attacking them. Frankly, there is no easy solution to this problem. It gets to the heart of the way that the capitalist system functions. I suspect that when the time comes for the ruling class to privatize social security, socialists will really have to come up with some strong arguments. Louis Proyect If we wait that long, no argument will suffice. The work of defeating privatization has already begun. It is our job to extend and expand it. In solidarity, Michael E.
Conference on privatization
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:50:34 EST5EDT4,M4.1.0,M10.5.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: early announcement of Hungarian symposium ADVANCE ANNOUNCEMENT Meeting the Challenge of Privatization: Its Impact on Occupational Health and Safety, Public Health, and Environmental Protection 9th Annual Symposium on Environmental and Occupational Health During Societal Transition in Central and Eastern Europe Budapest, Hungary June 8-12, 1998 The 9th Annual symposium will focus on the challenge of protecting public health and the environment in the economic and political restructuring of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). We wish to bring together representatives from academia, community-based organizations, industry, labor unions, government, NGOs, and public policy makers from Central, Eastern, and Western Europe, the USA, and other countries to discuss the public health issues related to the privatization of publicly owned and/or controlled industries and services. This symposium will focus upon the following themes and issues: * The experienced impact of privatization upon the environment, workplace health and safety, and public health, in different economic sectors in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). * The roles and responsibilities of the following organizations to protect public health in the process of economic restructuring: governments (national and local); international health agencies; international redevelopment and finance agencies; trade unions; NGOs; and, Community-based organizations. * Experiences of labor and communities dealing with international firms elsewhere, e.g., Mexico, Canada, Asia, and Western Europe. * Alternatives to privatization that might better support public health and the environment. * The impact of privatization on the regulatory capacity of governments. * Criteria for privatization efforts that will support the health of workers and communities. The topics will be discussed in the context of case studies. Discussion workshops will follow the presentations, permitting broad participation. Simultaneous translation services will be available for Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Russian, and English languages. Registration fee, including lodging and meals during the Symposium: $595 ($695 after 4/30/98); $350 for full-time registered students; and $300 for CEE participants. (All US Dollars) For more information contact: Professor Charles Levenstein, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1 University Ave., Lowell, MA 01854. Phone: 978/934-3255 Fax: 978/452-5711. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Initial Co-Sponsors: Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University and UMDNJ-RWJMS; Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts; Center for International Rural and Environmental Health, University of Iowa; Swiss Labor Cooperation, Bern, Switzerland; De Montfort University, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Leicester, England; Central European University, Environmental Science and Policy Department, Budapest, Hungary; Fact Institute of Applied Social Science Research, Pecs, Hungary. - - Craig Slatin Department of Work Environment Lowell Center for Sustainable Production University of Massachusetts Lowell 1 University Ave. Lowell, MA 01854 tel. 508 934 3291FAX 508 452 5711 PLEASE NOTE: NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS, EFFECTIVE NOW e-mail[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - wÿ Ó @âÖýAn¥+HÃþþÎ
