[PEN-L:711] Re: Preference Formation
William S. Lear wrote: I think Doug makes a mistake of too easily letting the tobacco companies off the hook for helping to shape preferences for smoking. I've never let them off the hook. I said that anyone who believes that people smoke only because evil tobacco companies manipulate us into doing so (and I smoke about a pack or two a year, in the interests of full disclosure) has a pretty limited understanding of human desire. Ditto Seagram's and drink. Sure they manipulate us into buying their brand, and maximizing our purchases; sure they trick people into thinking there's something sophisticated about smoking, etc. etc. But it's a fact that the very danger of cigarettes can be part of their attraction; that's why Richard Klein said they're sublime, right? And the more the impeccably moral Bill Clinton makes teen smoking the centerpiece of his moral renovation campaign, the more teens take up smoking. As William Osler put it, "The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals." Doug
[PEN-L:714] Re: Re: Re: Preference Formation
Is there a Marxist theory of desire, or to use the word Foucault preferred (because it's nonteleological), pleasure? Doug Desire? I don't have the foggiest idea. It certainly doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd take a vote on in a preconvention discussion. That's for darned sure. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:715] Re: quick query
On 10 Aug 98 at 13:04, Gil Skillman wrote:
On behalf of a colleague, I'm forwarding a question for any PEN-r who's had
cause to think about these things. Any help would be appreciated.(I'm
not sure that URPE membership numbers would offer a precise answer to the
question._
Thanks in advance,
Gil Skillman
For something I'm writing, I need a
ballpark estimate of the number of "radical economists," in roughly the
URPE sense of that term, who teach and do research in the U.S. or
in N. America or if need be in "the industrialized West." Do you have
any guess about this? Or is there simply some place where you can
quickly look up the number of members of URPE?
Gil,
I think the starting point would be what is a "radical"? If you use
simply those who are self-defined as "radical" then URPE membership
lists would be far off the mark (I for one do not belong to URPE
because of my own notion of that it means to be a "radical"). I
define a radical economist as one who not only teaches and researches
on "radical" questions from a "radical" perspective, but also links
his or her "radical" teaching/research to concrete struggles in
concrete and usable ways and, who draws some of his/her data, theories, notions,
assumptions and perspectives from being linked in concrete ways to
concrete struggles. I define a "radical" economist as one who as no
notion of CV-building and for whom the people involved in concrete
struggles are not mere "objects" or "subjects" of research--in other
words the teacher/researcher continues an ongoing relationship with
those whose struggles formed the content of his/her research.
I do not priortize struggles and voices--a la David Harvey I do not
consider "voices from the margins" (e.g. struggles of Indigenous
Peoples) as more pure, more worthy of mention or consideration or
more "revolutionary" in the totality or scheme of things. Feminist
struggles, struggles of the industrialized working class, struggles
of Indigenous peoples, struggles against imperialism and
neo-colonialism, struggles of all types and categories of
disenfrancised peoples who have been/are being exploited and plundered
and screwed over by capitalism have revolutionary potential and
worth for me personally.
For me personally, being a "radical" means getting to the "root" of exploitation
with the operative words being " getting to" implying concrete actions
beyond reading/writing books and journals.
But that's just me and what do I know? So I don't know if you can add
me to your colleague's census--there are mixed reviews on that
question.
Good to hear from you.
Jim
James Craven
Dept. of Economics,Clark College
1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
--
"The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
(Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
"...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more
extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend
the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the
system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where
you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the
culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their
extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange
for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange
lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare
and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and
influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these
debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off
by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and
approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens
of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.The former is certainly the
termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course
of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that
our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to
shut our hand to crush them..."
(Classified Letter of President Thomas Jefferson ("libertarian"--for propertied white
people) to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803)
*My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
[PEN-L:718] Re: Re: Re: Re: Preference Formation
Mike Yates mentioned soldiers and smoking. The troops in the trenches during WW I were give free ciggies. Then Freud's famous double nephew, Edward Bernays, had the debutants march in the Easter parade, identifying smoking with freedom. This period is expecially interesting. Now Louis says that preference formation is foreign to Marxism. I am not so sure. I have read quite a bit about the period that suggests that there was an intentional effort to shift workers' focus from their identity as workers to their identity as consumers. The car is an interesting example of how these preferences set of a chain of unforseeable events. The car was seen as liberating, including sexual liberation. But now we can see how the car has destroyed public space, making the cities less enjoyable. As long as we see preferences as individual, then we have lost the game. Once we see the social role of preferences, then we have a better chance of reconstructing communities. Doug was, of course, correct in noting that Clinton is pointing to children smoking as the core of the problem of tobacco. Bill emphasizes that the choices are not merely the product of an individual choice. We are sometimes too easily influenced, as Bernays realized. Now, everyone has limits on how far individual choice is permitted. Some would limit pornography, cannibis, tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, leaf blowers, etc. These discussions usually occur is the framework of questions of morality. I am only suggesting that we frame these questions in a political context. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:719] Question on social knowledge
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --7A80145B52083EA0A2E82F92 I heard a wonderful story from someone who sent this to me. A cannot find anything on Neckham in the Berkeley library. Does anyone know how to track this down? The punch line is that the peasants were ahead of the intellectuals. In the 12th or 13th century, Alexander Neckham was working on his compendium of known science called De Natura Rerum or De Rebus Naturis or De Re Naturae, or some such title. When he came to the section on the tides, he wrote: concerning the origin of the tides, there are two dominant explanations given by the authorities. The first says that the serpent that circumscribes the earth [you can see this reptile on early maps of the known world] flexes and relaxes its coils. As it does so, it causes the ocean's waters to flow in and out, which causes the tides. The second says that there is a cavity in the ocean. When it opens, the water rushes into it, causing the tide to go out. When it closes, the water is expelled, causing the tide to come in. And then he goes on to say, almost as a toss-away: sed vulgi putant causa est luna. "But the peasants think the cause is the moon." It's notable that he uses putant as the word for thinking, which is lowest order of thinking (as in, I think I'm hungry), as opposed say, to cogitant, which is the kind of thinking Descartes did. Michael-please note that these are recollections of an encounter I had with Neckham more than 30 years ago. I don't have the materials with me any longer to check the accuracy of the text and the campus library is as bad off as yours. So please accept the spirit of it, which is right and accurate, and not the letter (i.e., the actual Latin wording), which could be off here and there. That is, don't go into print on this, but use it liberally with your students and you will be just fine. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --7A80145B52083EA0A2E82F92 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:04:31 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: neckham Michael Perlman In the 12th or 13th century, Alexander Neckham was working on his compendium of known science called De Natura Rerum or De Rebus Naturis or De Re Naturae, or some such title. When he came to the section on the tides, he wrote: concerning the origin of the tides, there are two dominant explanations given by the authorities. The first says that the serpent that circumscribes the earth [you can see this reptile on early maps of the known world] flexes and relaxes its coils. As it does so, it causes the ocean's waters to flow in and out, which causes the tides. The second says that there is a cavity in the ocean. When it opens, the water rushes into it, causing the tide to go out. When it closes, the water is expelled, causing the tide to come in. And then he goes on to say, almost as a toss-away: sed vulgi putant causa est luna. "But the peasants think the cause is the moon." It's notable that he uses putant as the word for thinking, which is lowest order of thinking (as in, I think I'm hungry), as opposed say, to cogitant, which is the kind of thinking Descartes did. Michael-please note that these are recollections of an encounter I had with Neckham more than 30 years ago. I don't have the materials with me any longer to check the accuracy of the text and the campus library is as bad off as yours. So please accept the spirit of it, which is right and accurate, and not the letter (i.e., the actual Latin wording), which could be off here and there. That is, don't go into print on this, but use it liberally with your students and you will be just fine. Best wishes Bob Lucas --7A80145B52083EA0A2E82F92--
[PEN-L:720] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preference Formation
Friends, Preferences are always formed within a social setting, and this social setting can be altered by political struggle. So, in this sense, preferences are concerns of radical thinkers and activists. We surely do not want to get into bed with Friedman and his ilk, saying that we are "free to choose" as if nothing social shapes our free choosing. The problem I had with my economics education is that in 50-odd economics classes, we never discussed the political nature of the constraints within we make our choices. michael yates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Yates mentioned soldiers and smoking. The troops in the trenches during WW I were give free ciggies. Then Freud's famous double nephew, Edward Bernays, had the debutants march in the Easter parade, identifying smoking with freedom. This period is expecially interesting. Now Louis says that preference formation is foreign to Marxism. I am not so sure. I have read quite a bit about the period that suggests that there was an intentional effort to shift workers' focus from their identity as workers to their identity as consumers. The car is an interesting example of how these preferences set of a chain of unforseeable events. The car was seen as liberating, including sexual liberation. But now we can see how the car has destroyed public space, making the cities less enjoyable. As long as we see preferences as individual, then we have lost the game. Once we see the social role of preferences, then we have a better chance of reconstructing communities. Doug was, of course, correct in noting that Clinton is pointing to children smoking as the core of the problem of tobacco. Bill emphasizes that the choices are not merely the product of an individual choice. We are sometimes too easily influenced, as Bernays realized. Now, everyone has limits on how far individual choice is permitted. Some would limit pornography, cannibis, tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, leaf blowers, etc. These discussions usually occur is the framework of questions of morality. I am only suggesting that we frame these questions in a political context. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:721] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preference Formation
Mike Yates wrote: Preferences are always formed within a social setting, and this social setting can be altered by political struggle. So, in this sense, preferences are concerns of radical thinkers and activists. We surely do not want to get into bed with Friedman and his ilk, saying that we are "free to choose" as if nothing social shapes our free choosing. The problem I had with my economics education is that in 50-odd economics classes, we never discussed the political nature of the constraints within we make our choices. right! I have three reasons why Marxists (and leftists) should spend some effort to understand psychology (though always in a social context): 1) it's the whole issue of _consciousness_ that has occupied Marxist political activists since Lenin: how can we, the good guys, convince the workers and other oppressed people of the nature of their long-term or class interests? 2) it's also related to the issue of alienation. Yes, alienation is more of a socio-economic than a psychological phenomenon, but it does have a psychological impact. 3) Most people have some kind of psychological vision -- from the economists' tautologically-true behaviorism to many people's self-actualization and self-esteem theory. We need to be able to talk to them and criticize them. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:724] Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect
Paul Phillips: Nevertheless, Bhoddi is right in the sense that even if we restored to all the aboriginals all that we have expropriated since the original treaties, and even allocated all or most of the unallocated crown lands, it would do little now to bring the native peoples up to a decent standard of living. This is almost startling lack of political insight. It suggests that the problem of the detachment of "radical" economists from the mass movement is much deeper than Jim Craven alluded to. Look, the way to approach these problems is not from the standpoint of business school seminar on how to "turn around" reservations. It is from the standpoint of self-determination which socialists have championed throughout the 20th century and hopefully into the 20th century. The Russian revolutionary movement demanded that the oppressed nationalities be liberated. They combined this demand with the demand for peace and bread. Canada just concluded a treaty with the Nisga people, some 3000 or so Indians living in the Northwest. Even though the treaty is considered a sell-out by tribal militants, it literally has the Canadian ultraright in a total dither, just the way that the Australian right-wing has rallied around Pauline Hanson, the neofascist. There is no way to "turn around" the American Indian economy on the basis of capitalism. Their place in the sun is connected to the overall fight against capitalism. You can't put this forward in an ultimatistic manner, however. Jim Craven works with the Blackfoot National Bank, the only Indian owned bank in the country. Does this mean it is correct to support "Indian capitalism?" No, that is not the issue at all. The issue is gaining strength through victories. It is a victory when a reservation or an Indian nation can take control of its own assets and wrest land from the ruling class. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:725] BLS Daily Report
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_01BDC4AA.5CA677E0 charset="iso-8859-1" BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1998: Nonfarm payroll employment rose by a seasonally adjusted 66,000 in July, held down by a big drop in factory jobs caused by the strike against General Motors Corp., the Labor Department reports. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.5 percent. Nonfarm payrolls rose by a little more than 200,000 when the effects of the strike are removed from calculations. This follows a revised gain of 196,000 jobs in June. On release of the employment report, President Clinton said that even with the GM strike, "We still see that over the past year, wages have risen at more than twice the rate of inflation, the fastest real wage growth for ordinary Americans for 20 years. We have low unemployment, low inflation, strong growth and higher wages." Manufacturing employment plunged by 176,000 in July. BLS Commissioner Katharine G. Abraham told the Joint Economic Committee that the agency can directly identify 135,000 of these lost jobs with people on strike or laid off because of the United Auto Workers walkout. (Daily Labor Report, page D-1; Text of Commissioner Abraham's Statement on Release of the July Employment Report Given Before the Joint Economic Committee August 7, 1998 on page E-1). __The nation's jobless rate was unchanged last month at 4.5 percent, but the now-settled GM strike slowed job creation, holding the monthly gain in payroll jobs to just 66,000, the Labor Department reported yesterday. Aside from the strike-related distortions, a number of details in the report suggested that the nation's tight labor markets have begun to loosen a bit, analysts said (The Washington Post, August 8, page D1). __The economy created jobs at a slower but still robust pace last month, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.5 percent, the Labor Department reported. Continued strong employment growth in service industries more than offset the damage that Asia's woes are inflicting on manufacturers (The New York Times, page 1, August 8). __The economy last month suffered the biggest loss of factory jobs in 16 years, a clear sign that the manufacturing sector, once a strong engine of employment, is sputtering. The Labor Department said manufacturing jobs fell a seasonally adjusted 176,000 in July, holding overall U.S. payroll growth to just 66,000, the weakest monthly gain in 30 months. About 140,000 of these lost jobs were affected directly or indirectly by the UAW strike against General Motors (The Wall Street Journal, page A2. The Journal's page 1 graph is of the unemployment rate, 1995 to the present). Poverty is a reality for three to 10 Americans, but for most of them, it's short-lived, the Census Bureau reports. Over a 3-year span, from 1993 to 1995, 30.3 percent of the population lived below the poverty line for at least 2 months. But just 5.3 percent of them stayed poor for 2 full years. The government considers a three-person family poor if its income is below $13,650; for a four person family, the threshold is $16,450. The most likely to be poor were families headed by single mothers. In 1994, nearly half of the female-headed households lived in poverty for at least 2 months in a row, more than 3 times the rate of married couples (The Washington Post, which carried an Associated Press story, page A6). The Clinton Administration will abandon a controversial pay formula used to calculate annual salary increases for 1.3 million white-collar federal employees, reopening debate in Congress and inside the bureaucracy over how to determine the worth of government jobs. The decision, outlined last week, means the government will move to a new statistical method for determining "locality pay," a system aimed at boosting federal pay, based on salary comparisons with private sector jobs. While the decision centers on arcane statistical techniques, it will likely reinforce widespread perceptions among federal workers that their pay system has broken down. The administration's move toward a new pay calculation method will not affect federal workers for the next 3 or 4 years, officials said. Congress and the White House have invoked an "escape clause" in the federal pay law that allows them to disregard the recommendations of the current formula because they are too high. The system, which took effect in 1994, has two components: A nationwide adjustment based on the Employment Cost Index and locality adjustments based on wage surveys in 32 metropolitan areas (The Washington Post "The Federal Page", page A15). Gas prices fell nearly 2 cents a gallon at the pump in 2 weeks, continuing a nearly yearlong plunge, an oil industry analyst said today. The Lundberg Survey of 10,000 stations nationwide found that the average retail price, including all grades and taxes,
[PEN-L:727] Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect
On 10 Aug 98 at 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that lost in the invective of this debate is some of the history of the 'expropriation of the aboriginal commons', at least as I understand it in the NA context. First, with regard to the intermingling of the (mercantile) capitalist mode of production with the aboriginal domestict mode of production during the period of the fur trade, the conclusion of most of the recent research work (as expressed by the 'articulation of modes of production literature') is that the process of the subjegation of native economies and social structures (including European technology) came quite late in the contact period, largely after the European began the forceful expropriation of land (and resources) with the spread of settlement and the agricultural frontier. For Canadian plains indians, the end of the buffalo economy came quite late -- between the first and second Riel Rebellions, the end result of which was the final movement (outside BC) of the Indian population onto reserves (but not the Metis, Innuit or Dene). Even then, a year or two ago I finished supervising a superb thesis on the economic fortunes of the Indians on reserves in the period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Through much of this period, the natives population did adjust to the market economy and, while hardly prospering or growing rich, did actually quite well; so much so that the government and local business conspired to buy, seize, expropriate or otherwise dislodge Indian land because, in many cases, the Indians were out competing white farmers (such as in hay markets.) Indeed, the federal government in canada denied the Indians their money to buy farm machinery because the government argued that, to maintain their way of life, the Indians had to use traditional, labour intensive, non-machinery mathods. That is, the natives were denied the right to chose to adopt modern technology and when they did and out competed the whites, they had their land and/or resources restricted. The real collapse of the native economies came, according to this thesis on Saskatchewan (and a similar book on Manitoba) during the depression when the aboriginals suffered the same fate as the white farmers. The difference was that the native economies never recovered with the war and the rise of paternal welfarism led to the dependency of the reserve structure which was not (the reserve resource base) sufficient to maintain or increase the income level. Nevertheless, Bhoddi is right in the sense that even if we restored to all the aboriginals all that we have expropriated since the original treaties, and even allocated all or most of the unallocated crown lands, it would do little now to bring the native peoples up to a decent standard of living. Just to give an example, Canada is now overrun with Beaver -- aboriginals can catch as many as they want and most of us wish that they would as they have become a nuisance and a hazard -- but the price of beaver pelts is so low (thanks in large part to the so-called animal rights activists) that the cost of catching beaver is greater than the revenue. Look at what has happened in BC with the salmon fishery. The combination of overfishing by US and Canadian fishers, pollution from logging and mining, etc. has driven the salmon dangerously close to extinction such that, even returning the exclusive fishing rights to the Indians on most rivers would barely provide for a subsistence fishery, etc. etc. Plus, the fact that many Native people don't want to live by the traditional ways -- i.e. want to come to the cities, get good educations, become doctors and even economists, or get good trades jobs. The preservation of traditional (and in many cases isolated) economies denies those kids who want to integrate the tools (social and educational) to do so. I certainly don't have the answer to this problem -- but it surely is not as clear cut as either Louis or Bhoddi make out. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Response: The wholesale "expropriation" (never using laws of "eminent domain even as that would open up a whole host of contradicitons and constraints of "sacred" private property institutions protecting non-Indian capitalism) of Indian lands was an essential part of and yet a metaphor for a wider totality of genocide. At the Tribunal in Vancouver BC, we heard case after case--supported by irrefutable documentation from inside the Canadian government and Churches--that processes of "Enfranchisement" along with the Residential Schools and other mechanism were directly intended to destroy Indians as recognizable Indians; there was never any intent however, to "assimilate" Indians on any other level of Canadian society other than the degraded margins. We know that history lives within the present and shapes the future; historical inequalities,
[PEN-L:729] Re: Re: Taxpayers
Jim:...shouldn't we add "plus the benefits of welfare-state programs such as unemployment insurance benefits" ? then, the wage struggle is about (1) real after-tax private wages plus (2) the real net social wage (welfare-state benefits minus taxes on wages). IMHO, pushing to raise both of these at the same time is the way to go. Rebecca: I agree that workers struggle can centre around the issue of state spending on welfare for the working class. However this does not validate an argument that claims that state health care etc for the working class forms part of the price of labour power. Warm regards Rebecca
[PEN-L:730] Re: Re: Shotguns and machetes
Bodhistava, I have read most of your posts on this thread simply because you have courage to present what is a minority point of view on pen-l. But I wonder, how can you separate forces of production from the relations of production? I think forces of production are usually dominated by the relations under which production takes place. Thus capitalist technology is inalienabale from capitalist relations, and the idea that we could build a non-exploitative society on the basis of taylorism or Fordism (or for that matter, post Fordist technology) seems to be a pipe dream, and the experience of East Europe to some extent have shown what kind of contradiction capitalist technology could engender when competition and profit motive is removed from the system. Secondly, It seems to me that you are using the capitalist reasoning where, on the one hand, productive work is considered 'disutility' (given alienation at work), and on the other, social well being or increase in the wealth of society is identified with annual flow of material goods (Adam Smith). Thus technical 'progress' is good per say. But other cultures may not use the same capitalist calculus for well being or what is good per say. So the question ultimately boils down to respecting cultural differences when it comes to economic calculus itself. In other words, I think there is no such thing as an economic calculation independent of the mode of production itself. Cheers, ajit sinha C. Proyect, Your problem is that you live in a fantasy world. When power companies dam waterways to create hydropower they are creating something that is quite simply more valuable than the fish. It's an ugly reality, but there it is. As for the drinking water, that is obviously preserved because modern people don't need to drink out of running streams to avoid intestinal parasites - we have water treament plants. By the way, drinking out of a running stream doesn't really give you much protection from intestinal parasites either. I've tried to explain to you before that pure water doesn't come from nature, it comes from a filter. For that matter, *fish* populations are not destroyed by dams, *migratory* fish population are destroyed by dams. Reservoirs are generally pretty well filled with fish. I never implies for a second that indigenous people were savages. That is simply a lame canard. What I said is that their mode of produciton is not viable. That is absolutely true. First of all, I am all for people using rifles tohunt instead of spears if they want to, although it obviously gives them the capacity to dramatically over-hunt (and therefore, their economy is changed - Bing! is the light going on?). My point is, quite obviously, that hunting for a living is not a viable economic practice. Commercial fishing is barely a viable practice these days. People are not "land-based" that is so much Social Darwinism. People are people and the Yanomami would be a fine and noble addition to the industrial proletariat. If they want a decent standard of living - and I guess they do - they will come to the same conclusion. If we all wasted time hunting for our dinners, there wouldn't be much time left to program computers, would there? Hunting is a sport, not an economy. As I said, I'm all for protecting the Yanomami from racism and violence, but they are obviously going to get with the industrial program simply because PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE STONE AGE! The question is how they are taken in to the larger society, on what terms and how they can be a positive force. Their respect for nature is a positive force. You know what? It's not going to slow down the advance of capitalism one little bit unless it is allied with a struggle to wrest the reigns of the industrial economy away from capitalists in order to put it in the hands of the industrial proletariat. The Yanomami are not forest creatures, they're people. They want what we want. peace
[PEN-L:728] What else is happening in Iraq?
=== Here is part of a 10K PSN post on Iraq. I have left in the frank anonymous comment of a UN staffer and a long but still incomplete list of embargoed items, many of them ridiculously pedestrian, that presumably have not been available to Iraq from any external source these past 7 years. Not much is known about Iraq; were _all_ of these items imported before the Gulf War and the harsh victor's peace that was imposed? One thing that Iraq still has in superabundance is oil, most of which cannot be sold abroad; is it perhaps currently fueling a low-key industrial revolution in cellars, garages and warehouses? Yes, I want to know how much import substitution is surreptitiously going on in Iraq, and the extent to which barter has replaced money in expediting domestic commerce. There may, therefore, be an upside of great future importance to the cruel ordeal this 5000-year-old entity is going through; does anyone know how this theory can be investigated for a basic corroboration? Whatever the case, the partial list provided below demonstrates most graphically why the current world order must be destroyed root and branch. The scum of Washington and Wall Street must forgive me for feeling no dismay - much the opposite, in fact - over the bombing of two obscure US embassies, as though they were anything less than the effective seat of rule over both host countries. Of course the logistics of guerrilla action will now be made still more difficult throughout the American Imperium by dutiful technical tweakings of hyper-Prussian pettiness, thus bringing closer the day of all-out biological warfare against the home front, the Third World's final solution to the paleface problem. valis Occupied America Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:30:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Joanne Naiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Agony of Iraq (fwd) [...Several items of varying length deleted...] One senior UN politician, speaking on condition of anonymity, recalls the American politicians in the Persian Gulf war who threatened to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age. "The hawks got their wish," he said. "They wanted to destroy this country, and destroy its infrastructure, and they did a good a job of it" [and 5,000 years ago, this was "The Cradle of Civilization"!] = A partial list of items prohibited to Iraq by UN sanctions ^^ Accumulators; Adhesive paper; aluminum foil; AM-FM receivers; Ambulances; Amplifiers; Answering machines; Armored cable; Ashtrays; Auto polish; Axes; Bags; Baking soda; Balls (for children, for sport); Baskets; Bath brushes Batteries; Battery chargers; Beads; Bearings; Bed lamps; Belts; Benches; Bicycles; Books (all categories included); Bottles; Bowls; Boxes; Broil Busses; Calculators; Cameras; Candles; Candlesticks; Canvas; Carpets; Cars; Carts; Carving knives; Cellophane; Chalk; Chess boards; Chiffon; Children's wear; Chisels; Clocks; Clutches; Coats; Coaxial cable; Cogs; Coils; Colors for painting; Combs; Compressors (for cooling); Computers and computer supplies; Copper; Cupboards; Cups; Desks; Desk lamps; Detergents; Dictaphones; Dish ware; Dishwashers; Dolls; Doorknobs; Doormats; Drawing knives; Dresses; Drills; Dryers; Dust cloths; Dyes; Dynamos; Easels; Electric cookers; Electric cords; Envelopes; Eyeglasses; Fabrics; Fans; Fax machines; Fibers; Files; Filing cabinets; Filing cards; Films; Filters; Flashlights; Flowerpots; Forks; Fountain pens; Furniture polish; Fuses; Gas burners; Gauges; Generators; Girdles; Glass; Glue; Gowns; Grills; Grindstone; Hairpins; Hammers; Handkerchiefs; Hats; Headlights; Headphones; Hearing aids; Hedge trimmers; Helmets; Hoes; Hooks; Hookup wires; Hoses; Hydraulic jacks; Ink (the prohibition on writing); Ink cartridges; Insulator strips; Interrupters; Jackets; Jacks; Joints; Jacks; Jumpers; Kettles; Knives; Lamp shades; Lathes; Lawn Mowers; Leather; Levers; Light bulbs; Light meters; Lime; Magazines (including journals); Magnesium; Magnets; Masonite; Mastic; Matches; Measuring equipment; Mica; Microfiche; Microphones; Microscopes; Mirrors; Mops; Motorbikes; Motors; Mufflers; Mugs; Music cassettes; Music CDs; Musical instruments; Nail brushes; Nail files; Napkins; Notebooks; Oil cans; Oil gauges; Oil lamps; Oscillators; Packaging materials; Pails; Painters brushes; Paints; Pans; Paper clips; Paper for printing; Paper for wrapping; Paper for writing; Pens; Percolators; Pesticides; Photocopiers; Photometers; Pincers; Pincettes; Pins; Plastics; Plates;
[PEN-L:726] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preference Formation
Now, everyone has limits on how far individual choice is permitted. Some would limit pornography, cannibis, tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, leaf blowers, etc. These discussions usually occur is the framework of questions of morality. I am only suggesting that we frame these questions in a political context. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 With cigarettes, it would seem that the political context is close at hand. My understanding is that tobacco has been until very recently and maybe still the most highly subsidized agricultural product. In addition, the US has periodically used its trade policies to force other countries to import certain quotas of US cigarettes in exchange for trade agreements. Ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92116 (619) 525-1449 FAX: (619) 696-
[PEN-L:723] re Bhoddi vs Proyect
It seems to me that lost in the invective of this debate is some of the history of the 'expropriation of the aboriginal commons', at least as I understand it in the NA context. First, with regard to the intermingling of the (mercantile) capitalist mode of production with the aboriginal domestict mode of production during the period of the fur trade, the conclusion of most of the recent research work (as expressed by the 'articulation of modes of production literature') is that the process of the subjegation of native economies and social structures (including European technology) came quite late in the contact period, largely after the European began the forceful expropriation of land (and resources) with the spread of settlement and the agricultural frontier. For Canadian plains indians, the end of the buffalo economy came quite late -- between the first and second Riel Rebellions, the end result of which was the final movement (outside BC) of the Indian population onto reserves (but not the Metis, Innuit or Dene). Even then, a year or two ago I finished supervising a superb thesis on the economic fortunes of the Indians on reserves in the period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Through much of this period, the natives population did adjust to the market economy and, while hardly prospering or growing rich, did actually quite well; so much so that the government and local business conspired to buy, seize, expropriate or otherwise dislodge Indian land because, in many cases, the Indians were out competing white farmers (such as in hay markets.) Indeed, the federal government in canada denied the Indians their money to buy farm machinery because the government argued that, to maintain their way of life, the Indians had to use traditional, labour intensive, non-machinery mathods. That is, the natives were denied the right to chose to adopt modern technology and when they did and out competed the whites, they had their land and/or resources restricted. The real collapse of the native economies came, according to this thesis on Saskatchewan (and a similar book on Manitoba) during the depression when the aboriginals suffered the same fate as the white farmers. The difference was that the native economies never recovered with the war and the rise of paternal welfarism led to the dependency of the reserve structure which was not (the reserve resource base) sufficient to maintain or increase the income level. Nevertheless, Bhoddi is right in the sense that even if we restored to all the aboriginals all that we have expropriated since the original treaties, and even allocated all or most of the unallocated crown lands, it would do little now to bring the native peoples up to a decent standard of living. Just to give an example, Canada is now overrun with Beaver -- aboriginals can catch as many as they want and most of us wish that they would as they have become a nuisance and a hazard -- but the price of beaver pelts is so low (thanks in large part to the so-called animal rights activists) that the cost of catching beaver is greater than the revenue. Look at what has happened in BC with the salmon fishery. The combination of overfishing by US and Canadian fishers, pollution from logging and mining, etc. has driven the salmon dangerously close to extinction such that, even returning the exclusive fishing rights to the Indians on most rivers would barely provide for a subsistence fishery, etc. etc. Plus, the fact that many Native people don't want to live by the traditional ways -- i.e. want to come to the cities, get good educations, become doctors and even economists, or get good trades jobs. The preservation of traditional (and in many cases isolated) economies denies those kids who want to integrate the tools (social and educational) to do so. I certainly don't have the answer to this problem -- but it surely is not as clear cut as either Louis or Bhoddi make out. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:722] Re: Re: Re: Preference Formation
William S. Lear wrote: Perhaps the swerve of the American consumer to steering hefty SUVs, from the dangerous (hence liberating) "limit experiences" generated by piloting smaller caves about town, is a signal of our (ever) increasing domestication, a further turn from the wild side of unions, feminism, sit-ins, solidarity, and other more radical forms of social protest? "a man who lives in a large city and owns a Land Rover does not simply lead a no-nonsense, 'down-to-earh' life; rather, he owns such a car in order to *signal* that he leads his life under the sign of a no-nonsense, 'down-to-earth' attitude" - Slavoj Zizek, The Plague of Fantasies, p. 4
[PEN-L:717] Re: Re: Re: Preference Formation13775.9173.155999.338779@homer.dejanews.coml03130313b1f4d9f550b7@[166.84.250.86] 13775.18264.600112.782387@homer.dejanews.com
Friends, It seems to me that the tobacco companies must bear a lot of responsibility for cigarette addiction and its many attendent evils. For one thing they do target young people in their advertising, because they know that it will be difficult for teenagers to stop as adults once the addiction has begun and because young people are more gullible. For another, I wonder if the tobacco companies haven't used wars to promote cigarette addiction. Soldiers have such easy access to cigarettes in a situation in which a smoke no doubts gives comfort. But if a soldier gets addicted to cigarettes in the stress of battle, is this to mean that he chose to be addicted? Or that the danger of smoking gave it some attraction? Anyway, I'm not in favor of banning drugs, but I don't see whats wrong with going after the tobacco companies anymore than going after the merchants of war (and in a way, they are the same bunch of people). My father died of emphysema. slowly and painfully. He said that he would never sue the tobacco companies because it was his choice to smoke. I wonder about this. A Depression, a war, a stressful job, lies from the companies (the chesterfield ad: "not a cough in a carload"). Surely it was a constrained choice, and with more humane constraints, a different choice might have been made. michael yates William S. Lear wrote: On Mon, August 10, 1998 at 13:43:35 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: William S. Lear wrote: I think Doug makes a mistake of too easily letting the tobacco companies off the hook for helping to shape preferences for smoking. I've never let them off the hook. I said that anyone who believes that people smoke only because evil tobacco companies manipulate us into doing so... Well actually, you said that "Blaming smoking on evil tobacco companies is a crock", but perhaps I was being uncharitable and read that too narrowly. I guess I was trying to take things in a different direction. Sure, pleasure is wonderful, but is there no room for us to discuss what free people might provide for themselves without advertising, without assuming that we will all lunge for greaseburgers and butts as some sort of overriding, uncontrollable desire that must remain uncontested? (I'm not saying you are necessarily claiming this). Another thing that separates "man" from animals, by the way, is the ability to recognize self-destructive behavior and to channel/control it. I know the word "control" is not too much in favor among Foucauldians (certainly for good reasons), but I have had the notion of "workers' control" buzzing in my head lately, and I think that unbridled consumption is in some ways harmful. So, perhaps consumers' (self-) control over their consumption (via democratic formations) is not just an aesthetic, liberal Galbraithian concern, but something central to the future of democratic economies. Lastly: presumably, part of the attraction of automobiles is also their danger. Perhaps the swerve of the American consumer to steering hefty SUVs, from the dangerous (hence liberating) "limit experiences" generated by piloting smaller caves about town, is a signal of our (ever) increasing domestication, a further turn from the wild side of unions, feminism, sit-ins, solidarity, and other more radical forms of social protest? Bill
[PEN-L:716] Re: Re: Preference Formation
On Mon, August 10, 1998 at 13:43:35 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: William S. Lear wrote: I think Doug makes a mistake of too easily letting the tobacco companies off the hook for helping to shape preferences for smoking. I've never let them off the hook. I said that anyone who believes that people smoke only because evil tobacco companies manipulate us into doing so... Well actually, you said that "Blaming smoking on evil tobacco companies is a crock", but perhaps I was being uncharitable and read that too narrowly. I guess I was trying to take things in a different direction. Sure, pleasure is wonderful, but is there no room for us to discuss what free people might provide for themselves without advertising, without assuming that we will all lunge for greaseburgers and butts as some sort of overriding, uncontrollable desire that must remain uncontested? (I'm not saying you are necessarily claiming this). Another thing that separates "man" from animals, by the way, is the ability to recognize self-destructive behavior and to channel/control it. I know the word "control" is not too much in favor among Foucauldians (certainly for good reasons), but I have had the notion of "workers' control" buzzing in my head lately, and I think that unbridled consumption is in some ways harmful. So, perhaps consumers' (self-) control over their consumption (via democratic formations) is not just an aesthetic, liberal Galbraithian concern, but something central to the future of democratic economies. Lastly: presumably, part of the attraction of automobiles is also their danger. Perhaps the swerve of the American consumer to steering hefty SUVs, from the dangerous (hence liberating) "limit experiences" generated by piloting smaller caves about town, is a signal of our (ever) increasing domestication, a further turn from the wild side of unions, feminism, sit-ins, solidarity, and other more radical forms of social protest? Bill
[PEN-L:713] Re: Re: Preference Formation
Louis Proyect wrote: The problem with discussing preferences for Coca-Cola (originally made with cocaine), tobacco, alcohol, sugar and coffee in the abstract is that this is of little interest to Marxists. Political economy is supposed to be what interests us, not what is "politically correct." Is there a Marxist theory of desire, or to use the word Foucault preferred (because it's nonteleological), pleasure? Doug
[PEN-L:712] Re: Preference Formation
At 11:46 AM 8/10/98 -0500, Bill Lear wrote: But, I'm also keenly aware that the beef that McDonald's buys is heavily subsidized by the state, their advertising is tax-deductible, that there is such a thing as health problems associated with the vast quantities of cheap fatty and sugary foods (my wife and I just visited with a pediatrician who is convinced that American childrens' diets are behind the rash of "ADHD" cases). He or she may be right: the diet may have something to do with the ADHD miniepidemic (as might environmental pollution, absorbed by the child both before and after birth). But there are other causes: school administrators are looking for a "magic bullet" solution -- a technical fix -- for problem kids (mostly boys, for some reason). If the kid actually has ADHD or ADD, Ritalin or similar drugs is the fix. Many pediatricians are willing to go along the diagnosis and the prescription, but don't know much about psychiatry or medications. Also, kids are starting school (i.e., daycare) much earlier than they used to. This means that the young boys (4 to 7 years old) who used to spend a lot a time in unstructured play, are now in structured situations where their "abnormal" behavior is more obvious. (NB: I am not saying that ADHD is a wrong diagnosis for everyone but rather that it is overdiagnosed.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:710] Re: Re: Preference Formation
At 01:04 PM 8/10/98 -0400, you wrote: Louis writes: ... The problem with discussing preferences for Coca-Cola (originally made with cocaine), tobacco, alcohol, sugar and coffee in the abstract is that this is of little interest to Marxists. Political economy is supposed to be what interests us, not what is "politically correct." This is LM territory and is pretty low-level. Louis, as far as I can tell, pen-l is not (and has never been) a solely Marxist list. Rather, it's a leftist political economy list, which is a friendly home to Marxist economists. In this, it is similar to URPE. Similarly, I don't see why "LM" [Living Marxism?] stuff is automatically verboten. Pen-l is free-flowing, not exclusive, as you'll note if you examine the process that took place when people wanted to expel obnoxious posters. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:707] quick query
On behalf of a colleague, I'm forwarding a question for any PEN-r who's had cause to think about these things. Any help would be appreciated.(I'm not sure that URPE membership numbers would offer a precise answer to the question._ Thanks in advance, Gil Skillman For something I'm writing, I need a ballpark estimate of the number of "radical economists," in roughly the URPE sense of that term, who teach and do research in the U.S. or in N. America or if need be in "the industrialized West." Do you have any guess about this? Or is there simply some place where you can quickly look up the number of members of URPE?
[PEN-L:706] Preference Formation
On Mon, August 10, 1998 at 09:11:19 (-0700) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... Now, maybe Bhoddi is saying something deeper that I realize. To say, let them eat cake [drink coke] because it tastes good sounds to me to be something like saying let the multinationals determine our relations with the rest of the world. Have I missed something? I think Doug makes a mistake of too easily letting the tobacco companies off the hook for helping to shape preferences for smoking. Just as multinationals can "determine our relations with the rest of the [human] world", so can they with respect to material things. I'd like to think that in a democratic society, we might shape our economic system so that it provided goods for people who had not had their consent manufactured, who were not victims of the science of coercion. Robin Hahnel has done some good work in the area of endogenous preference formation; and as Doug knows, Tversky et al have also done some very good work showing systematic "errors" in evaluating information that can be used to funnel preferences in (non-democratic) ways. I do like Coke, I eat McDonald's too (Doug is wrong [so is Cockburn] --- I've had a smoke and they are disgusting). But, I'm also keenly aware that the beef that McDonald's buys is heavily subsidized by the state, their advertising is tax-deductible, that there is such a thing as health problems associated with the vast quantities of cheap fatty and sugary foods (my wife and I just visited with a pediatrician who is convinced that American childrens' diets are behind the rash of "ADHD" cases). One thing to keep in mind: to assert that preferences are endogenous is not akin to passing judgment on whether or not "Coke is good", hence committing the cardinal sin which the "bourgeois individualism" of neoclassical welfare theory is so careful not to commit. In other words, I think the argument is misplaced --- let's argue about endogenous preference formation and how it leads the market to (among other things) provide too much of goods with negative externalities, too little "public" goods, and (perhaps) too much grease, sugar, and tobacco. Bill
[PEN-L:705] The Political Consequences of Bhoddi
Maybe I am dense. I cannot figure out the difference between Bhoddi's response to the thread on Coke and the standard neo-liberal line. I would characterize the thrust of the rest of us to be wrestling with the idea that while outright theft is wrong, other forces offer the possiblity of either dangerous entanglements in a market economy that will prove disastrous or the possiblity of using technology to improve the life of the people. [Awkward sentence, but I hope that you understand]. The libraries are filled with examples of advisors selling developing countries on disastrous schemes and technologies. Also, marketers have sold such people on commodities, which only give the aura of westernization. I recall Johnson's Wax company having a successful African sales campaign selling floor wax to peasants withdirt floors. Parker pen used to sell pen caps to people in India [without the pens] so that people could signal that they were literate. In short, the sizzle without the steak. Again, I do not pretend to know the answer. We westerners often appear stupid when visiting far off lands in not understanding the ways of our hosts. They too misunderstand what we have to offer. Now, maybe Bhoddi is saying something deeper that I realize. To say, let them eat cake [drink coke] because it tastes good sounds to me to be something like saying let the multinationals determine our relations with the rest of the world. Have I missed something? I probably will not respond unless I hear something that appears to be different from what I have seen before. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:704] problematizing the quote
James Devine wrote: BTW, Doug, didn't you quote someone sometime sneering at those who put single words in quotes (not to mention in "quotes")? Don't think I did, but who knows? As I explained in a later post, I meant the quotes around "victims" to draw a distinction between those "victimized" by Coca-Cola and those victimized by smallpox-tainted blankets. I think Michael Moore should do a book on postmodernism called "Problematize This!"
[PEN-L:701] a true story?
from then internet: A helicopter was flying around above Seattle yesterday when an electrical malfunction disabled all of aircraft's electronic navigation and communication equipment. Due to the clouds and haze the pilot could not determine his position or course to steer to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign and held it in the helicopter's window. The sign said "WHERE AM I"? in large letters. People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign an held it in a building window. The sign said, "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER". The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map and determined the course to steer to SEATAC ( Seattle/Tacoma) airport and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded, "I knew that had to be the Microsoft building because they gave me a technically correct but completely useless answer". --- in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:699] Re: Re: Inuit and the Internet
This is the sort of post that helped to sink the Spoons mailing-list. It also reminds me why it is pointless to have a conversation with the "enlightened one." Find somebody else to make stupid baiting comments to, Mr. "Enlightened One." At 02:26 AM 8/10/98 EDT, you wrote: C. Proyect, This is about as socialist as a Microsoft commercial. Why don't you go and try to make your living hunting Caribou. peace Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:694] Re: 2 items of interest
To whom..., So let me get this straight: Makak whaling good, Norwegian whaling bad? Isn't this obviously absurd? Isn't the issue how many whales - our common property - are killed? There are a few dozen saw mill operators in the Pacific Northwest whose mills are only designed to process old growth logs. Do we blithely end their way of life? Do we tell Massachussets cod fishermen that they are out of luck after a couple hundred years in the same business? Of course we do. It's their own damn problem and they have no more right to those resources than anybody else. If the Makah want to make the claim that they should be given a special settlement, okay, but this asserting of "rights" is not valid. You gonna let the Sioux walk into Yellowstone and kill all the buffalo because they have a "right" to hunt them? Clearly native Americans and Canadians have been screwed but you have to realize that these people are not really trying to preserve a stone-age way of life - they are trying to preserve tradition and ritual. A ritual slaughter of a few whales is no big deal. Letting people go into the whaling business is. If the Makah want to make a living off the forest, let them become forest rangers. Let them demand those jobs. Let them contract out to do Coast Guard and Department of Fish and Wildlife work off shore. That seems far more appropriate. peace
[PEN-L:695] Re: Re: banning coca cola ????
To whom.., Now we can laugh at farmers who use hoes because they don't use discers, integrated pest management, and no-till farming. We can laugh at them because they are wasting their time and breaking their backs for nothing. We can laugh at them because they are trying to make a living with hand agriculture when people with a thousand acres of prime winter wheat land and all the machinery available to husbandry can't make a lining. It won't be very happy laughter, or very kind, or even humane, but it will be laughter at something pointless. There is no excuse for living in the dark ages (except that you are being kept in them). Fertilizer use does not negate composting. Fertilizer is not some evil "chemical" - it's nitrogen, phosphate and minerals. It's completely stupid to try and somehow equate "chemical" fertilizer with pesticide or herbicide. Get a grip. peace
[PEN-L:696] Re: Inuit and the Internet
C. Proyect, This is about as socialist as a Microsoft commercial. Why don't you go and try to make your living hunting Caribou. peace
[PEN-L:692] Re: banning coca cola ????
To whom, At $50,000 per adult Yanomami, what kind of price tag are we talking? How about $100,000? How about a point or two of the net? the gross? What do the Yanomami, themselves, expect to gain from their land rights? Do they really want to live in the stone age or would they sell out to live a more comfortable life? This is an economics list. Let's talk turkey. peace
[PEN-L:691] Re: Microsoft, intellectual property and piracy
To whom..., And it doesn't matter a damn to the Microsoft market capitalization that this software is being pirated because their fotune lies in the fact that when they come out with their *next* program, people will have to buy it and their competitors won't be able to get the same kind of exposure for their competing product. peace
[PEN-L:690] Re: Guarani Indians
To whom..., The struggle to liberate people from economic oppression is not a John Ford movie. The primary problem facing the proletariat is not ranchers, for god's sake. Sure ranchers and their cousins the "family farmer" are petit bourgeoisie (and often evil-minded), but they are petit, to be sure. It's not like ranching pays all that well, either, although your cost structure is vastly improved if you just steal the land. My point is that this is yesterday's fight. Next thing you know, C. Proyect will be complaining that the railroad is coming through. peace
[PEN-L:689] Re: Democracy and indigenous peoples
To whom..., The issue is that multi-nationals are not following the illuminating wisdom of the great capitalist philosopher Meyer Lansky who said "A problem that can be solved with money is not a problem." There are some Inuit who live north of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge who are living pretty fat and happy since they *sold* their mineral rights to the oil companies. From what I understand, the people who really give the Amazon Indios a hard time are the small time ranchers, farmers (those couldn't be *family" farmers - the kind of people who eliminated the wolf from America - could they?) and people who want to make a dirty dollar that will eventually kill them by separating out gold in the river sediment with liquid mercury (From what I understand Amazon gold is not commericially viable for large-scale production). If you consider the number of Amazon Indios there are and the very reasonable amount of money it would take to get them to settle, multinationals would clearly find it in their economic interest to buy the problem out of existence. After all, Merck spent tens of millions preserving a Costa Rican rain forest just for the rights to *potential* pharmaceutical discoveries. I'm certainly not saying capitalist corporations wouldn't steal instead of buy, but I suspect there is more going on here than a conflict between multinationals and Yanomami. I suspect that there are a lot more squeaky wheels looking to get the Green Grease out of Amazon development rights. The Yanomami can't be looking for that high a price. What seems more likely to me is that local mandarins are looking to horn in and get their cut before the Indios do. The point is, that whether or not the Yanomami get a good price from the multinationals is moot. What matters is that they are going to get screwed the same as everybody else unless we alter the nature of multinationals. The rest is just reformism. Of course it's important to try and save what might be destroyed or lost forever, but it's not the war - it's only a side battle. peace
[PEN-L:688] Re: Shotguns and machetes
C. Proyect, Your problem is that you live in a fantasy world. When power companies dam waterways to create hydropower they are creating something that is quite simply more valuable than the fish. It's an ugly reality, but there it is. As for the drinking water, that is obviously preserved because modern people don't need to drink out of running streams to avoid intestinal parasites - we have water treament plants. By the way, drinking out of a running stream doesn't really give you much protection from intestinal parasites either. I've tried to explain to you before that pure water doesn't come from nature, it comes from a filter. For that matter, *fish* populations are not destroyed by dams, *migratory* fish population are destroyed by dams. Reservoirs are generally pretty well filled with fish. I never implies for a second that indigenous people were savages. That is simply a lame canard. What I said is that their mode of produciton is not viable. That is absolutely true. First of all, I am all for people using rifles tohunt instead of spears if they want to, although it obviously gives them the capacity to dramatically over-hunt (and therefore, their economy is changed - Bing! is the light going on?). My point is, quite obviously, that hunting for a living is not a viable economic practice. Commercial fishing is barely a viable practice these days. People are not "land-based" that is so much Social Darwinism. People are people and the Yanomami would be a fine and noble addition to the industrial proletariat. If they want a decent standard of living - and I guess they do - they will come to the same conclusion. If we all wasted time hunting for our dinners, there wouldn't be much time left to program computers, would there? Hunting is a sport, not an economy. As I said, I'm all for protecting the Yanomami from racism and violence, but they are obviously going to get with the industrial program simply because PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE STONE AGE! The question is how they are taken in to the larger society, on what terms and how they can be a positive force. Their respect for nature is a positive force. You know what? It's not going to slow down the advance of capitalism one little bit unless it is allied with a struggle to wrest the reigns of the industrial economy away from capitalists in order to put it in the hands of the industrial proletariat. The Yanomami are not forest creatures, they're people. They want what we want. peace
[PEN-L:687] Re: re banning Coca Cola?
Eugene P. Coyle wrote: To me it sounds as if Doug has embraced the theory of consumer behavior of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. "People want to smoke." They do, but they don't assess the long-term costs very well. The short-term gain is clear to them. [etc.] Yes, learned behavior, but learned pretty quickly, no? And yes, people do want to smoke. Blaming smoking on evil tobacco companies is a crock. Sure they stimulate it, but have you ever had a smoke? Nothing like 'em. You're fighting a losing battle if you think you can beat Coca-Cola. Or, as Robert Venturi said, our buildings must learn to live with the cigarette machine. Doug
[PEN-L:702] Copyright
"Finally the day we were bringing the proofs to the printer, Grove consented to act as distributor. To pull a total solo trip, including distribution, would have been neat, but such an effort would be doomed from the start. We had tried it before and blew it. In fact, if anyone is interested in 4,000 1969 Yippie calendars, they've got a deal. Even with a distributor joining the fight, the battle will only begin when the books come off the press. There is a saying that "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." In past eras, this was probably the case, but now, high speed methods of typesetting, offset printing and a host of other developments have made substantial reductions in printing costs. Literally anyone is free to print their own works. In even the most repressive society imaginable, you can get away with some form of private publishing. Because Amerika allows this, does not make it the democracy Jefferson envisioned. Repressive tolerance is a real phenomenon. To talk of true freedom of the press, we must talk of the availability of the channels of communication that are designed to reach the entire population, or at least that segment of the population that might participate in such a dialogue. Freedom of the press belongs to those that own the distribution system. Perhaps that has always been the case, but in a mass society where nearly everyone is instantaneously plugged into a variety of national communications systems, wide-spread dissemination of the information is the crux of the matter. To make the claim that the right to print your own book means freedom of the press is to completely misunderstand the nature of a mass society. It is like making the claim that anyone with a pushcart can challenge Safeway supermarkets, or that any child can grow up to be president." Abby Hoffman, "Steal This Book" Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:708] Re: Preference Formation
In other words, I think the argument is misplaced --- let's argue about endogenous preference formation and how it leads the market to (among other things) provide too much of goods with negative externalities, too little "public" goods, and (perhaps) too much grease, sugar, and tobacco. Bill All this is going to come into very sharp focus in my next post on the Blackfoot. It turns out that the Whiskey trade was instrumental in leading to their downfall, just as opium was to the Chinese. The problem with discussing preferences for Coca-Cola (originally made with cocaine), tobacco, alcohol, sugar and coffee in the abstract is that this is of little interest to Marxists. Political economy is supposed to be what interests us, not what is "politically correct." This is LM territory and is pretty low-level. Cockburn has been drifting into this territory himself with curmudgeonly complaints about campers versus hunters. He thinks hunting is great. I mean really who gives a shit. (Sorry, Don Roper.) I think one of the reasons that Doug is obsessed (well, nearly obsessed) is that he runs a radio show at WBAI, the local Pacifica station. This god-damned station would turn anybody into a cigarette-smoking, MacDonalds eating, Hustler reading fanatic. The station broadcasts heart-on-the-sleeve appeals 24 hours a day on behalf of vegetarianism, animal rights, East Timor, Mumia, spirituality, New Age hokum, farmworkers, etc. And it is all EXTREMELY BORING. The station purged all the "personalities" about ten years ago and I stopped listening. Nowadays I am a big fan of WFMU, a college station that plays nothing but obscure rock-and-roll. Late at night they feature "Death Metal," an interesting genre in which the lead vocalist always sings in a guttural roar. The topics of the songs are usually about worshipping Satan's penis or impaling kittens on a pitchfork. Meanwhile, I think Doug leads a sheltered life. One of these days I am going to drag his hedonist ass over to South Africa and let Pat Bond take us out on a trek into the wilderness. No hot showers, no morning coffee, no WFMU. We will observe Zebras in their habitat, play the guitar and watch shooting stars at night. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
