[PEN-L:1728] Re: prison privatization
I had posted [PEN-L 1545] without any particular intention of getting a response from Eric Schlosser, but thanks to Ms Bolick there may be one, and perhaps he will address the list directly. I hope that Ms Bolick will always be proud to be part of such a great publication. valis I have printed out your message and will forward it to Eric Schlosser via postal mail. Best, Katie Bolick The Atlantic Monthly On Dec 18 Jim Devine wrote in [PEN-L 1711]: Reading the excellent article in the December 1998 ATLANTIC MONTHLY about the prison-industrial complex (by Eric Schlosser) reminded me of the satirical article I posted to pen-l 4 or 5 years ago. Almost all of my satire seems to have come true. There's a discussion of for-profit prison corruption that is interesting. Privatizing a prison (making its managment profit-seeking, creating what Brad might call a "free marketplace of prisoners") doesn't end the need for the government to supervise them. (Mostly, it allows cost-cutting by bringing in non-union labor, cutting corners, etc., allowing the owners to pay their CEOs princely salaries.) Noticeable in Schlosser's story is that the kind of corruption changes. If a privatized prison's management breaks the rules of the contract (or the laws), it creates the incentive to bribe the government regulators in one way or another (typically by hiring them as consultants). On the other hand, if a government-owned prison's management does this, they have fewer resources for such bribes. So we see "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type corruption, which is common in all bureaucracies, allowing the persistance of problems. What's noticeable is that the privatized version leads to much greater income disparities. This parallels the situation in the US class system (which promotes income disparities) and the USSR class system (which had very limited disparities). any thoughts? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1731] Class, race and gender in the early American Marxist movement
Dogmatic Marxism's hostility toward "non-class" demands has been around for a very long time, judging from the evidence of Timothy Messer-Kruse's "The Yankee International: 1848-1876." (U. of North Carolina, 1998) Furthermore, you are left with the disturbing conclusion that this problem existed at the very highest levels of the first Communist International, and included Marx himself. The people who launched a section of the Communist International in the USA were veteran radicals, who had fought against slavery and for women's rights for many years. They saw the emerging anti-capitalist struggles in Europe, most especially the Paris Commune of 1871, as consistent with their own. They saw revolutionary socialism as the best way to guarantee the success of the broader democratic movement. What European Marxism would think of them is an entirely different matter. The names of some of the early recruits should give you an indication of the political character of the new movement. Included were abolitionists Horace Greely, Wendell Phillips and Charles Sumner. Feminist Victoria Woodhull joined in and put her magazine "Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly" at its disposal. The weekly not only included communications from Karl Marx, but spiritualist musings from Woodhull. The native radical movement of the 1870s was a mixed bag. Socialism, anti-racism, feminism, pacifism and spiritualism co-existed comfortably. The Europeans were anxious to purify the movement of all these deviations from the very start. Unfortunately they put anti-racism, feminism and spiritualism on an equal footing. Victoria Woodhull was unquestionably the biggest irritant, since she defended all these deviations while at the same time she spoke out forcefully for free love, the biggest deviation imaginable in the Victorian age: "The sexual relation, must be rescued from this insidious form of slavery. Women must rise from their position as ministers to the passions of men to be their equals. Their entire system of education must be changed. They must be trained to be like men, permanent and independent individualities, and not their mere appendages or adjuncts, with them forming but one member of society. They must be the companions of men from choice, never from necessity." Marx decided to put an end to all this nonsense and threw his weight behind the German-American Frederic Sorge, who was assigned to clean house. Against the Yankee swamp, Sorge would ram through a "scientific socialism" that was true to the tenets of Marx and Engels. Furthermore, the orientation of the American section would not be to women and blacks, but only to the white workers and their embryonic trade unions. It seemed to matter little that Sorge understood next to nothing about American politics. His mastery of Marxist doctrine would produce the desired results: "Fellow-workman," he proclaimed, "Keep our standard pure our ranks clean! Never mind the small number! No great work was ever begun by a majority." With sectarian nonsense like this, it should surprise nobody that Sorge's group remained small in number. What does surprise us is that Sorge was Marx's hand-picked leader. The Yankees and the German-American "orthodox Marxists" split and began to carry out their respective orientations, which are instructive to compare. Although the Sorge group was formally in favor of racial equality, their actions often fell short of the verbal commitment. The simple explanation for this is that they adapted to the prejudices of the white workers whom they curried favor with. Woodhull's group made no such concessions, as their political traditions were rooted in the abolitionist movement. Indeed, when they called for a mass demonstration in New York City to commemorate the martyrs of the Paris Commune, the first rank in the parade went to a company of black soldiers known as the Skidmore Guard. The demonstration passed by a quarter million spectators and the sight of armed black men in the vanguard was electrifying. Sorge's group complained that the demonstration was a distraction from working-class struggles, whose participants would lose a day's pay by participating. He called for a boycott. Black militias were an important fixture of northern urban politics in this period. When black men donned uniforms and marched in formation, they were making a statement not only about their full rights as citizens, but their determination to back these rights by any means necessary. The black Eighty-Fifth Regiment in NYC was one of the more radical and internationalist militias in the city. They had marched alongside Irish New Yorkers in honor of Fenian heroes and gave their units names like the "[Crispus] Attucks Guards" and "Free Soil Guards." This regiment decided to name Tennessee Claflin, Victoria Woodhull's sister, their commander and supplied her with a uniform. Woodhull had become the presidential candidate of the Equal Rights Party in 1872 and her vice-presidential
[PEN-L:1732] Re: Re: Re: Re: neoclassical econ.13945.61647.288450.515102@lisa.zopyra.comv04003a04b29f8800d37b@[136.152.90.200]v04003a04b29f33da9e82@[136.152.90.200]3.0.3.32.19981217134329.006a4eec@lmumail.lmu.eduv04003a0eb29e01c93904@[128.32.105.161]3.0.3.32.19981216160851.0069a724@lmumail.lmu.eduv04003a0db29dea5fb879@[128.32.105.161]3.0.3.32.19981216115914.006a5b38@lmumail.lmu.eduv04003a04b29db9ce5003@[128.32.105.161]3.0.1.32.19981216130547.00b20590@popserver.panix.comv04003a04b29d9eeb3190@[136.152.90.200]3.0.3.32.19981216092322.006b0f6c@lmumail.lmu.eduv04003a01b29d97f48e77@[136.152.90.200]3.0.1.32.19981216110156.00901b74@popserver.panix.com007d01be2900$0ea6bde0$2e0036ca@abcv04003a04b29f8800d37b@[136.152.90.200]3.0.3.32.19981218130633.006c423c@lmumail.lmu.edu 3.0.3.32.19981218152129.00703ccc@lmumail.lmu.edu
--D8BB81645E32E6196DB1EBC3 Jim Devine wrote: since there are some basic contributions that neoclassical economics agrees to, such as how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium. However, since there is no school of economics that does not believe in these verities If I understand what you are saying, this is in fact not true at all. Smith's notion of natural and market price (held by all of the classical economists and Marx as well) were not the same thing as the neoclassical notion of how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium. The notion that supply and demand forces determine prices is not the same as the notion that prices may deviate from natural or normal prices due to excess supply or demand. The latter notion is perfectly consistent with a labor theory of value or Sraffian prices, which are not the same as the neoclassical notion of how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium. maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. If you were saying only that many schools of economics recognize the *laws* of supply and demand, as opposed to the *theory* of supply and demand, then that would be closer to the truth (though not all subscribe to that even) but that is a very insignificant similarity when compared with the differences in theories of value, distribution, accumulation, output and employment, and technical change. Mat --D8BB81645E32E6196DB1EBC3 !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HTML Jim Devine wrote: BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE PREsince there are some basic contributions that neoclassical economics agrees to, such as how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium. However, since there is no school of economics that does not believe in these verities/PRE /BLOCKQUOTE PBRIf I understand what you are saying, this is in fact not true at all.nbsp; Smith's notion of natural and market price (held by all of the classical economists and Marx as well) were not the same thing as the neoclassical notion of how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium.nbsp; The notion that supply and demand forces determine prices is not the same as the notion that prices may deviate from natural or normal prices due to excess supply or demand.nbsp; The latter notion is perfectly consistent with a labor theory of value or Sraffian prices, which are not the same as the neoclassical notion of how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium.nbsp; maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. If you were saying only that many schools of economics recognize the *laws* of supply and demand, as opposed to the *theory* of supply and demand, then that would be closer to the truth (though not all subscribe to that even) but that is a very insignificant similarity when compared with the differences in theories of value, distribution, accumulation, output and employment, and technical change. PMat/HTML --D8BB81645E32E6196DB1EBC3--
[PEN-L:1735] Re: Class, race and gender in the early American Marxist movement
In the middle of a very fine piece, Louis Proyect unfortunately wrote: The answer to dogmatic Marxism is not Judith Butler, as Doug Henwood seems to think. I do not think any such thing, nor have I said or written anything remotely like that. Just because I think someone is intelligent and instructive doesn't mean I think he or she has "the answer." A minor point: her critique of "neoconservative Marxism," though rather misspecified (Alan Sokal is *not* a Marxist), it still has a lot in common with the Proyect critique of "dogmatic Marxism." By the way, this will all be thrashed out in the lbo-talk seminar on Butler's Psychic Life of Power, beginning on January 10. Doug
[PEN-L:1737] Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
Brad, Well, I've already granted that Scandinavian social democracies were more liberal democratic than Tito's Yugoslavia, which was a one-party state after all. However, despite Tito's despotism, it was clearly the most politically and civilly liberal of any of the "communist" states. This story about worker-managed firms not hiring is at least partly one of those theoretical results that (the 1958 Benjamin Ward AER paper) that has become a standard poop line among most economists. However it is not always true. Again, I picked Slovenia precisely because up until the collapse of Yugoslavia it had an unemployment rate of less than 5%. I also note that the same theoretical texts, as well as the studies by Pencavel of the northwest US plywood cooperatives, suggests that labor does not get laid off as much in downturns as in traditional firms. Barkley Rosser On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:30:55 -0800 Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, OK, for the umpteenth time I am going to point something out to you to which you have never responded. What about Slovenia and worker-managed market socialism? Taking a look at where it started from in 1945, the record is pretty good and although not as liberal of a democracy as the Scandinavian social democracies, it was pretty free and easy, more so than other states ruled by a Communist Party (actually the League of Yugoslav Workers, to be technically precise). I must grant that Slovenia's virtues are only clearer since the collapse of Yugoslavia, and that the overall record there on a lot of grounds has been not as good, although your constant inclusion of Tito in your list of awful leaders looks pretty thin. Things only went bad in Yugoslavia after old "last of the Hapsburgs" kicked the bucket. Barkley Rosser Milovan Djilas has... interesting views of Tito. A believer in political democracy Tito was not. There is the problem that successful worker-managed firms tend to want to not hire new workers (because it dilutes the value of their ownership share), so you have higher demand for a factory's products leading to a contraction in the factory's production. But I would love it if ESOPs became the chief means by which corporations raised capital. And I have always been profoundly depressed that both co-determination and worker-managed firms have not managed to expand faster... Brad DeLong -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1740] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: neoclassical econ.
--=_243102602==_.ALT I wrote: since there are some basic contributions that neoclassical economics agrees to, such as how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium. However, since there is no school of economics that does not believe in these verities Matt writes:If I understand what you are saying, this is in fact not true at all. Smith's notion of natural and market price (held by all of the classical economists and Marx as well) were not the same thing as the neoclassical notion of how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium. I don't think we disagree with each other on this. For Smith and the Classicals (sounds like a rock group, no?), supply and demand determined fluctuations about "natural" prices (Marx's prices of production). The neoclassicals accept the fluctuations but not the centers of gravity. ... If you were saying only that many schools of economics recognize the *laws* of supply and demand, as opposed to the *theory* of supply and demand, then that would be closer to the truth (though not all subscribe to that even) but that is a very insignificant similarity when compared with the differences in theories of value, distribution, accumulation, output and employment, and technical change. I was only talking about the narrowest sense of "supply and demand." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html --=_243102602==_.ALT html I wrote: br preblockquote type=cite citeblockquote type=cite citesince there are some basic contributions that neoclassical economics agrees to, such as how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium. However, since there is no school of economics that does not believe in these verities/pre /blockquote/blockquote Matt writes:gt;If I understand what you are saying, this is in fact not true at all.nbsp; Smith's notion of natural and market price (held by all of the classical economists and Marx as well) were not the same thing as the neoclassical notion of how supply and demand operate in partial equilibrium.lt;br br I don't think we disagree with each other on this. For Smith and the Classicals (sounds like a rock group, no?), supply and demand determined fluctuations about quot;naturalquot; prices (Marx's prices of production). The neoclassicals accept the fluctuations but not the centers of gravity.br br gt;... If you were saying only that many schools of economics recognize the *laws* of supply and demand, as opposed to the *theory* of supply and demand, then that would be closer to the truth (though not all subscribe to that even) but that is a very insignificant similarity when compared with the differences in theories of value, distribution, accumulation, output and employment, and technical change. lt;br br I was only talking about the narrowest sense of quot;supply and demand.quot;br br divJim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] amp; a href="http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html" EUDORA=AUTOURLhttp://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html/a/div /html --=_243102602==_.ALT--
[PEN-L:1741] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
I would add that worker-owned firms don't require an external reserve army of labor in order to motivate people to work under conditions of workplace authoritarianism, the way capitalist firms do. Barkley writes: This story about worker-managed firms not hiring is at least partly one of those theoretical results that (the 1958 Benjamin Ward AER paper) that has become a standard poop line among most economists. However it is not always true. Again, I picked Slovenia precisely because up until the collapse of Yugoslavia it had an unemployment rate of less than 5%. I also note that the same theoretical texts, as well as the studies by Pencavel of the northwest US plywood cooperatives, suggests that labor does not get laid off as much in downturns as in traditional firms. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
[PEN-L:1743] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: neoclassical econ.
It was I, not Mirowski, as the one who put the parenthetical remark "utilitarianism" by point 4 of his list. I was using the word very broadly, as defined in point 4 itself. But thanks for the very informative discussion of utilitarianism. Ken Hanly writes: COMMENT: This is an interesting and helpful list of important features of neoclasical economics, but I strongly disagree with Mirowski's statement that neoclassical economics is utilitarian. In historical terms, it is true that economic theory had close connections with utilitarianism, as in James Mill, Bentham, and Jevons, but modern neo-classical economics shares little with utilitarianism except the term "utility" . In economics the term no longer connotes a theory of value or ethical theory as it does in utilitarianism. Here are just a few differences: * Utilitarianism always has a definite theory of value. For example classical utilitarianism held the view that the good=pleasure. Economics has no theory of value, although it does use a principle that implicitly makes a value judgment ==the Pareto Principle-=-and certain parts of welfare economics seem to involve further value judgments. The beauty of the system is supposed to be that it does not depend upon solving the problem of what is really good; only preferences are counted but hey are not evaluated as good or bad. * Utilitarianism has a definite theory of obligation. You ought to maximize the general happiness. Preferences can be measured in terms of whether they maximize happpiness or not. You can make interpersonal comparisons of utility. In economics you can't . The neo-classical economist can't tell you what policies would make for the greatest happiness of the greatest number, just which would be Pareto-efficient. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool neo-classical welfare economist would admit that analysis must be supplemented by value and political considerations. Of course I suppose if you act contrary to what anlaysis would indicate you commit the cardinal sin of being inefficient. * Of course there are other types of utilitarian. G.E. Moore was a utilitarian who rejected the hedonistic theory of value of Bentham. Moore is just as far from the neo-classicals though. He held that the good was an objective, simple, non-natural property that some things have, not identical with pleausure, being preferred, desired, or whatever. It is indefinable, just like the empirical property "yellow", something he often compared it with; but it differs from "yellow" in being non-natural. Why" Well take any definition of "good" in terms of a natural property and ask of anything that has that property whether it is good. The question is not "empty" or "tautologous" as is the question "Are bachelors unmarried males". This shows that the concept of good is not identical to the property you have used to define it. For example you can ask significantly: This is pleasant but is it good? Therefore "good" does not mean "pleasant". I am sure neo-classicals do not talk about this sort of thing and would wonder what was going on. But if you are a utilitarian you need a theory of value. Of course neo-classicals aren't. It is an insult to utilitarians to put them in the same camp with people who seem to be lacking even the most primitive understanding of value theory. By the way Frank Knight, one of Milton Friedman 's profs. and a neo-classical of sorts himself, is an exception to what I have said above. He has an excellent article on the value shortcomings of neo-classical analysis. He also has an article that discusses Moore at some length. I can't remember the title for sure but I think it was ESSAYS ON ECONOMICS, it is edited by Milton Friedman in any event. I'll look it up if no one knows it offhand.) (END COMMENT) CHeers, Ken Hanly n case anyone was wondering what I mean be neoclassical, here's a definition, which follows Phil Mirowski: 1. employs mathematical modeling rather than institutional analysis or historical evidence as its main tool for understanding the world (formalism); 2. claims to be "scientific" in a positivist or Cartesian way, in imitation of idealized natural science (positivism); 3. utilizes constrained maximization, equilibrium, and comparative statics as its main analytical pillars (equilibrium economics); 4. emphasizes individual utility-maximization (consistent goal-seeking) as the determinant of human behavior (utilitarianism); 5. always seeks out microfoundations, i.e., solely individual explanations of aggregate phenomena (reductionism, methodological individualism); and finally, 6. leaves many of the most important variables, such as tastes and technology, as exogenously determined by nature or other forces outside of the economist's concern (naturalism). To Mirowski's list, I would add a final tenet, hopefully as a friendly
[PEN-L:1744] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
Jim Devine wrote: I would add that worker-owned firms don't require an external reserve army of labor in order to motivate people to work under conditions of workplace authoritarianism, the way capitalist firms do. No, but they have an incentive not to hire, to avoid diluting profits, don't they? Doug
[PEN-L:1747] Re: Re: Re: Re: prison privatization
Bentham's panopticon was based on designs actually used by his brother for workers in shipyards. Michael Perelman Very depressing that it was actually put into effect. Do you have a reference?... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1748] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: prison privatization
Brad asked for this reference: Ashworth, William R. 1994. "The Calculating Eye: Baily, Herschel, Babbage and the Business of Astronomy." British Journal of the History of Science, 27, pp. 409-41. 435: "Samuel Bentham ... employed the same principles of labour management that the business astronomers later applied to the mental management of knowledge production." Bentham, Samuel. 1828. Naval Essays, or Essays on the Management of Public Concerns as Exemplified in the Naval Department, Considered as a Branch of the Business of Warfare (London): p. 36.435: "In his division of dockyard labour he disregarded the "artificial, but common classification of works according to trades or handicrafts," said his wife and biographer, since, "it stood particularly in the way when the object was the contrivance of a good system of machinery. He therefore began by classing the several operations requisite and when these had been classed, he next proceeded to the contrivance of machines by which they might be performed, and that, independently of the need for skill or manual dexterity in the workmen"." 435: Samuel planned a manufacturing site in Kricheff, Russia, "so contrived as that the whole of the operations carried on in it should be under observation from its centre." Bentham, Maria S. [Samuel's widow]]. 1862. The Life of Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham, p. 83.436: Jeremy used the panopticon idea as "a mill for grinding rogues honest and idle men industrious." John Bowring. 1843. The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh): x, p. 226. quoted in Cooper, Carolyn C. 1984. "The Portsmouth System of Manufacture." Technology and Culture, 2, pp. 182-226, p. 193. 438: "No longer needed were the steady and dexterous hand, judgment, and timing that a turner, a joiner, or a carpenter, as well as a traditional blockmaster, took years of practice to achieve. That skill was, for most operations, "built into" the machines." Cooper, Carolyn C. 1984. "The Portsmouth System of Manufacture." Technology and Culture, 2, pp. 182-226, p. 193.440: "This is an utilitarian age. No man is now allowed any credit for indulging in idle speculations and closet fancies." Review of 'Letters addressed to H. R. H. the Grand Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, on the theory of probabilities as applied to the moral and political sciences, by M. A. Quetelet, Astronomer Royal of Belgium, London (1849)." The Assurance Magazine and the Institute of Actuaries (1851): 1, p. 362.441: He concludes: "To reduce risk required a foundation of trust and confidence through the establishment of sound public accounts and the reconstitution of a trustworthy character. The commercial and scientific arena had to be cleansed of irresponsible adventurers to enable 'real' growth in knowledge and financial capital."##
[PEN-L:1751] Michael Quinn article
I should perhaps have mentioned that Michael Quinn is an Associate Research Fellow at the Bentham Project, University College London. He is editing Bentham's writings on Poor Relief. The article is in the Bentham Newsletter for 1997. There is another article on Bentham's project to freeze peas if anyone is interested! Cheers, Ken Hanly
Re: [PEN-L:1736] Stampeding bison?199812171533.BAA06772@elf.brisnet.org.au 4.0.1.19981219130529.0101b960@popserver.panix.com
More on the changing ecology of the great plains: the chapter on cattle and meat-packing in Cronon's NATURE'S METROPOLIS. Peter Dorman Louis Proyect wrote: Today's NY Times has an article titled "People Can't Agree on What's Natural and What's Not," by Timothy Egan that repeats an often-heard accusation against the American Indian, namely that they were just as "wasteful" of natural resources as the Europeans. Egan writes: "A hundred years ago, after the Americans had wiped out most of the bounteous bison of the West and removed the native people who had lived on those animals, there came a great die-out of domestic cattle. A long, bitter winter left cowboys without cows, and the Indians saying, 'Told you so.' It was, many people still believe, nature's blow against the attempt to erase much of the native West. "But what about the Great Plains tribes, who used to start big grass fires to drive bison off a cliff? By some estimates, up to 90 percent of a herd was wasted. It may have been natural or simply crafty and wasteful, no different from Roman excess." Well, what about those Great Plains tribes? If you look at the chapter on "The Prairie-Plains" in Alice Kehoe's "North American Indians: A Comprehensive Account," you will find reference to bison being corralled, not being stampeded off cliffs. John C. Ewers was Senior Ethnologist at the Smithsonian Institution and an expert on Plains Indians. In his "The Blackfeet: Raiders of the Northwestern Plains," there is an account from an elder named Old Weasel Tail of how the Blackfoot hunted bison prior to the introduction of the horse into their society: "Near the edge of timber and toward the bottom of a downhill slope the Indians built a corral of wooden posts set upright in the ground to a height of about seven feet. They connected the posts by crosspoles tied in place with rawhide ropes. Around three sides of the corral they laid stakes over the lowest crosspoles. Their butt ends were firmly braced in the ground outside the corral. These stakes projected about three feet or more inside the corral at an angle, so that their sharpened ends were about the height of a buffalo's body. If the buffalo tried to break through the corral, after they had been driven into it, they would be impaled on these stakes. From the open side of the corral the fence of poles extended in two wings outward and up the hill. These lines were further extended by piles of cut willows in the shape of conical lodges about half the height of a man, tied together at their tops. These brush piles were spaced at intervals of several feet. On the hill just above the corral opening a number of poles were placed on the ground crosswise of the slope and parallel to each other. The buffalo had to cross these poles to enter the corral. The poles were covered with manure and water, which froze and became slippery so that once the buffalo were in the corral they couldn't escape by climbing back up the hill. "Before the drive began a beaver bundle owner removed the sacred buffalo stones from his bundle and prayed. He sang a song, 'Give me one buffalo or more. Help me to fall the buffalo.' "Then men of the camp [probably swift-footed, long-winded young fellows] were sent out to get behind a herd of buffalo and drive it toward the corral. Another man stood at the top of the hill and gave a signal to the women and children, who were hiding behind the brush piles, that the buffalo were coming. As the animals passed them on their way down the slope the women and children ran out of their hiding places. "Once inside the corral the buffalo were killed by men and boys stationed around the outside of the stout fence. Then the camp chief went into the corral to take charge of the butchering and the division of the meat. While butchering, the people ate buffalo liver, kidneys, and slices of brisket raw. Two young men took choice pieces of liver, kidneys, liver, brisket, tripe, and manifold to the beaver bundle owner who had remained in his lodge during the slaughter, but whose power had brought success in the hunt. Each man who killed a buffalo was given its hide and ribs. The slaughtered animals were cut into quarters which were divided among the families in the camp. Each family, whether it was large or small, received an equal share." In other words, the bison hunt was not a wanton destruction of wildlife, but a calculated effort to supply the basic needs of the village. Furthermore, NOT A SINGLE piece of the bison went to waste. The other thing to understand is that the great risks were involved. If a hunt was not successful, people might starve. The bison might detect the scent of the hunter or an unusual sound might frighten them away. Blackfoot tales include numerous references to repeated failures to get the animal into the corral. There are none that recount driving them off a cliff, which I have a feeling is
[PEN-L:1755] Re: Re: Re: Incorrect Model of Language in TRACTATUS ( Was RE ADNAUSEAM_367C5870.7042@mb.sympatico.ca13948.28799.457331.977517@lisa.zopyra.com367C985E.5C36@mb.sympatico.ca 13948.32430.947319.799784@lisa.zopyra.com
William S. Lear wrote: The innate structures are structures not derived from experience and provide us a source of knowledge of linguistic structures. Surely this makes them what traditionally was called innate ideas. Those traditional rationalist philosophers, such as Descartes, also held that there existed innate ideas that were a source of knowledge. While you are correct that CHomsky doesn't typically use the term "innate ideas" neither does he deny that the innate structures of the mind are such. The very title "Cartesian Linguistics" is an explicit recognition of his being in the Cartesian tradition. Does Chomsky every deny that his innate structures of the mind are innate ideas? Commentators certainly take them as such. I am not aware of his objecting to this. Of course the whole concept of innate ideas is anathema to most psychologists and they will claim there is no evidence that such exist. The concept of innate ideas is quite unpopular in the area of pyschology. Holding radical and unpopular views has never phased Chomsky.( Of course these views are not at all unpopular among many linguistic theorists.) It is because members of other species lack the innate ideas associated with universal grammar that they do not have the language competence of most humans. Of course there are people out there training apes named after Chomsky who believe otherwise. CHeers, Ken Hanly On Sat, December 19, 1998 at 22:25:34 (-0800) Ken Hanly writes: In his CARTESIAN LINGUISTICS among other places. ... I'm familiar with most of Chomsky's work. I was not sure that he expressed the belief that there were "innate ideas". Rather, I have always heard "innate structures" (of the mind) or some such. Bill
[PEN-L:1752] Re: Re: Incorrect Model of Language in TRACTATUS ( Was RE ADNAUSEAM_
On Sat, December 19, 1998 at 17:52:48 (-0800) Ken Hanly writes: Ajit Sinha wrote: ... While Wittgenstein is no behaviorist he would no doubt reject the Chomskian view that there are innate ideas. ... Could you tell me where Chomsky expresses his "view that there are innate ideas"? Bill
[PEN-L:1750] Michael Quinn on the Poor Panopticon and Benthams Charitable projects.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --6557BC62CE6 This is a rather long article, so those of you who are not interested in it should hit the delete button. On the other hand if you want to know how to reprogramme impoverished street kids so that they can support themselves and eventually go out and provide surplus value for capital just as other decent workers do, Bentham has the recipe. Cheers, Ken Hanly --6557BC62CE6 BASE HREF=3D"file:///C|/NETSCAPE/DIALER/QUINN2.HTM" 1=BE=00=00=00=AB=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=E4+=01=00Y=02k=02k=02k=02k=02k=02=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00l=02=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00HTML HEAD TITLETHE BENTHAM NEWSLETTER/TITLE/HEADBODY BGCOLOR=3D"FF"H2The Fallacy of Non-Interference: The Poor Panopticon and Equality of Opportunity./H2 PH2Michael Quinn/H2 PIn the long and continuing debate concerning Bentham's status as a `liberal', the closely related projects of the Panopticon Penitentiary and the National Charity Company have consistently been advanced as the conclusive evidence of Bentham's underlying authoritarianism.SUP1/SUP This fact is unsurprising: for in relation to both projects Bentham not only explicitly writes in terms of control, of imposing on persons behaviours and, by repetition thereof, ultimately character traits, which they do not wish to acquire, albeit in the alleged interests of those persons, as well as those of society at large, but appears to revel in the exercise of `plastic power' in a manner which is repellent, and does appear to trample on human dignity. Janet Semple recognised as much in her study of the Panopticon.SUP2/SUP However, she was able to produce a dispassionate assessment of that ambiguous institution, and to mount a sophisticated defence of Panopticism, which rested ultimately on the recognition that, quite simply, a prison is either a mechanism of control or it is nothing. PWith reference to the poor law writings, Bentham's explicit design of using the assemblage of management rules devised for the Poor Panopticon, and in particular the Inspection Architecture Principle, to the end of creating thrifty, sober, and, above all, industrious citizens, looks even more ominous for any interpretation which seeks to present his intentions as facilitative, as empowering rather than disempowering, since the poor had committed no crime, and there would seem to be no parallel case for their control and rehabilitation. PBentham does appear to glory in the scope which detention in a Poor Panopticon gives its governor to break down and recast entire personalities. He can plausibly be presented as anticipating Skinner's box, and filling it with, to use his own expression, `that part of the national livestock which has no feathers to it and walks on two legs',SUP3/SUP instead of rats. Ought we not then to suspect that, in Bahmueller's words, `if the truth were known, we would soon suspect that it was not only the indigent that Bentham wanted to control, but Ius/I too, Iall/I of us. That is, we might suspect that Panopticon was a version of Benthamite society writ small.'SUP4/SUP Indeed, is Bahmueller further correct to view the emerging apprentices of the Poor Panopticon, liberated after an entire lifetime of indoctrination, as the stormtroopers of a Benthamic blitzkrieg, as `foot soldiers in a surreptitious guerilla war he hoped to wage against the entrenched mores of an unutilitarian society'?SUP5/SUP When Bentham describes his poor house as a `utopia', is the correct implication that drawn by both Bahmueller and Himmelfarb, that he believes that everyone would be much better off for a course in utilitarian conditioning?SUP6/SUPPThe revisionist response to these indictments i= s to call in evidence Bentham's mature constitutional theory, a theory that is rather less concerned with the insidious exercise of unseen power than with the supervision, control, and limitation of power, precisely by means of the exposure of its every exercise to the evaluation and censure of those over whom it is exercised.SUP7/SUP The `existential realisation of philosophic radicalism'SUP8/SUP is indeed panoptic in a sense, it does indeed aim at transparency, but the behaviours which are to be made transparent are those of the holders and exercisers of coercive power, and the all-seeing eye is that of the public, the collectivity of individuals to whose welfare that power presents a standing threat. PWhat is the explanation of the undeniable tension between these two Benthams? The explanation does not lie in the development of Bentham's thought, for the contrast between the self-definition of interests on the one hand, and the necessity of intervention deliberately to form and order the
[PEN-L:1749] Foucault on the Panopticon
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --3F40D9C32E2 The enclosed short file by Foucault shows the significance of the role of warden observation in the design of the panopticon as mentioned by Jim Devine. I understood that the public too were allowed to view the proceedings. The Poor Panopticons were separate institutions but based upon the same architectural principles. Cheers, Ken Hanly --3F40D9C32E2 BASE HREF="file:///C|/NETSCAPE/DIALER/PANOPWHN.HTM" HTML HEAD TITLEUnverifiability of Surveillance in the Panopticon/TITLE META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Internet Assistant for Microsoft Word 2.0z" /HEAD BODY BGCOLOR="#ff" TEXT="#00" LINK="#008000" VLINK="#808080" P Michel Foucault describes the workings of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon, an architectural design which permits a centralized supervisor to monitor all of an institution's inmates. The ultimate goal, Foucault explains, is for the inmate to internalize the mechanism of surveillance which the building establishes. BLOCKQUOTE [I]t is at once too much and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much, because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so. (A HREF="bibliog.html#f" Foucault 201/A)BR /BLOCKQUOTE P CENTER[A HREF="top.html"top/A] . [A HREF="index.html"index/A] . [back] . [next] BR /CENTER /BODY /HTML --3F40D9C32E2--
[PEN-L:1746] Re: Re: Re: prison privatization
Jim Devine wrote: Ken Hanly writes: (begin comment) I haven't read the article. Does it mention Bentham's panopticon and Benthams plans to reform prisons ? no, there is little historical background prior to 1964 or so (except for a short sketch of the 19th century US pro-penitentiary movement and Toqueville's comments on it). It's almost all about the growth of both the public and private prison industry. He planned the prison building so that the public could come in and watch to see that the prisoner's weren't slacking, and also that the prisoners were not being abused by the wardens. I guess I was mistaken. I thought that the Panopticon was about minimizing the effort of the guards: being in the center of a circle of cells, the guards can watch them all simultaneously. COMMENT: I haven't the material at hand but there seems no contradiction between what you say and I say, both may be accomodated within the plan. It seems to me that pubic viewing was from an upper level that looked out over the main floor of the prison but I stand to be corrected on this. Bentham's 'reform' proposals also would solve the problem of the homeless and the unemployed . He argued that indigents and all those without visible means of support probably lived through illegal activitiy. How else could they meet their needs? These people should be rounded up and put in the panopticons where they would perform useful labor, have a roof over their heads, clothing and food, and eventually save enough from their wages to be let go. This would seem to be the next logical step for prison reform in the twentieth century. There are all these street people and the homeless who are under-exploited in the system. Schlosser argues that the prison system is already overcrowded, so that this program would be ridiculous. COMMENT: I meant the program to be ridiculous but not for the reason that the prison system is overcrowded. THe solution to overcrowding is to build more and more prisons. Indeed these reforms would be intended to generate a growth industry . I am sure those investing in the Prison-Industrial complex would find nothing ridiculous about that. The proposals are ridiculous in their cavalier disregard for human rights and their exploitation of those most disadvantaged in society. However, it seems this is no longer regarded as ridiculous. It is difficult to write satire on the prison system. Why don't you repost your satire? I don't recall seeing it. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:1745] Re: Re: Incorrect Model of Language in TRACTATUS ( Was RE ADNAUSEAM_
Ajit Sinha wrote: The story I have heard is that the picture theory of meaning was suggested to Wittgenstein by the manner in which an auto-accident was modeled by counters in a courtroom so that judge and jury could see exactly how one car collided with another. This is repeated as an example under the entry "picture theory of meaning" in THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY. I think I have seen the same story in J. Urmson's INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS (I think that is the title). I recall little of Saussure. It seems to me he thought that the elements of spoken language were to be understood only within the linguistic system, and this certainly contradicts the view of proper names that authors such as Russell and Wittgenstein had at the time of the Tractatus. In the Investigations his approach in general is closer to the Saussure's thought. Wittgenstein seems to be rather critical of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the INVESTIGATIONS but sometimes he is interpreted as partially supporting it. As I recall he has a passage that goes somewhat as follows. (I haven't THE INVESTIGATIONS) at hand. In Russian ( some language) the English statement that the sky is blue would be translated by an active present tense verb. The English equivalent would roughly be "it blues". He asks himself something like this: "Do the Russians then see the blue sky differently? " If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis were true they would, perception would be determined by language forms. Wittgenstein suggests that this difference alone is not sufficient to conclude this. WHat you could conclude is that there will be a contrast possible in English that is not possible in Russian. An English writer might write "The sky blues." THis would have a certain effect through the contrast with the ordinary "is blue". Translating this into Russian would lose the effect since there is no contrast there since there is no simple predication equivalent to "is blue" only the active present tense verb. (My apologies to any Russians if I have the wrong language!) The Investigations is often thought of as in some ways akin to behaviorism since Wittgenstein denies that terms referring to inner events are to be understood by attending to a private referent. e.g. the term "pain" means the private inner event that only I experience. Terms referring to inner events require what he calls external criteria of their application. Taking terms such as "pain" as meaning these private events leads to the problem of other minds and if correct would make communication with others impossible. Gilbert Ryle's CONCEPT OF MIND is a classic refutation of Cartesian dualism and the idea of the self as some non-material substance, thoughts as non-material, non-extended etc. Ryle gives credit to WIttgenstein as the source of his approach. However, one of the reasons WIttgenstein wanted to get the Investigations published was to show people what he really thought! Even so, the Investigations do have many passages that would support Ryle's approach. However others are wholly contradictory to Ryle and any sort of behaviorism. He says at one point: Are you saying that there is no difference between pain and pain behavior? He answers that of course there is. This is hardly what a hard-line metaphysical behaviorist would say--although it is consistent with methodological behaviorism such as that of Skinner- as contrasted with Watson. While Wittgenstein is no behaviorist he would no doubt reject the Chomskian view that there are innate ideas. By the way Norman Malcolm 's Memoir on WIttgenstein is an interesting contrast to Von Wright's. The latter is much more objective, while Malcolm is an unabashed disciple. Malcolm himself is an eminent philosopher and well worth reading. An interesting short readable work is "Dreaming" or perhaps it is "On Dreaming". He seems to think that there is a great difference between dreams and nightmares--i.e. where you actually wake up scared shitless etc. He has no sympathy with those who define dreaming in terms of periods of REM sleep etc. Many psychologists would probably like to burn the book! Cheers, Ken Hanly PS THe person interviewed on the CBC newsmagazine was Edward Peck. He was ambassador to Iraq during the early seventies. The family resemblance to Edward Said mislead me. All Edwards are not alike. At 18:37 14/12/98 -0800, Ken Hanly wrote: P.P.S. (post post script) Wittgenstein himself noted his pupils tended to defer to his genius. He was such an intense, sincere person that students were simply overwhelmed and as a result were neither critical of him nor capable of independent thought while under his sway. Wittgenstein always admired G.E.Moore who didn't have a clue what Wittgenstein was talking about very often, but would tell Wittgenstein so. He sat in his classes with a puzzled look on his face, not the look of adoration he saw
[PEN-L:1742] Re: Re: Re: prison privatization
Bentham's panopticon was based on designs actually used by his brother for workers in shipyards. Michael Perelman
[PEN-L:1739] Re: Re: prison privatization
Ken Hanly writes: (begin comment) I haven't read the article. Does it mention Bentham's panopticon and Benthams plans to reform prisons ? no, there is little historical background prior to 1964 or so (except for a short sketch of the 19th century US pro-penitentiary movement and Toqueville's comments on it). It's almost all about the growth of both the public and private prison industry. He planned the prison building so that the public could come in and watch to see that the prisoner's weren't slacking, and also that the prisoners were not being abused by the wardens. I guess I was mistaken. I thought that the Panopticon was about minimizing the effort of the guards: being in the center of a circle of cells, the guards can watch them all simultaneously. Bentham's 'reform' proposals also would solve the problem of the homeless and the unemployed . He argued that indigents and all those without visible means of support probably lived through illegal activitiy. How else could they meet their needs? These people should be rounded up and put in the panopticons where they would perform useful labor, have a roof over their heads, clothing and food, and eventually save enough from their wages to be let go. This would seem to be the next logical step for prison reform in the twentieth century. There are all these street people and the homeless who are under-exploited in the system. Schlosser argues that the prison system is already overcrowded, so that this program would be ridiculous. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
[PEN-L:1738] Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
It's certainly the case that worker-managed firms don't lay off their members in downturns (very much). But--at least the last time I talked to Laura Tyson about this--she did say that it really seemed true that worker-managed firms had a very difficult time expanding in response to increased demand. But I don't know nearly as much about this as I should... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1736] Stampeding bison?199812171533.BAA06772@elf.brisnet.org.au
Today's NY Times has an article titled "People Can't Agree on What's Natural and What's Not," by Timothy Egan that repeats an often-heard accusation against the American Indian, namely that they were just as "wasteful" of natural resources as the Europeans. Egan writes: "A hundred years ago, after the Americans had wiped out most of the bounteous bison of the West and removed the native people who had lived on those animals, there came a great die-out of domestic cattle. A long, bitter winter left cowboys without cows, and the Indians saying, 'Told you so.' It was, many people still believe, nature's blow against the attempt to erase much of the native West. "But what about the Great Plains tribes, who used to start big grass fires to drive bison off a cliff? By some estimates, up to 90 percent of a herd was wasted. It may have been natural or simply crafty and wasteful, no different from Roman excess." Well, what about those Great Plains tribes? If you look at the chapter on "The Prairie-Plains" in Alice Kehoe's "North American Indians: A Comprehensive Account," you will find reference to bison being corralled, not being stampeded off cliffs. John C. Ewers was Senior Ethnologist at the Smithsonian Institution and an expert on Plains Indians. In his "The Blackfeet: Raiders of the Northwestern Plains," there is an account from an elder named Old Weasel Tail of how the Blackfoot hunted bison prior to the introduction of the horse into their society: "Near the edge of timber and toward the bottom of a downhill slope the Indians built a corral of wooden posts set upright in the ground to a height of about seven feet. They connected the posts by crosspoles tied in place with rawhide ropes. Around three sides of the corral they laid stakes over the lowest crosspoles. Their butt ends were firmly braced in the ground outside the corral. These stakes projected about three feet or more inside the corral at an angle, so that their sharpened ends were about the height of a buffalo's body. If the buffalo tried to break through the corral, after they had been driven into it, they would be impaled on these stakes. From the open side of the corral the fence of poles extended in two wings outward and up the hill. These lines were further extended by piles of cut willows in the shape of conical lodges about half the height of a man, tied together at their tops. These brush piles were spaced at intervals of several feet. On the hill just above the corral opening a number of poles were placed on the ground crosswise of the slope and parallel to each other. The buffalo had to cross these poles to enter the corral. The poles were covered with manure and water, which froze and became slippery so that once the buffalo were in the corral they couldn't escape by climbing back up the hill. "Before the drive began a beaver bundle owner removed the sacred buffalo stones from his bundle and prayed. He sang a song, 'Give me one buffalo or more. Help me to fall the buffalo.' "Then men of the camp [probably swift-footed, long-winded young fellows] were sent out to get behind a herd of buffalo and drive it toward the corral. Another man stood at the top of the hill and gave a signal to the women and children, who were hiding behind the brush piles, that the buffalo were coming. As the animals passed them on their way down the slope the women and children ran out of their hiding places. "Once inside the corral the buffalo were killed by men and boys stationed around the outside of the stout fence. Then the camp chief went into the corral to take charge of the butchering and the division of the meat. While butchering, the people ate buffalo liver, kidneys, and slices of brisket raw. Two young men took choice pieces of liver, kidneys, liver, brisket, tripe, and manifold to the beaver bundle owner who had remained in his lodge during the slaughter, but whose power had brought success in the hunt. Each man who killed a buffalo was given its hide and ribs. The slaughtered animals were cut into quarters which were divided among the families in the camp. Each family, whether it was large or small, received an equal share." In other words, the bison hunt was not a wanton destruction of wildlife, but a calculated effort to supply the basic needs of the village. Furthermore, NOT A SINGLE piece of the bison went to waste. The other thing to understand is that the great risks were involved. If a hunt was not successful, people might starve. The bison might detect the scent of the hunter or an unusual sound might frighten them away. Blackfoot tales include numerous references to repeated failures to get the animal into the corral. There are none that recount driving them off a cliff, which I have a feeling is a projection of our own wasteful practices on indigenous society. This NY Times article, which is actually a discussion of a book written by a British social theorist who wants to apologize for European control over the world and the
[PEN-L:1733] Re: prison privatization
Jim Devine wrote: (begin comment) I haven't read the article. Does it mention Bentham's panopticon and Benthams plans to reform prisons ? He planned the prison building so that the public could come in and watch to see that the prisoner's weren't slacking, and also that the prisoners were not being abused by the wardens. This is a refreshing contrast with modern day prisons that prefer to hide what goes on in prisons from public view. The prisons were privatised and to be managed by Bentham for his profit. Bentham spent a lot of money pushing his plan to no avail. His failure to impress authorities probably hastened the development of Bentham's democratic sympathies and caused him to push for the extension of the franchise. He no doubt thought that the public would elect people more intelligent and thus sympathetic to his reforms. Eventually parliament compensated him for money he had spent. Bentham's 'reform' proposals also would solve the problem of the homeless and the unemployed . He argued that indigents and all those without visible means of support probably lived through illegal activitiy. How else could they meet their needs? These people should be rounded up and put in the panopticons where they would perform useful labor, have a roof over their heads, clothing and food, and eventually save enough from their wages to be let go. This would seem to be the next logical step for prison reform in the twentieth century. There are all these street people and the homeless who are under-exploited in the system. Bentham's proposal would rectify this and also lead to the greatest happiness of the greatest number! Some people might complain that the rights of the homeless are violated by these proposals. This objection could be met by recriminalizing vagrancy. This would add some expense to the system but if we find that the public is willing to pay this extra amount for the satisfaction of knowing that all those in panopticon have been found guilty of crimes this should be in accord with the principles of welfare economics. (end comment) Cheers, Ken Hanly Reading the excellent article in the December 1998 ATLANTIC MONTHLY about the prison-industrial complex (by Eric Schlosser) reminded me of the satirical article I posted to pen-l 4 or 5 years ago. Almost all of my satire seems to have come true. There's a discussion of for-profit prison corruption that is interesting. Privatizing a prison (making its managment profit-seeking, creating what Brad might call a "free marketplace of prisoners") doesn't end the need for the government to supervise them. (Mostly, it allows cost-cutting by bringing in non-union labor, cutting corners, etc., allowing the owners to pay their CEOs princely salaries.) Noticeable in Schlosser's story is that the kind of corruption changes. If a privatized prison's management breaks the rules of the contract (or the laws), it creates the incentive to bribe the government regulators in one way or another (typically by hiring them as consultants). On the other hand, if a government-owned prison's management does this, they have fewer resources for such bribes. So we see "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type corruption, which is common in all bureaucracies, allowing the persistance of problems. What's noticeable is that the privatized version leads to much greater income disparities. This parallels the situation in the US class system (which promotes income disparities) and the USSR class system (which had very limited disparities). any thoughts? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1734] Re: Walrasian versus Austrian (Hayekian) Neoclassical Economics
Yes, I think there are very significant differences and that in some formulations Austrian economics should not even be called neoclassical probably. Some, because there are some big differences within Austrian economics itself. Lots of people unfortunately miss the differences between Austrian and neoclassical because the two arrive at similar conclusions on certain issues, e.g. pro-market, anti-state intervention, but they arrive at those conclusions very differently. The Austrian route is a greater theoretical accomplishment in my view because while neoclassical economics arrives at its concusions often because of very unrealistic assumptions, the Austrians vigorously reject assumptions like perfect information, perfect competition, etc., yet they still argue that markets lead to "spontaneous order." It's much harder to derive spontaneous market order with radical uncertainty than with perfect information. I think the Austrian conclusion has problems, but it is certainly a bold project. And the Austrian critiques of neoclassical economics have much in common with some radical critiques, while the Austrian methodological critiques also present a challenge to some radical theories that depart from neoclassical economics on substance but not on methodology. Mat Ken Hanly wrote: Aren't there significant differences between neoclassicals who stress Walras and the Pareto optimality (efficiency) of ideal markets versus the Austrian neo-classicals?
[PEN-L:1730] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
. . . There is the problem that successful worker-managed firms tend to want to not hire new workers . . . This is well-taken, but you have to admit that on the scale of grand systemic problems, it does not rank too high. The state can essay macro and micro remedies for this. We're a long way from the waste that follows from commandist planning, laissez-faire, or muddling liberalism. muddling along, mbs
[PEN-L:1729] The bombing of Iraq
WSWS : News Analysis : Middle East : Iraq The bombing of Iraq A shameful chapter in American history By Martin McLaughlin and David North 19 December 1998 Those who are responsible for the bombing of Iraq are writing a shameful chapter in American history. Hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children have already been killed or maimed by American bombs and cruise missiles. The death toll from the air war will mount far higher. Even the Pentagon had predicted more than 10,000 would be killed in an onslaught of only medium intensity, let alone in the full-scale attack which was unleashed on December 16. Putting aside for a moment the reactionary aims being pursued by the Clinton Administration, the massive disparity between the resources of the United States and those of Iraq endows a nightmarish and criminal character to the actions taken by the Pentagon. What is unfolding today in the Middle East resembles not so much a war as a state-sanctioned execution. But in this case, the victim is not an individual, strapped helplessly to a gurney, but rather the unarmed population of a defenseless country. The White House, the Pentagon, the Congress, and, of course, the media sing hymns of praise to "our heroic men and women in the Persian Gulf." In reality, every American should feel deeply ashamed of what these "heroes" are being ordered to do in the name of the United States. "Heroism," at a minimum, involves a serious element of risk and danger. "Heroes" are not those who are willing to kill, but who are prepared to die. On the basis of this definition, the people of Baghdad are far more deserving of respect and admiration than those who are tormenting them from the relative safety of their high-tech murder machines. There is nothing particularly courageous about placing one's finger on a button to launch a cruise missile, while floating on a naval vessel in the Persian Gulf or flying a B-52 bomber 1,000 miles from Baghdad. In 1991 American soldiers in the Persian Gulf War had a lower death rate than their counterparts who stayed home. More died of traffic accidents than from Iraqi weapons. During the last seven years, the risks facing American military personnel have been even further reduced. US weaponry has been upgraded and Iraq's defenses have been virtually destroyed. Moreover, American pilots are guided to their targets by intelligence provided by UN weapons inspectors and spy satellites which have scoured the Iraqi landscape continuously for the past eight years. As for the commanders who are in charge of this sordid operation, history will judge them in much the same way as it does the scoundrels who supervised the genocidal slaughter of the Indians in the 1870s and 1880s. This much is certain: 50 years from now no one will be making films like Patton, The Longest Day or Saving Pvt. Ryan about their exploits. One need not agree with the politics of such World War II-era commanders as Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, and Nimitz to acknowledge that they, at least, led their armies against an enemy fully capable of firing back. Today's generals are nothing more than bureaucrats of mass slaughter, working their way up the Pentagon hierarchy, spending a term at the top issuing orders to destroy helpless populations, then retiring to well-paid positions on corporate boards or as "consultants" to the TV networks covering the next American blitzkrieg. The horrors of World War II evoked searing images that profoundly influenced the political consciences of several generations. Next to those produced by the opening of the
