[PEN-L:11831] Re: Re: Re: M-TH: East Timor
G'day all, I hear Ambon has been isolated by the Indonesian authorities. No transport or public communications in or out. Just a bunch of well-armed troops, some very poorly armed Christian seccessionists, and lots of people whose views on the matter just aren't going to matter. The drawn-out angst-ridden denouement of the great Indonesian saga is at hand, I reckon. And we're gonna hear very little about it while East Timor is kept bubbling along. Which takes but a couple of killings here, a bit of burning there ... Neat. Cheers, Rob.
[PEN-L:11834] Re: progress
Jim B. writes: Jim D. and Carrol: On progress: How does the song go... "A better world's in birth." so a phrase from the INTERNATIONALE that expresses a _hope_ that maybe the world will get better as the workers' movement grows is equated with a _faith_ that it _will_ get better, a _belief_ in the progress, a committing of the modernist sin? Well, if you want to interpret it that way, you may do so (not that you need my permission). There are obviously many different ways to interpret any given lyric. But I wonder if you reject hope in all forms as examples of the dreaded belief in progress. Life must be depressing without hope. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html Hope, yes, but hope doesn't require the translation of history into a history of Progress. Evolution is contingent (and necessities exist within contingency). Yoshie
[PEN-L:11840] Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 03:57 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Jim Blaut wrote: Talk about illogical positivism! -- snip--- you mock. That is typical of your empty scientism. I read that you are basically not concerned with the empirical demonstration of the effect of colonialism on european capitalist development, right? Since I do not buy your functionalist logic that something that exist (e.g. colonialism) must automatically have a significant social function (contribution to capitalist economy), could you tell me why should I or anyone on this list accept your view over, say, that of Ricardo D. who believes that colonialism was not that crucial? At the very least, Ricardo takes into account institutional factors in that development, of which you do not seem to have much to say. That is at least one reason to like his story more than yours. Would you be happy with an attempt to explain the economy of the US that focuses mostly on the foreign trade balance, while ignoring the organization of the firm, the structure of government, economic policies of various administrations, labor laws, unions, lobbying groups etc.? And one more thing. If I were to accept your point of view that colonial exploitation significantly contributed to world's economic development, I would be really grateful to the Europeans for masterminding that exploitation, its human cost notwithstanding. For it would seem that before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they were sitting for centuries. wojtek
[PEN-L:11843] Re: Re: Re: Re: Free labor as a precondition forcapital
At 11:10 PM 9/27/99 -0700, Max S. wrote: To me any negative connotation to "Third worldism" does not stem from any interest in discounting any Third World struggle in the slightest. Max, I am totally with you on that, I do not think third worldism is about political struggle, abroad or here - it is a kulturkampf waged by intellectuals in the symbolic realm of blame and guilt. It has the signs of a religious guilt trip cum denying the obvious to claim a moral victory written all over it. It has no implications whatsoever on the political struggle, except perhaps alienating American and European workers by asking them to accept their collective guilt before they can be admited to a 12-step program of the third world revolution. wojtek
[PEN-L:11844] Re: Internal and external factors; ErnestMandel
Thanks to Lou for sending the below. I just want to note that the origin of capitalism in dependence upon trade is an expression of a fundamental Marxist conception with respect to commodity production. Commodity production and exchange existed in societies long before capitalism. However they were not the predominant or prevailing mode of production and exchange, but rather existed at first in the boundaries between socieities. In other words, it existed in the trade between ancient societies. Commodity production is production for exhange, not for use. Thus, it is logical that production for exchange would originate between societies and ancient nations. And it is logical that at the dawn of capitalism as a prevailing mode in societies, trade between societies would be an important locus for it, including in the colonially based trade. Charles Brown Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/99 07:30PM All this talk about the need to integrate "external" and "internal" factors in the rise of capitalism in Europe has me a bit bemused. When this thread first started--after Rod Hay claimed that colonialism was good for the people being colonized--, I answered him with some really good data from Ernest Mandel. I seemed to recall that Mandel's 2 volume masterpiece "Marxist Economic Theory" was filled with global connections of the sort -clip-. Merchant capital The appearance of a native merchant class in the midst of a basically natural economy presumes a primitive accumulation of money capital. This comes from two main sources: piracy and brigandage, on the one hand; on the other, the appropriation of part of the agricultural surplus product or even of the peasant*s necessary product. -clip-
[PEN-L:11847] Re: Re: Re: Re: taking stock
Charles Brown wrote: England and Holland had both colonial systems and free labor , and so they were able to capitalistically accumulate the colonial treasures of Spain and Portugal when the later were not able to because they did not establish free labor. Sounds right to me. What's wrong with that, Jim Blaut? Doug
[PEN-L:11850] Re: Blaut's critique of Brenner
At 03:25 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: you. I wish to hell you would exercise a little restraint and stay out of a discussion in which you have nothing substantial to add. I take exception to that. I think i do have something to contribute by asking the right kind of substantive questions. I simply do not buy the functionalist logic of Jim Blaut, which you seem to support as well, that simply because something existed (colonialism) it must have had an important social funciton (like making capitalist development possible). I would like to see an emprical proof of that importance (not mere assertions of it) which I was unable to find in the arguments posted to this thread. A lot of citations and digressions, but not a proof. So I dropped a few sugestions what kind of empirical evidence I would find convincing - which is an elementary case study approach and which both you and Jim B. deride by name calling. Well, you need to provide that empirical evidence and do so in a way that is clear to the reader. You surely do not expect reasonable people to accept a claim simply because it debunks a strawman of 'eurocentrism', do you? wojtek
[PEN-L:11853] units of analysis (was: wojtek)
I don't think it's "racist garbage" if it's read in context. There is no "context" for using terms like "third world dummies". It is beneath you to try to put a positive spin on this, Jim. I am shocked. If somebody wrote that women were paid less because they were a bunch of "dumb broads", would you put a positive spin on that. We are dealing with naked racial prejudice, not even of the more subtle kind that Blaut discusses in his "Cultural Racism" paper that was posted here last month when Henry Liu was around. Wojtek's point is related to mine, in a previous missive, that one can believe (as the "Eurocentric" theory does) that capitalism arose solely from internal causes and then turn around and _damn_ Europe as the scourge of the earth, just as one can believe (as a "third-worldist" theory might) that capitalism in Europe arose simply because Europe was lucky enough to get there first in conquering the rest of the world and then turn around and criticize the rest of the world for not being able to resist Europe's attacks. Wojtek has been making no points at all in this discussion other than the kind made on AM talk radio. It is just hostility to a vague category called "third worldism". You get the same thing in David Horowitz's columns in Salon magazine. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11855] Re: Re: Re: Re: Free labor asapreconditionforcapitalism
Charles writes: But for the industrial capitalists in the era of the Industrial Revolution, use of machines is a distinguishing characteristic I have no argument there, though I didn't know that we were talking about the IR. Thus, Part IV of Capital one of the main points is that the transition within capitalism from the manufacturing phase to the industrial phase is the qualitative increase in the use of machines as the instruments of production. For example, at the beginning of Chapter XV Marx says: " In manufacture, the revolution in the mode of production begins with the labour-power, in modern industry it begins with the instruments of labour. Our first inquiry then is , how the instruments of labour are converted from tools into machines, or what is the difference between a machine and the implements of a handicraft ?..." I'd say that machinery is crucial in practice (since its use makes it extremely hard for workers to set up their own workshops to compete with the capitalists) but is not central to the definition of "industrial capitalist" in Marx. Machinery is not necessary, however, since the ind. cap. can benefit from the results of simple cooperation and/or the technical division of labor simply by having enough capital to own or rent a workhouse and buy the raw materials and be able to take the risk that the product won't actually be produced or sold. (It'd not sufficient, since workers can go on strike, sabotage the plant, etc.) In a way, Marx seems to agree with what Gil Skilman says above in the Chapter XXXI "The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist" when he says: "Today industrial supremacy implies commercial supremacy. In the period of manufacture properly so called, it is, on the other hand, the commercial supremacy that gives industrial predominance. Hence, the preponderant role that the colonial system plays at that time. It was "the strange God" who perched himself on the altar cheek and jowl with the old Gods of Europe and one fine day with a shove and a kick chucked them all of a heap. It proclaimed suplus-value making as the sole end and aim of humanity." I wasn't denying the importance of commerce or colonialism. Rather, my debate with Gil was about the role of _purely_ commercial capital. I see it as totally dependent of someone else (industrial capitalists, feudalists, slave-owners, protocapitalist merchants-cum-usurers-cum-police, whoever) doing the exploitation. A _pure_ commercial capitalist simply buys low and sells high, taking M and converting into commodities that can be sold for M' (which is greater than M), without organizing any production. I follow Marx, who argues that one can't get M' M simply in exchange except by ripping someone else, for whom M' M, so that _on the aggregate level_, M' = M. For M' M on the aggregate level, there needs to be a commodity that produces more than it costs to produce it. That's labor-power. In order to mobilize the labor-power to labor enough to more than cover labor-power's cost, there has to be _more than_ simply buying and selling involved (what Marx called subjection or subsumption, what others call domination). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11856] Re: enough already!
What do you mean, "Enough already". If you are a moderator, then moderate the discussion. When I hear some rude and insulting reference to "third world dummies", I'd be remiss if I didn't protest. Part of the problem, Michael, is that you are trying to foster a tolerant atmosphere on PEN-L when decidedly intolerant language is being used. At 09:27 AM 9/28/99 -0700, you wrote: Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: At 03:25 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: you. I wish to hell you would exercise a little restraint and stay out of a discussion in which you have nothing substantial to add. I take exception to that. I think i do have something to contribute by asking the right kind of substantive questions. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11857] Re: Re: progress
I agree with Carrol here, except in understanding Marx and Engels use of "progress and their reference to the inevitbility of socialism in _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ (and there they use the exact term "inevitable"), I think you have to take account of the fact that Marx and Engels unite theory and practice always. In this case, the point is they are, in the venacular, putting a positive spin on what they are saying. They are trying to tilt things toward socialism rather than the mutual ruin of the contending classes ( or barbarism). They know that this struggle will not necessarily succeed, but putting a positive spin toward the result that capitalism end up in socialism helps to bring about that result. Charles Brown Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/99 10:25PM Any marxist by definition believes in the *possibility* of socialism, and it has long been commonplace to designate activities that contribute to that struggle as "progressive." But Luxemburg's fine formula, "socialism or barbarianism," is precisely a denial of the "Idea of Progress" -- the assumption of an inevitable process of improvement in world history. That conception emerged only slowly in the 18th century (it was part of a shift in the connotations of the word "modern" and in the coinage of "medieval era"). Pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution tended to take on the flavor of this concept of inevitable progress from lesser to greater, from "lower" to "higher." And of course that was how Darwinism was understood in the context of the triumph of liberalism in the 19th century, which saw capitalism as marking the final triumph of social progress as "man" marked the final triumph of biological progress. (As far as I know Weber rather enthusiastically accepted this idea of Progress. It fits in nicely with the view of social divisions as stratification rather than classes in conflict.) The Idea of Progress was given its ideal expression in Condorcet's *Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind* (1795). He identified 9 epochs of human development leading up to the French Revolution and predicted a 10th epoch which would see the ultimate perfection of the human mind. This is *stagism* with a violence, and as Lou has often pointed out it is a kind of thought that infected far too many Marxists, including Marx himself at some moments. It is of course utterly incompatible with materialism, mechanical or historical. There is no god to guarantee success, and the Idea of Progress was closely linked to 18th c. deistic thought. I am no student of Hegel, but I gather he saw human history as such an inevitable movement from lesser to greater. This Idea of Progress as described here finds its way into many descriptions of the origins of capitalism, capitalism being seen as an inevitable stage (and a "higher" stage) of world history. It is thoroughly teleological and thoroughly unmarxist. This concept of the natural and inevitable "evolution" of lower into higher forms of existence also was a moving force in the original and self-described "revision" of Marx -- the positing of socialism as naturally growing out of capitalism rather than as resulting from class struggle. The "or barbarianism" (and the "mutual ruin of the contending classes" of the CM) are rather explicit in denying any such inevitability. "progress" has some sort of normative connotation, doesn't it? it's something people are in favor of, or oppose, depending on whether they're "progressives" or "reactionaries." (There are of course different visions of progress; I for one would differentiate bourgeois progress from democratic-socialist progress, which I've already defined.) I don't think there is in this case any real disagreement about the use of the *word* "progress." Everyone uses it to label a change for the better. So it is not a problem of definition but a problem in basic understanding of reality: is improvement "built in to" the universe or into human history? And be it noted that even achieved improvement from a materialist standpoint is only temporary: in the long run not only are "we" all dead but the human species will die out sooner or later. And, of course, this Idea of Progress was the expression in ideology of the European conquest of the "lesser breeds without the law." Incidentally, no one "invented" capitalism. Social systems are not something an Edison dreams up. They happen, and no one deserves credit or discredit for them. ((( Charles: I think there is an element of consciousness of inventing something new in the establishment of wage-labor by removing the peasants from the land. It is a combination of an unconscious development and a conscious one. CB
[PEN-L:11863] Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Jim Devine wrote: I should be up-front. Not only am I a professor, but I'm a _full_ professor, with tenure. Mea culpa. In a Catholic school no less, as that "mea culpa" shows! Speaking of which, I read in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that Holy Mother Church is insisting on more doctrinal purity at Catholic colleges universities. I believe you're not the only PEN-Ler working for the tentacles of Rome. What's do you all make of this? Doug
[PEN-L:11866] RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
I think the issue here is Wojtek's claim that capitalism is "more efficient". Because the capitalist mode of production was necessarily linked with the capitalist mode of destruction, it is not clear on balance that capitalism has been "more efficient" in the sense of making humans the purpose of it than other modes. Capitalism has destroyed people on a larger scale than any other previous mode, as well as producing more. This can't be fobbed off as moralizing, as Wojtek always tries to do. The record of capitalism's "efficiency" must take into account the production/destruction ratio. In other words, you have to do a cost/benefit analysis to arrive at efficiency and you are only measuring benefit, not cost of capitalism. You are ignoring "externalities" in terms of colonialism and war, etc. CB Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 12:34PM W's crime here is profundity, hence some obscurity and scope for misunderstanding. If colonial exploitation afforded Europe a key boost in capital accumulation, for an area that was otherwise on a par with the rest of the world, why didn't the colonies-to-be exploit themselves and attain the same preeminence? That was the point, IMO. The 'dummies' term actually reflects the implied view of colonials by erstwhile anti-Eurocentrics. Maybe right, maybe wrong; provocative, but not racist. As usual Louis rips something out of context and applies his elemental moral condemnation to it. Scholarship marches on. mbs W said: . . . For it would seem that before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they were sitting for centuries. wojtek This is racist garbage. I don't think it's "racist garbage" if it's read in context. Wojtek's point is related to mine, in a previous missive, that one can believe (as the "Eurocentric" theory does) that capitalism arose solely from internal causes and then turn around and _damn_ Europe as the scourge of the earth, just as one can believe (as a "third-worldist" theory might) that capitalism in Europe arose simply because Europe was lucky enough to get there first in conquering the rest of the world and then turn around and criticize the rest of the world for not being able to resist Europe's attacks. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11869] What caused capitalism?
A quick thought before I go back class. Why does want single factor have to cause capitalism? That approach seems only slightly more advanced than to say capitalism was the natural outcome of human history. Most books mention that England had certain advantages to begin with: a relatively unified kingdom, a long coastline relative to its area, an intensification of commodity relations in the countryside Why can't a whole range of circumstances help to explain the rise of capitalism in England. At what point does capitalism emerge? After all, we can see hints of capitalism in ancient society. Some economic historians use this as evidence that capitalism has always occurred. Surely, the gold was important. Perhaps, lumber was even more important since England did not have adequate supplies of lumber to build its ships by the late 17th century. But then we would want to say that the Baltic region was the key to capitalism. I suspect that there was no single key. Besides, my reading of Marx tells me that social relations were uppermost in the development of capitalism. Finally, Third Worldism and Eurocentrism seem to be hollow slogans bandied about to bludgeon those with whom we disagree. If I go home tonight knowing that I converted somebody from one camp to another, have I made the world closer to the socialist ideal? On the other hand, if I find a way to organize people to work for socialism, I will sleep better tonight. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11871] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
I wrote: BTW, I don't understand your attack on Wojtek as a "professor." Are professors always wrong? Louis P writes: My problem with Wojtek is that he acting unprofessorial. I try to imagine how language like "third world dummies" would go over here at Columbia in a room with Gayatri Spivak, Manning Marable and Edward Said in attendance. Even uttered in a "sarcastic" fashion, it would earn the speaker nothing but opprobrium. I guess the standards on PEN-L are a lot more lax. If pen-l followed professorial (i.e. academic) standards, there would be no free-flowing discussion. There would be no willingness on anyone's part to put forth an opinion that might turn out to be "wrong" and would lead to loss of status. Each statement would have to be justified by a survey of the literature. People would say stuff like "that's not really economics" or "that's not really sociology" (or the like) because academic boundaries would be valued. It would be very stiff. Even though I am a born ironist, I try to avoid irony and sarcasm because it doesn't communicate well in e-mail. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11872] Elevating the discussion
To pursue that point even further, Gerschenkron makes a somewhat similar argument by claiming that timing of the development is crucial - those who got there there first got an edge over those who did not. wojtek See, Wojtek. It isn't that hard to write substantial and scholarly posts. I might disagree with your analysis, but at least with this sort of approach you won't be alienating people and causing all sorts of ancillary flare-ups that don't advance our understanding. Keep up the good work. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11873] Jubilee 2000 critique -- worm's eye view
One element I would add to the J2000 critique, which folks in the South are only starting to get an inkling of. And that's how totally co-opted, unaccountable, and deceitful some of the Northern NGOs are. One can say that the call of debt cancellation for the 52 poorest countries does not go far enough. But I think that it is a bigger scandal that some of the most influential groups in the Northern campaigns, especially Oxfam UK, Oxfam International, Oxfam US, Catholic Relief Services, Bread [Crumbs] for the World, Presbyterian Church USA, etc. don't actually support what they claim to support. In other words, if these groups acted as if they really supported debt cancellation for the poorest countries, it would be a huge step forward. But they don't. They support structural adjustment, and keeping structural adjustment conditionality on debt relief, which means not cancelling it but preserving the existing IMF/WB/HIPC system of drawing it out to keep these nations in chains. It seems to me that if this is practically one's position, then whether one supports debt "relief" for 52 countries or 100 is an academic point by comparison. I was at a public meeting in the last few days where Kevin Watkins of Oxfam UK was going on and on about how great the IMF's new commitment to poverty reduction is and we all need to support this. At least he's somewhat honest about what he believes. Many of the others are totally dishonest, pretending they are totally against the IMF when Southerners are around when in fact these groups vigorously support conditionality, even if the IMF is in charge. Oxfam goes so far as to buy up NGOs in the South and then claim to represent the South based on statements from NGOs that get money from Oxfam. If you talk to these groups about cancelling the debts and getting the IMF out, they tell you that is unrealistic, politically infeasible, etc. Now you could make a case that this is a reasonble position for someone to hold sitting in their armchair, but I don't think that you can make a plausible case that this is a reasonable position for someone to hold if they are leading the Jubilee 2000 movement, representing that movement to public officials, in the media, etc. My fantasy is that someone will look into suing these groups for consumer fraud, because they collect money on the basis that they are campaigning for debt cancellation, when in fact they are against debt cancellation. You have the incredibly bizarre spectacle of Jeff Sachs telling Members of Congress that Cologne is not enough and that the IMF should get out of Africa and could easily cancel 100% of the HIPC debt and should do so, and Oxfam US going back to the same people and telling them that Jeff Sachs is wrong and that Cologne is the best we can do and that the IMF has a wonderful new commitment to poverty reduction and we need to support the IMF. If the efforts of Patrick and others bear fruit, it's going to be a hot time for these groups. Here's hoping that the Jubilee 2000 movements of the South can put an end to the "impunity" of the Northern NGOs. --- Robert Naiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202-265-3263 x277 fax: 202-265-3647 http://www.preamble.org/ ---
[PEN-L:11878] Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 01:23 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote: I think the issue here is Wojtek's claim that capitalism is "more efficient". Because the capitalist mode of --snip Charles, capitalism *is* efficient (thanks to its superior technology and organization) to the point it can afford conspicuous waste and survive - which no other form of economic organization could. It is an obvious fact - there's no point denying it. Capitalist economic superiority was the main point Marx tried to make vis a vis utopian/moralistic socialists. His criticism of capitalism was not about the efficiency or even destruction of pre-capitalist societies and institutions - but about the distribution of surplus. So the point is not to explain the history of capitalist development differently, but to change its fundamental flaw - skewed distribution. That is what makes Marx's view *progressive* looking to the future - as opposed to sentimental defences of pre-capitalist rural idylla which makes much of today's left a *reactionary* force, defending the past. wojtek
[PEN-L:11882] Re: Internal and external factors; Ernest Mandel
Louis, Before you dismiss entirely the discussion of an interplay of external and internal factors you should keep in mind that the really big takeoff came with the development of full-blown industrial capitalism. That involved a combination of major technological innovations that happened, mostly in Great Britain, along with major changes in population distribution and relations of production there as well. Certainly "internal factors" were involved and cannot just be dismissed by reference to Mandel's interesting accounts or Jim Blaut's serious arguments regarding accumulation from exploiting the American colonies. Indeed, I have been one of those who has largely accepted that especially with respect to cotton from the Americas there was a direct external stimulus to this latter stage of the development of industrial capitalism in Europe. The more complicated and less resolved issue has been to what extent this earlier accumulation of gold and silver and other commodities from the Americas played a role in this eventual definitive breakout by Europe to move ahead of the rest of the world. Most of us, certainly me at least, accept the argument that well into the 1700s, possibly all the way into the early 1800s, there was no substantial lead, technologically or organizationally by Europe over the most advanced areas of the rest of the world, a key element of the Blaut et al argument. But not all of us accept fully all the pieces of his full argument. There remains serious room for understanding the full nature of that "subtle interplay." Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 7:33 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11807] "Internal" and "external" factors; Ernest Mandel All this talk about the need to integrate "external" and "internal" factors in the rise of capitalism in Europe has me a bit bemused. When this thread first started--after Rod Hay claimed that colonialism was good for the people being colonized--, I answered him with some really good data from Ernest Mandel. I seemed to recall that Mandel's 2 volume masterpiece "Marxist Economic Theory" was filled with global connections of the sort made by "dependency theorists" like Amin and Wallerstein, but integrated into a rather rigorous Marxist framework. I read this book back in 1970 and continued to read Mandel's economic articles avidly until he died. The one thing you get from reading Mandel is this internationalist perspective, which seems totally lacking in Brenner. I think one of the explanations for this is that Mandel was forced to engage with Marxists from the underdeveloped world in his capacity as a key leader of the Fourth International. During the last half-century of his life, he was in constant contact with people like Bolivian tin miners, Chinese intellectuals opposed to Mao, Algerians who fought against the French, et al. Well okay, he didn't always give them the right advice but his heart was in the right place. Here's a section from Volume One, in the chapter "The Development of Capital". If you are serious about studying Marxist economics, this book is indispensable. Merchant capital The appearance of a native merchant class in the midst of a basically natural economy presumes a primitive accumulation of money capital. This comes from two main sources: piracy and brigandage, on the one hand; on the other, the appropriation of part of the agricultural surplus product or even of the peasantÂ’s necessary product. It was by raids into foreign territory, operations of brigandage and piracy, that the first merchant navigators assembled their little starting capital. From the earliest times, the origins of maritime trade have been mixed-up with piracy. Professor Takehoshi observes that the first accumulation of money-capital in Japan (in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries) was obtained by pirates operating on the coasts of China and Korea: "While the government of Japan strove to get money by foreign trade, the Japanese pirates employed the more direct method of pillage, and as their booty consisted of gold and silver, copper coins and other treasure, it is impossible to estimate the value of the wealth they brought to Kyushu, Shikoku and the maritime regions of the islands in the central provinces of Japan. Subsequently these plundered treasures injected new life into the whole country." The accumulation of money capital by the Italian merchants who dominated European economic life from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries originated directly from the Crusades, an enormous plundering enterprise if ever there was one. "We know for instance, that in 1101 the Genoese helped the Crusaders to capture and sack Caesarea, a Palestinian seaport. They reserved rich prizes for their officers and remunerated the sbipowners with 15 per cent of the loot. They distributed the remainder among 8,000 sailors and
[PEN-L:11885] Re: Re: Re: Re: Free laborasapreconditionforcapitalism
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 12:18PM Charles writes: But for the industrial capitalists in the era of the Industrial Revolution, use of machines is a distinguishing characteristic I have no argument there, though I didn't know that we were talking about the IR. ((( Charles: My mistake. You are referring to the industrial capialists in the manufacturing period. I agree, in general, Marx notes tools and not machines are the instruments of production. This is the point in saying there was a transition to machines ,predominantly as a defining characterisitic of the Industrial Rev. (( Thus, Part IV of Capital one of the main points is that the transition within capitalism from the manufacturing phase to the industrial phase is the qualitative increase in the use of machines as the instruments of production. For example, at the beginning of Chapter XV Marx says: " In manufacture, the revolution in the mode of production begins with the labour-power, in modern industry it begins with the instruments of labour. Our first inquiry then is , how the instruments of labour are converted from tools into machines, or what is the difference between a machine and the implements of a handicraft ?..." Jim: I'd say that machinery is crucial in practice (since its use makes it extremely hard for workers to set up their own workshops to compete with the capitalists) but is not central to the definition of "industrial capitalist" in Marx. Charles: Agree. See above. Jim: Machinery is not necessary, however, since the ind. cap. can benefit from the results of simple cooperation and/or the technical division of labor simply by having enough capital to own or rent a workhouse and buy the raw materials and be able to take the risk that the product won't actually be produced or sold. (It'd not sufficient, since workers can go on strike, sabotage the plant, etc.) Charles: Agree. Charles: In a way, Marx seems to agree with what Gil Skilman says above in the Chapter XXXI "The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist" when he says: "Today industrial supremacy implies commercial supremacy. In the period of manufacture properly so called, it is, on the other hand, the commercial supremacy that gives industrial predominance. Hence, the preponderant role that the colonial system plays at that time. It was "the strange God" who perched himself on the altar cheek and jowl with the old Gods of Europe and one fine day with a shove and a kick chucked them all of a heap. It proclaimed suplus-value making as the sole end and aim of humanity." I wasn't denying the importance of commerce or colonialism. Rather, my debate with Gil was about the role of _purely_ commercial capital. I see it as totally dependent of someone else (industrial capitalists, feudalists, slave-owners, protocapitalist merchants-cum-usurers-cum-police, whoever) doing the exploitation. A _pure_ commercial capitalist simply buys low and sells high, taking M and converting into commodities that can be sold for M' (which is greater than M), without organizing any production. I follow Marx, who argues that one can't get M' M simply in exchange except by ripping someone else, for whom M' M, so that _on the aggregate level_, M' = M. For M' M on the aggregate level, there needs to be a commodity that produces more than it costs to produce it. That's labor-power. In order to mobilize the labor-power to labor enough to more than cover labor-power's cost, there has to be _more than_ simply buying and selling involved (what Marx called subjection or subsumption, what others call domination). (( Charles: I see. Good. CB
[PEN-L:11887] Re: Jubilee 2000 critique -- worm's eye view
Robert Naiman wrote: I was at a public meeting in the last few days where Kevin Watkins of Oxfam UK was going on and on about how great the IMF's new commitment to poverty reduction is and we all need to support this. Do you think he really believes this, or is it just a tactic to remain a "player"? Not that it matters that much, but it's nice to know what's going on. Doug
[PEN-L:11888] Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
I hate to think that this is all you are capable of, Wojtek. This is the best you can do? Unbelievably sad. -Original Message- From: Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 10:22 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11840] Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek) At 03:57 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Jim Blaut wrote: Talk about illogical positivism! -- snip--- you mock. That is typical of your empty scientism. I read that you are basically not concerned with the empirical demonstration of the effect of colonialism on european capitalist development, right? Since I do not buy your functionalist logic that something that exist (e.g. colonialism) must automatically have a significant social function (contribution to capitalist economy), could you tell me why should I or anyone on this list accept your view over, say, that of Ricardo D. who believes that colonialism was not that crucial? At the very least, Ricardo takes into account institutional factors in that development, of which you do not seem to have much to say. That is at least one reason to like his story more than yours. Would you be happy with an attempt to explain the economy of the US that focuses mostly on the foreign trade balance, while ignoring the organization of the firm, the structure of government, economic policies of various administrations, labor laws, unions, lobbying groups etc.? And one more thing. If I were to accept your point of view that colonial exploitation significantly contributed to world's economic development, I would be really grateful to the Europeans for masterminding that exploitation, its human cost notwithstanding. For it would seem that before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they were sitting for centuries. wojtek
[PEN-L:11889] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
I agree with Louis on this issue. Wojtek regularly uses formulations that are not just offensive in form, but white supremacist in content. Then he tries to defend his analyses by accusing his critics of "moralizing" and "intellectual or cultist thirdworldism" , posturing as if he is merely being a militant materialist. It should be possible to openly criticize this as just what it is without being accused of unfair play or flaming. If anything the initiation of any flaming is by Wojtek, not his critics. It is not legitimate scientific method to ban from this list criticisms of racism and white supremacist theory, as if just by being on a progressive list, listers don't truck in left racism. Categorization of analyses as racist is scientific and not primarily sensitivity training. The idea that there are no racist theories or statements on these lists , properly and openly labelled as such, is outrageous. Banning criticisms of racism as bad manners is racist. Charles Brown Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 01:16PM Not only is "dummies" pretty mild, but I read Wojtek as using the word in the specific way of saying "if you take the Blaut perspective seriously one can lambaste the third-world as being inhabited by dummies." It is mild to you, but--trust me--to an Argentinian or Brazilian leftist it would be highly insulting, in or out of context. Part of the problem with PEN-L is that there is not a single regular poster from a legitimate colonized country. And the last time somebody who even had a marginal connection to such a country--Henry Liu--was here, he resigned in protest over what he regarded as naked racism. Now I know that most people here are glad that he is gone with his constant rejoinders, but I can assure you that anybody from Jamaica, Brazil, Uganda or the Philippines who showed up might have similar reactions, but would not be so vocal in their objections. I don't believe words can be ripped out of context, the way some people want to ban HUCK FINN because of its use of the n-word. It's not a matter of putting a spin on anything. The context is Wojtek's hatred for "third worldism" in general, which was articulated a couple of weeks ago in his excitement over the prospects for a law and order "white hope" Mayoral candidate in Baltimore. BTW, I don't understand your attack on Wojtek as a "professor." Are professors always wrong? My problem with Wojtek is that he acting unprofessorial. I try to imagine how language like "third world dummies" would go over here at Columbia in a room with Gayatri Spivak, Manning Marable and Edward Said in attendance. Even uttered in a "sarcastic" fashion, it would earn the speaker nothing but opprobrium. I guess the standards on PEN-L are a lot more lax. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11895] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free labor as a precondition forcapital
Mathew Forstater wrote: Max writes: My concern is that support for TW struggles is *sometimes* associated with pissing all over progressive struggles in the U.S. of A. pertaining to the interests of the U.S. working class. 1. Max, could you please give me an example--a few would be better, but I'll take one--that fits this description? 2. You say "is sometimes associated with..." This leaves the meaning (to me) unclear. Baiting some unspecified Reds is better than a double chocalate soda to make Max's day. If one wanted to be telelogical about it one could say god invented the passive voice to provide this sort of pleasure to bored economists. Carrol
[PEN-L:11898] units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Jim, I agree that the nc concept of efficience is highly problematic on both empirical and ethical grounds. However I used that term in a nontechnical way, meaning that capitalist economy is capable of producing more than its predecessors. That is an obvious fact and there is no point denying it. The problem is not with the volume of capitalist output but with its upwardly skewed distribution. If the actual producers of wealth could participate in the consumption of what they have produced in proportion to their contribution to the production process rather than their class or social status - there would be no problem with capitalist efficiency. wojtek This is not true even on its own terms and is really at the bottom of the disagreement between Brenner and Sweezy (I will accomodate Jim Devine and not use the words that start with E. and T.) Sweezy argues that capitalism produces stagnation in the third world, which is its "normal" state. There were some illusions that this was not the case in the 1980s, when the Asian tigers drew attention. Capitalism is a more dynamic system seen as an idea, but in reality it depends on creating underdevelopment in one place in order to create development somewhere else. The notion that capitalism can have a dynamic existence universally is not Karl Marx, but Walt Rostow. Wojtek's argument is curiously analogous to Jim Heartfield's--another "Marxish" defender of the supposedly dynamic nature of the capitalist system. For every South Korea or Taiwan, there are 20 stagnant countries that have even failed to begin to address the tasks of industrialization and modernization. Interestingly enough, the US has just committed 1.5 billion dollars to fighting the guerrillas in Colombia, a classic instance of the irrelevance of Marxist schemas of 1848 to today's underdeveloped world. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11901] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free labor as a precondition for capital
Max writes: My concern is that support for TW struggles is *sometimes* associated with pissing all over progressive struggles in the U.S. of A. pertaining to the interests of the U.S. working class. 1. Max, could you please give me an example--a few would be better, but I'll take one--that fits this description? mbs: Sure. Take any decent interval on this list and count the number of posts pertaining to struggles of the working class in the industrial countries as a share of the total. Or listen to a week of "Democracy Now" and do the same thing. I would say that such a calculation is likely to reflect excessive neglect. I would not say the other issues should be ignored, nor that they are unimportant. I do think they get too much weight, in light of the fact that most of the list is situated to confront in their personal activities issues of the working class in the industrial countries. If we were all Sri Lankans the focus would properly differ. 2. You say "is sometimes associated with..." This leaves the meaning (to me) unclear. Is the association made by others? Is the association intended by those showing "support for TW struggles"? mbs: Yes to both. One of the sources of your discontent, I think, is that you haven't been on this list until relatively recently (or have not posted much, as far as I can remember, until recently), you raise your sincere, substantive analytical questions, and you walk into the running political shit-fight on this list. It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys; the origins of the conflict in terms of who spoke inappropriately first, and who provoked whom, are lost in the dim past, while the fight goes on. Unlike the H-M's, however, there are real political issues at stake here. As I said before, I'm for most any TW struggle you could name. I would even say that serious social change is more likely in some isolated TW place than in the U.S., though its survivability is problematic. What irks me is a) the unprovoked use of the racism charge by people like the late and unlamented imbecile Henry Liu, and now Louis, to advance a political agenda; and b) the practice of some leftists to disparage progressive struggles in the U.S. and EU. Insofar as such people in category (b) are in the academy, they have the real and undesirable effect of discouraging students from going left, in the guise of being more left than thou. 3. Also, as something of a separable issue, could you enlighten me as to the usefulness of using this language in terms of advancing the dialogue in a constructive way? mbs: The advantage is it gets peoples' attention. If done well, it says a lot in few words. The disadvantage is that it can offend. Some are more easily offended than others. Note I didn't say "too" easily. Any imputation of being "pro-imperialist," racist, or "IMF/Kosovo thinking" is a provocation that deserves a comparable response. There is no way of separating the scientific from the personal in this setting, even when a criticism is leveled without ill intentions, since there is too much political and other competition involved. If we were all monks in a cloister such criticism could be accepted as sincere attempts to be constructive in a common endeavor. Here, anyone that dishes out should be ready to take. I regret offending anyone who has not offended me, and you have not offended me, so I regret offending you. Blaut offended me without even addressing me, so my criticism was directed at an idea, not an individual. Louis and Carroll offend me several times a day, but I enjoy it (reminds me of my youth) and do my best to return the favor. mbs
[PEN-L:11903] Re: Re: white hope?
At 03:42 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Charles B. wrote: Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 03:10PM The police endorsed Bell (the current president of city council) as the top law and order guy who btw shamelessly played the race card. The church leaders endorsed Stokes who promised them a greater role in service provision and privatisation of some city services. ((( Charles: The whole concept of "playing the race card" and the ideology attached to it is racist. I agree, it's a case of the growing phenomenon of black racism. As I see it, it the effect of black embourgeoisment. Black politicians and moral entreperneurs use in essentially the same way as white politicians and moral entrepreneurs do - as a claim to attract supporters and followers, sell their intellectual commodity (books, lectures, etc.), attain celeberity status, etc. Sad but true testimony of the entrapments of the commodified US politics. wojtek
[PEN-L:11904] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 03:47 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Louis Project wrote: system. For every South Korea or Taiwan, there are 20 stagnant countries that have even failed to begin to address the tasks of industrialization and modernization. Interestingly enough, the US has just committed 1.5 billion dollars to fighting the guerrillas in Colombia, a classic instance of the irrelevance of Marxist schemas of 1848 to today's underdeveloped world. Perhaps we should abandon th eterm 'capitalism' altogether. What is th euse of the term that throws apples and oranges into one category. Clearly, there must be something else going on that affects modernization than being labeled 'capitalist' which does not even have an unambiguous empirical meaning. I read that I am not alone here, Barkley Rosser has similar concerns. wojtek
[PEN-L:11905] New Green Econ Book
Advance praise for The Trade-Off Myth: "Eban Goodstein has shed light on a crucial issue in the environmental protection debate. Citizens and politicians should read his book before their next environmental vote." -- Robert Repetto, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, World Resources Institute "This compelling little book demolishes several decades of misinformation about the supposed costs of strong environmental policy. The Trade-Off Myth is an account of disasters that didn't happen, an expose' of bought-and paid-for economic forecasters, and an astute study of how sensible regulations can and do foster progressive technological change. Anyone who wants to understand the hysteria over the Kyoto summit and the organized resistance to action on global warming should certainly read this book." -- James K. Galbraith, Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, and author of Created Unequal: The Crisis in American Pay "The time has come for workers, governments, and businesses to realize that the assumed trade-off between economic prosperity and environmental quality is largely myth. Goodstein documents how time after time this simplistic view has been proven wrong and how the vested interests of a few have used this fallacy to play on the fears of workers and citizens. This important book demonstrates what while nothing worthwhile comes absolutely free, the conventional wisdom about the cost of environmental protections has little basis in reality." -- Jeff Faux, President, Economic Policy Institute "Goodstein...offers a hard hitting plea to address the roots of the jobs problem -- economic insecurity and limited opportunity -- rather than scapegoating the quest for a livable global environment." -- Samuel Bowles, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst From the book jacket: Many Americans believe three things about jobs and the environment: Environmental protection measures have created ongoing, widespread unemployment; have caused large numbers of plant shutdowns and layoffs in manufacturing; and have led many U.S. firms to flee to developing countries with lax environmental regulations. Virtually all economists who have studied the issue agree that each of these propositions is false. The Trade-Off Myth is the first book to clearly state the truth about jobs and the environment. In it, economist Eban Goodstein provides an in-depth examination of the deep-seated, but ultimately mistaken, American belief in a widespread jobs-environment trade-off. Goodstein: considers the roots and staying power of misperceptions regarding job security and environmental regulation analyzes various models used to predict employment impacts and explains how changes in assumptions can drastically change predicted outcomes lists and debunks, myth-by-myth, widely held perceptions about the impacts of environmental regulation on jobs examines localized hardships cased by environmental protection measures within specific industries and regions, and considers what can be done to mitigate those impacts explores the revisionist view that environmental protection measures can actually create jobs looks at jobs-environment issues that are likely to emerge as we attack the problem of global warming Written in clear, accessible language, The Trade-Off Myth will be essential reading for environmentalists, concerned citizens, policymakers, public officials, and anyone involved in debate over strengthening environmental regulations. THE ISBN NUMBER FOR THIS BOOK: 1-55963-683-1 Island Press, 1999 / www.islandpress.org
[PEN-L:11911] Re: Re
"James M. Blaut" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 04:54PM Doug says: Charles Brown wrote: England and Holland had both colonial systems and free labor , and so they were able to capitalistically accumulate the colonial treasures of Spain and Portugal when the later were not able to because they did not establish free labor. Sounds right to me. What's wrong with that, Jim Blaut? Doug Whats wrong with that is that its factually incorrect. There was no slave labor in Spain and Portugal, no more than there was in Holland and England. And England and Holland didn't have colonial systems until the Portuguese and spanish systems had gone into serious decline -- 1600. ( Charles: The idea is not that there was slave labor in Spain or Portugal, but peasant labor. You know, serfs, Don Quioxte and all that . The peasants were removed from the land as their natural laboratory in England and Holland but not in Spain and Portugal. "Free labor" is contrasted with peasant labor as well as slave labor. 0 CB
[PEN-L:11917] Re: Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poorpeople.
I don't think that they are "cheaters" from a capitalist perspective, only from a socialist perspective. Therefore all bourgeois economists are cheaters. It is because they disguise economic reality and appear to do so deliberately. They use the GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), to measure the whole economic status of a country and this results in the government paying no attention to the living standards of poor people. So poverty is perpetuated. Sincerely, Ju-chang He E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/homepage.html Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11920] Re: Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people.
J.-C., Do you "hate bitterly" the economists in Castro's government in Cuba who use the concept of GDP? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 5:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11914] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. Barkley Rosser, You know that in China the living standards of the poor haven't been raised. There are still a lot of people suffering from cold and hunger. They can't afford to send their children to school, and, as a result, too many children are deprived of education. I really sympathize with poor people in their sufferings. I hate bitterly bourgeois economists who use GDP to hoodwink poor people. Sincerely, Ju-chang He E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA Welcome to My Homepage http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/homepage.html -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 3:25 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11766] Re: GDP is unscientific and unfair for poor people. J.-C., You live in what is by far the highest income part of the PRC, except for recently acquired Hong Kong to which Shenzhen is adjacent. How do I know that? Because it has a much higher per capita income than in the rest of the PRC, which is equal to per capita GDP (or gross regional product). I know that Shenzhen has a lot of inequality, and thus probably a lot of poverty. But does it have more than the rest of the PRC? Are living standards higher or lower in Shenzhen than in the rest of the PRC for the average citizen? If they are higher, then that is evidence that it is perfectly reasonable for, not just most countries, but all countries to keep track of GDP. Of course I fully agree that all countries should keep track of such things as poverty rates, Gini coefficients and physical measures of the standard of living as well. You continue to be simply off base with your claim that "GDP is unscientific because it does not help poor people." Barkley Rosser
[PEN-L:11919] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was:wojtek)
At 02:05 PM 9/28/99 -0700, Jim Craven wrote: So when we get to the level of analyzing what is being produced and distributed and the probable social consequences (and even consequences on individuals purchasing) of that which is being produced, when we consider the "how" to produce in wider terms and with longer time horizons than that allowed by NC theory or capitalism itself, when we include social costs and benefits paid by whom and for whom, when we include freedom from despotism, alienation and manipulation in our "utility functions", when we account for true costs and on whom they fall in our "production functions", etc etc capitalism is one of the least "efficient" (in a much more wider and humane notion of efficiency) systems known whose inexorable and inner/defining contradictions and structures produce dynamics and trajectories of destruction far more than creation and overall waste and tragedy far more than efficiency and prosperity; that is, if it is the broad masses of people that matter and not just a chosen/elect few. Jim, I do not think we disagree on the terrible human cost of industrialization and development - although I would not go as far as saying that it made most people worse off. Surely, there are groups that suffer more than other, but on average people are better off. Surely, the living standards around the world are far below those in the US or Europe, but if you compare the standards of living under feudalism, you must certainly acknowledge that there has been significant progress. However, I think you make too much of the concept of efficiency - in my view it is an abstraction that outside nc is used primarily as a claim to justofy managerial decisions. That is to say, there is little no "utility function" calculation, efficiency maximization etc. in managerial behavior, but there is plenty of group think, social climbing, sucking up, lining one's own pockets etc, covered with the veil of efficiency maximization. Thus, curbing managerial power and democcarization of the workplace (and politics) can substantially reduce the level of misery you mention without necessarily rejecting the whole notion of industrial, urban economy. wojtek
[PEN-L:11922] Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
You can agree with Louis, but it must be admitted that for two weeks Wojtek has been pointing out a flaw in the argument and it took this mocking of the argument to get other than insults from Lou. The argument put forward by Jim B. and Lou does not have any explanatory power. In fact, as Wojtek was pointing out for those who can read is that the logical conclusion of the argument is a racist one. For pointing out the inherent racism of the argument he gets called a racist by Lou. And around and around we go. Original Message Follows From: "Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11889] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:57:07 -0400 I agree with Louis on this issue. Wojtek regularly uses formulations that are not just offensive in form, but white supremacist in content. Then he tries to defend his analyses by accusing his critics of "moralizing" and "intellectual or cultist thirdworldism" , posturing as if he is merely being a militant materialist. It should be possible to openly criticize this as just what it is without being accused of unfair play or flaming. If anything the initiation of any flaming is by Wojtek, not his critics. It is not legitimate scientific method to ban from this list criticisms of racism and white supremacist theory, as if just by being on a progressive list, listers don't truck in left racism. Categorization of analyses as racist is scientific and not primarily sensitivity training. The idea that there are no racist theories or statements on these lists , properly and openly labelled as such, is outrageous. Banning criticisms of racism as bad manners is racist. Charles Brown Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 01:16PM Not only is "dummies" pretty mild, but I read Wojtek as using the word in the specific way of saying "if you take the Blaut perspective seriously one can lambaste the third-world as being inhabited by dummies." It is mild to you, but--trust me--to an Argentinian or Brazilian leftist it would be highly insulting, in or out of context. Part of the problem with PEN-L is that there is not a single regular poster from a legitimate colonized country. And the last time somebody who even had a marginal connection to such a country--Henry Liu--was here, he resigned in protest over what he regarded as naked racism. Now I know that most people here are glad that he is gone with his constant rejoinders, but I can assure you that anybody from Jamaica, Brazil, Uganda or the Philippines who showed up might have similar reactions, but would not be so vocal in their objections. I don't believe words can be ripped out of context, the way some people want to ban HUCK FINN because of its use of the n-word. It's not a matter of putting a spin on anything. The context is Wojtek's hatred for "third worldism" in general, which was articulated a couple of weeks ago in his excitement over the prospects for a law and order "white hope" Mayoral candidate in Baltimore. BTW, I don't understand your attack on Wojtek as a "professor." Are professors always wrong? My problem with Wojtek is that he acting unprofessorial. I try to imagine how language like "third world dummies" would go over here at Columbia in a room with Gayatri Spivak, Manning Marable and Edward Said in attendance. Even uttered in a "sarcastic" fashion, it would earn the speaker nothing but opprobrium. I guess the standards on PEN-L are a lot more lax. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:11928] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Jim D: "The introduction to the Blaut article that Wojtek was reacting to could be interpreted as criticizing Brenner and the like simply because he doesn't like Brenner's anti-third-worldist politics. This is an endless loop that should be avoided." Don't you think you should save your comments and criticisms until you've read more than the "introduction" to the article you want to criticize? Lou put up the first few paragraphs while AT THE SAME TIME telling you where on the web you can find the whole article." That would be proper scholarly procedure and would avoid "endless loops." Jim Blaut
[PEN-L:11929] Re: What caused capitalism?
Jim et al. I am now walking on crutches, hobbled by a racquetball injury. I was not even doing anything particularly athletic at the time, but a tendon blew out. I will try to keep my cool and not react emotionally, although I have not been able to enjoy my noon basketball game for almost a week. "James M. Blaut" wrote: EITHER europe was more advanced, more progressive, more graced with environmental qualities, etc., than the rest of the world, OR it was not. You cannot have it both ways. It would be like being half pregnant. I was asking something different. Can't you have two different societies each with the near possibility of becoming capitalist, where relatively small accidents can determine which actually becomes capitalist -- without attributing some special qualities to the Europeans. I do not deny that you might be correct in some of your rejections of my suggestions -- I do not pretend to be an expert in that area. Then you wrote: this, you'll forgive me for saying, is bullshit. Eurocentrism -- as the term is now universally used -- is one or both of the followuing two things: prejudice, ignorance. It is the false attribution of positive qualities to Europe at whatever period down to the present, or denial of thesee qualities to non-Europe. It is ugly and dangerous and is not always distinguishable from racism. "Thirdworldism" is a term that was invented by Brenner or his confreres simply as a curse word. They mean by it anyone who refuses to acknowledge the superiority or priority of Europe in history and anyone who claims that in the present the workers and peasants of the non-European world -- make a difference in the struggle for socialism. Some of us who fight against Eurocentrism will on occasion call ourselves thirdworldists to throw the term backin the face of those who sneer at Third World sturggles. Look Jim. I agree that Thirdworldism is a curseword, but the way you define Eurcentrism also sounds like a curse word for people. As you know, I am trying to calm things down. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11925] What caused capitalism?
Michael: A reasoned even if flawed argument, presented in a civil, collegial manner -- a rarity on this list, as you'll agree -- deserves a respectful answer, though I haevn't time to go into detail. "Why does want single factor have to cause capitalism? That approach seems only slightly more advanced than to say capitalism was the natural outcome of human history." No single factor caused capitalism. Who says that? But if "factors" are aggregated in such a way that one set of factors comprises all propositions claiming that one community, Europeans, in the Middle Ages, had qualities that all other communities in the world lacked in terms of potential for the future rise of capitalism, qualities of mind, society, economiy, technology, or environment, and this set of propositions is contrasted with another set of propositions claiming, to the contrary, that other communities possessed these same qualities, then, yes, you have two sets, and if you want to call each set a single "factor" -- then yes, the first single factor is wrong and the other single factor is right. Stated differently: EITHER europe was more advanced, more progressive, more graced with environmental qualities, etc., than the rest of the world, OR it was not. You cannot have it both ways. It would be like being half pregnant. And: if the first factor or set of factors is rejected as empirically false, then you have to have a different explanation for the rise of capitalism and the rise of Europe. I proposed one such, which Gunder Frank and Samir Amin agree with. Janet Abu Lughod proposed another one that is not altogether different. "Most books mention that England had certain advantages to begin with: a relatively unified kingdom, a long coastline relative to its area, an intensification of commodity relations in the countryside Why can't a whole range of circumstances help to explain the rise of capitalism in England." Most books? Who cares? England had NO advantages that you wouldn't find in other places. Anyway, the idea of a unified kingdom as a factor is pretty shaky -- even Brenner objects to it. The coastline argument is old-fashioned environmental determinism. Lots of places had long coastlines, and an indented coastline was no advantage. (See the paper I'm giving in Davis, "Environmentalism and Eurocentrism.") "At what point does capitalism emerge? After all, we can see hints of capitalism in ancient society. Some economic historians use this as evidence that capitalism has always occurred." Those arguments are uninteresting to Marxists. Capitalism is private owenrship of the means of production combined with social relatIONs of production in which there are owners and wage workers and the owners reinvest their profitsetc. etc. There is no real confusion on this matter. The only real source of confusion is the need to distinguish early capitalism from mature capitalism. In fact, I would distinguish four actual cases: first: late medieval capitalist enterprises on a small scale within basically feudal or tributary societties; second, late medieval capitalist economies on a large scale, often involving populations in the millions, always (?) centered on some major city or city=state although much of the enterpise takes place in hinterlands where basically capitalist production occurs in agriculture; third, capitalist enterprises, both agricultural and (preindustrial) manufacturing, within a society that has become dominated by the bourgeoisie -- a post-borugeois-revolution society and polity, but not an INDUSTRIAL capitalist economy; and finally, industrial capitalism within a capitalist-ruled polity/society. Capitalism was emerging slowly within feudal/tributary society (case 1) in many parts of the world in say the 15th century. You could find capitalist enterprises in all three old-world continents, but within, or sometimes adjoining, societies in which the social relations of production were mostly feudal or tributary and the polity was feudal. Maurice Dobb gave probably the best description of what was heppening in England. He admitted uncertainty about how this process mANAGed to eventuate in a bourgeois revolutioon, but he saw it clearly as an evolving process -- hence a "transition.". He talked about a number of forms of capitalist enteprise (case 1), both agricultural and handicraft/ manufacturing (the latter partly rural and partlyv urban). Brenner dumbed down the whole argument by claiming in essence that the true founders of capitalism were large-scale tenant farmers who -- not fighting a class war with anyone -- benefitted from the much earlier class struggle of serrfs against lords by being lucky enough not to lose their holdings (which were still owned by the landlords) and then began to hire labor and increase production to pay the rent, etc. This is much less interesting and accurate than Dobb's and many other accoumnts. (It is a case of a poor theory validated by politics, not
[PEN-L:11927] Re: Contemporary Politics and Academic Theory
Charles: Why do you call this a dead issue? Jim
[PEN-L:11926] Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Jim D.: What is your opinion of the charges against Catholicism that those Catholic dummies were inferior and didn/t/couldm't invent capitalism because they didn't possess the Protestant ethic? Wasn't that bigotry, racism, prejudice? Jim B
[PEN-L:11924] Re: Re: Re
James M. Blaut wrote: And Doug: I'm getting bored by your one-liners, always asking a coy question that I've answered two or three time already in posts that you didn't bother to read. The result is that you're not conversing, you're just quipping. And I'm tired of your lecturing tone and your caricatures of anyone who disagrees with you. So I'll withdraw from this exchange completely. Doug
[PEN-L:11923] Indigenous Efficiency
It is well known, that in virtually every Tribe and Nation of Indigenous Peoples, there are prayers for any forms of life taken for food, clothing, shelter or artifacts and that nothing is "wasted"; all is mandated to be used. These prayers, part of the superstructure of the Tribe, are meant to teach all that the resources are scarce and must be used wisely and fully to meet myriad needs first and then additional wants; there are hierarchies of needs and wants and separations of wants and needs wheeras capitalism, on the other hand, seeks to continually invent and create and propoagate new "wants" and then turn them into perceived "needs".) In the Indigenous world if a Chief appropriated the communal resources to build a huge lodge for himself, while many Tribal members went without basic shelter, even if this big lodge were built using the fewest possible inputs, this would be seen as wholy "inefficient" as well as grossly immoral. The tribal members would put it to the chief that this is "inefficient" even from the perspective of the Chief's own narrow selfish interests; if many in the Tribe die due to lack of shelter, what will the Chief be a "Chief" of exactly? Also, there would be vigorous discussions about what is truly being lost, what probable future consequences and costs will inevitably ensue and what will be the prospects for survival of the whole People if one member of the Tribe lives in luxury while many live without shelter. If the Chief engaged the Medicine Man or Woman for his own personal use, getting for himself "state-of-the-art" medicine while many in the Tribe were denied access to basic medicine, members of the Tribe would vigorously bring home the "inefficiency" of it all--even from the Chief's own selfish interests-- no matter if the medicines were delivered to the Chief with the least inputs of time and other resources. The would ask the Chief what he/she would be a Chief of if lack of medicine destroyed the whole Tribe; they would ask about lost skills and productivity if diseases became rampant; they would would ask where the Chief proposes to get and maintain his/her food, shelter, clothing etc if the members of a necessary Tribal division of labor are lost through lack of medicine; and they would ask fundamentally, what qualifies him/her to remain Chief showing such callous disregard for the welfare of his/her own People. If Tribal resources were used to build huge ornate ceremony lodges for the insider "chosen" while many Tribal members went without shelter, clothing and food, there would be vigorous discussion and protest; the Tribal members would argue that it is a desecration not a celebration of "the sacred" to build huge edifices for prayer and ceremony to the Creator while showing utter disregard for the basic values and concepts and "creations of the Creator" being celebrated in the prayers and rituals; exactly this has gone on at Browning and on other reservations today. They would argue that there is a hierarchy of needs and wants and that basic needs for all must be met even to have Tribal members around to continue the celebrations and prayers and to have something to celebrate. If the natural environment were polluted and torn up, with massive clearcutting and roads to minimize "transportation and other costs", there would be vigorous discussions about shitting in one's own nest. there would be vigorous discussions about the necessary and intricate connections between humankind, other life-forms and the physical environent and there would be lodge tales about the lessons learned from abusing the air, water, land and life-forms. Cause and effect, "true costs" and "true benefits" would not be seen in linear and reductionistic and short-run terms. Further, need is not defined in terms of ability to buy or ability to appropriate resources through ownership and control; it is expected that any resources being used for relative luxury for a few, that may be used to satisfy basic needs elsewhere and for others in need of such resources, will be relinquished for use to satisfy the needs of anyone in need in the Tribe. These principles are of course dying out with capitalist "civilization" and "efficiency" encroaching more and more into the traditional cultures. but there is a simple notion: better "primitive" forces of production employed to satisfy the most basic needs--and beyond--of the many than supposed "developed" forces of production owned/controlled by a few and employed to satisfy myriad wants--often very sick wants-- of the few at the expense of the basic needs and wants and even lives of the many. The real "savages" are all wearing uniforms and three-piece suits and acting oh so "civilized" and "efficient". Jim C. James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion*
[PEN-L:11918] Re: Jubilee 2000 critique -- worm's eye view
At 13:28 28/09/99 -0400, Robert Naiman wrote: One element I would add to the J2000 critique, which folks in the South are only starting to get an inkling of. And that's how totally co-opted, unaccountable, and deceitful some of the Northern NGOs are. One can say that the call of debt cancellation for the 52 poorest countries does not go far enough. But I think that it is a bigger scandal that some of the most influential groups in the Northern campaigns, especially Oxfam UK, Oxfam International, Oxfam US, Catholic Relief Services, Bread [Crumbs] for the World, Presbyterian Church USA, etc. don't actually support what they claim to support. In other words, if these groups acted as if they really supported debt cancellation for the poorest countries, it would be a huge step forward. But they don't. They support structural adjustment, and keeping structural adjustment conditionality on debt relief, which means not cancelling it but preserving the existing IMF/WB/HIPC system of drawing it out to keep these nations in chains. It seems to me that if this is practically one's position, then whether one supports debt "relief" for 52 countries or 100 is an academic point by comparison. I was at a public meeting in the last few days where Kevin Watkins of Oxfam UK was going on and on about how great the IMF's new commitment to poverty reduction is and we all need to support this. At least he's somewhat honest about what he believes. Many of the others are totally dishonest, pretending they are totally against the IMF when Southerners are around when in fact these groups vigorously support conditionality, even if the IMF is in charge. Oxfam goes so far as to buy up NGOs in the South and then claim to represent the South based on statements from NGOs that get money from Oxfam. Kevin Watkins is a well-informed researcher and a shrewd campaigner. Robert Naiman should produce a fuller presentation of Kevin Watkins's views to support his claim. Kevin Watkins may see some tactical openings in recent IMF presentations but it would be surprising if he did not urge scepticism and demand proof of the protested good intentions which even a body like the IMF must clothe itself in. While I could not access certain key articles on the Oxfam Web site this evening, this blurb about a book in which Oxfam specifically condemns Structural Adjustment Programmes, despite Robert Naiman's claim of organisations like Oxfam that "They support structural adjustment" "If the International Monetary Fund were a drug, it would have been banned long ago." The fact is, says Oxfam, that with its Structural Adjustment Programmes the Fund stops children going to school. Image: The IMF's bitter medicine ©Oxfam International. Published by Oxfam Great Britain One fact that US subscribers may not know is that the previous Conservative governments required the UK Charity Commissioners to come down heavily on anything that might be interpreted as political campaigning. This was particularly so during the mass campaigning against apartheid. This may still inhibit some of the ways they present the material. Over 10 years ago Oxfam spawned a non-charitable campaigning group, the World Development Movement. Here is a piece from the WDM website linking agitational material about the AIDS epidemic with political campaigning specifically against Structural Adjustment Programmes. Debt relief policies could be fuelling African AIDS epidemic, warns new report As the 11th International Conference on AIDS in Africa opens in Zambia today (Monday), campaign groups warn that the conditions attached to debt relief may be fanning the flames of the Third World AIDS pandemic. The economic reform policies which poor countries must complete as a condition of debt relief (Structural Adjustment Programmes or SAPs) - are hurting, not working, according to a report published today by the World Development Movement and Medact. Deadly Conditions? examines the relationship between debt relief policies and HIV/AIDS. By pushing people even deeper into poverty, SAPs are helping to create conditions where the scourge of HIV/AIDS can flourish, says the report. Knock-on effects of SAPs can include cuts to health budgets and hospital staffing levels, increased unemployment leading to higher levels of urban migration and prostitution and the introduction of user fees for health care - all of which could be contributing to the spread of HIV and AIDS. An estimated 34 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have been infected with HIV since the start of the epidemic. A devastating seventy per cent of the world's newly infected sufferers live in Africa. This has severe implications for Africa's
[PEN-L:11916] Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 04:54 PM 9/28/99 -0400, James Blaut wrote: As of this minute I'm ceasing to respond to your s... stuff, just as I decided some time ago to ignore Duchesne (on H-world and wsn), who at least is civil. As if you responded to my questions previously. wojtek
[PEN-L:11915] Re: Re: Re: white hope?
Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 05:34PM
At 04:55 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
The main racism among black petit bourgeoisie ( there are no black big
bourgeoisie) is among black Reaganites like Clarence Thomas who are
anti-black racists. including their espousal of the concepts you put on
this post. There is not such thing as black anti-white racism, but
prejudice. The notion of Black racism against whites, and that it is
growing , is a main stay of racist ideology 1999 (and that is a scientific
statement).
Charles, the 1999-style racism is much subtler than the crude white/black
kkk variety which your language implies. Its function is much different too.
(((
Charles: The Reaganite racism I describe is definitely different than Jim Crow , open
white supremacy. It is a pretense that whites are not racist , a denial of racism, and
a further effort to claim that Blacks are more racists than whites in 1999. It is not
that subtle to Black people, but it is different. The defeat of open white supremacy
by the Civil Rights movement left the bourgeoisie with no choice but to develop the
new twisted form.
It's function is essentially the same: Divide the working class and forestall
socialist revolution.
(99
It is not crude anti-black (or anti-white) racism anymore - but race based
identity politics. The "enemy" is no longer simply a concrete person of a
different skin color but a racialized bogy man, a non-descript abstract
identity hinting some undesirable traits associated with 'races', such as
the 'criminal' the 'welfare mother' the 'racist' the 'neo-nazi' the
'anti-semite/holocaust denier' etc.
Charles: Now this is academic, intellectual bullshit of the type you always claim to
criticize.
(
The main idea is to produce race-based identity that can be manipulated for
political purposes. As we all know, an outside threat generally boosts
solidarity and thus can be manipulated to create such an identity. So the
trick is to manufacture a sense of outside threat without offending too
many people. Abstract identities with racial innuendos but not explicitly
identifying real persons do that trick rather well. That is what I mean by
playing a 'race card' - a politician or moral entrepreneur erecting such
'racialized' bogy men not to direct frustration at a scapegoat ('lynching
mob' racism) but to reinforce sense of racial identity and manipulate it to
its own polical goals.
(
Charles: Race-based identity is a product of the capitalist mode of production and
history, not concocoted by anti-racists.
((9
CB
(
Bell used that quite extensively (e.g. one of his trick was distributing a
manufactured Aryan Brotherhood pamphlet endorsing O'Malley), but to his
detriment - he started as the forerunner but could manage to get only 17%
of the votes.
Another point. If I were to allocate the sources of bigotry, I'd say that
about 50% of it originates in the machinations of politicians and moral
entrepreneurs, perhaps 40% originates in negative personal experiences
involving a member of another ethnicity or culture which most people
erroneously attribute to the personal traits rather than different
expectations, norms of behavior, type of interaction etc. (it is a well
know psychological mispereception), and only about 10% in more-or-less
bigoted attitudes and beliefs.
wojtek
[PEN-L:11912] Re: Re: Re: white hope?
At 04:55 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
The main racism among black petit bourgeoisie ( there are no black big
bourgeoisie) is among black Reaganites like Clarence Thomas who are
anti-black racists. including their espousal of the concepts you put on
this post. There is not such thing as black anti-white racism, but
prejudice. The notion of Black racism against whites, and that it is
growing , is a main stay of racist ideology 1999 (and that is a scientific
statement).
Charles, the 1999-style racism is much subtler than the crude white/black
kkk variety which your language implies. Its function is much different too.
It is not crude anti-black (or anti-white) racism anymore - but race based
identity politics. The "enemy" is no longer simply a concrete person of a
different skin color but a racialized bogy man, a non-descript abstract
identity hinting some undesirable traits associated with 'races', such as
the 'criminal' the 'welfare mother' the 'racist' the 'neo-nazi' the
'anti-semite/holocaust denier' etc.
The main idea is to produce race-based identity that can be manipulated for
political purposes. As we all know, an outside threat generally boosts
solidarity and thus can be manipulated to create such an identity. So the
trick is to manufacture a sense of outside threat without offending too
many people. Abstract identities with racial innuendos but not explicitly
identifying real persons do that trick rather well. That is what I mean by
playing a 'race card' - a politician or moral entrepreneur erecting such
'racialized' bogy men not to direct frustration at a scapegoat ('lynching
mob' racism) but to reinforce sense of racial identity and manipulate it to
its own polical goals.
Bell used that quite extensively (e.g. one of his trick was distributing a
manufactured Aryan Brotherhood pamphlet endorsing O'Malley), but to his
detriment - he started as the forerunner but could manage to get only 17%
of the votes.
Another point. If I were to allocate the sources of bigotry, I'd say that
about 50% of it originates in the machinations of politicians and moral
entrepreneurs, perhaps 40% originates in negative personal experiences
involving a member of another ethnicity or culture which most people
erroneously attribute to the personal traits rather than different
expectations, norms of behavior, type of interaction etc. (it is a well
know psychological mispereception), and only about 10% in more-or-less
bigoted attitudes and beliefs.
wojtek
[PEN-L:11910] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion* -Original Message- From: Wojtek Sokolowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11894] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek) At 11:29 AM 9/28/99 -0700, Jim Craven wrote: We also note how the concepts of "efficiency" are tied-in with central "axioms" of NC theory including the shit about "normative" versus "positive" e.g max output of what?/input and we note how much of the concepts of efficiency are tautological i.e. efficiency defined under capitalism leads to the tautology that capitalism best achieves "efficiency" when the system provides definitions of "efficiency" that are mere descriptions of what capitalism does: capitalism produces/reproduces capitalism. We also talk about time horizons and narrow parameters concepts of efficiency and also short-run maximization versus long-run contradicitions and destabilizations. Jim, I agree that the nc concept of efficience is highly problematic on both empirical and ethical grounds. However I used that term in a nontechnical way, meaning that capitalist economy is capable of producing more than its predecessors. That is an obvious fact and there is no point denying it. The problem is not with the volume of capitalist output but with its upwardly skewed distribution. If the actual producers of wealth could participate in the consumption of what they have produced in proportion to their contribution to the production process rather than their class or social status - there would be no problem with capitalist efficiency. wojtek Wojtek, I think there is more involved here. For example, although Marx praised the development of productive forces under capitalism relative to other previous modes of production, and although Marx noted that capitalist imperatives--accumulation of capital = f(maximization/realization of total profits) = f (effective competition) = f ( maximization of productivity) = f (accumulation of capital)= f...--lead to total cost/input minimization per $value of output/quantity of output, and although these represent economic and technological "eficiency" in NC terms, Marx also talked about Alienation (so did Adam Smith in connection with discussions on the Division of Labor), surplus realization crises, crises in lost skills/contributions from chronic and necessary unemployment, unproductive versus productive labor, costs/waste/consequences of surplus value extraction/appropriation, costs/waste/consequences of State hegemony to serve capitalist interests and "keep the rabble in line", etc. NC theory defines "efficiency" as part of the overall contrived syllogisms, ideology and tautologies central to the overall theoretical eidfice of neoclassicism. For example, the definition of minimizing input or cost per unit of output, without being able to question the nature of the output being produced--pet rocks versus dialysis machines--on the assumption of perfect rationality and consumers would never demand what they don't want, and on the assumption that all exchanges MUST be mutually beneficial otherwise they would not occur, leads nicely and in contrived and tautological ways, to the notion that capitalism = efficiency; efficiency is defined in terms of what capitalist imperatives demand and therefore capitalism = efficiency. So if a system machines of death, dope, cigarettes, fad items etc under conditions and imperatives that demand progressive unit cost/input minimization relative to $values/quantities of output, this can be seen as "efficiency" only in the crudest, most narrow, most short-term sense of a very limitied and even contrived definition of "efficiency". Even in capitalist terms, resources going to war machines are not going somewhere else for other purposes--there are opportunity costs. We however, under NC theory cannot evaluate true opportunity costs and the full spectrum of possible missed opportunities because under capitalism and NC theory, it doesn't matter about wants and needs of everyday people only "effective" demand, or where the purchasing power is among those able/willing to buy. Further, when time horizons are widened and future direct and opportunity costs are calculated if possible, even in strict NC terms the calculus of "efficiency", optimality, economy etc leads to different conclusions. But capitalism is necessarily short-run and myopic--under the banner that to get to the long-run, the capitalist must "survive and effectively compete and accumulate" in the many "short-runs". So when we get to the level of analyzing what is being produced and distributed and the probable social consequences (and even consequences on individuals purchasing) of that which is being produced,
[PEN-L:11909] Re: Re: progress
On progress: It may just be that different meanings of the words "progress," "hope," and "faith" are in play here but I really fear that matters are a lot more disturbing than that. If someone merely "hopes" for a better world and considers it a "possibility," it may well be that this person isn't involved in any way in any struggle for a better world. There are a lot of marxissant academics around who can quote Capital chapter and verse, earn a healthy income, and delight in debating abstruuse idea of Marx or Hilferding just because it is fun to do so. If asked, they would probably say, "Oh, of course socialism is a POSSIBILITY, and I HOPE we'll get it some day, but don't bother me -- I'm too busy discussing the organic composition of capital and the fascinating AMP. Marx would not have devoted his life to the struggle for socialism if he had just "hoped" that it would come some day. He wrote a corpus designed to show how to get it and to show that it is almost certain that we will get it. That ain't "hope" in some vague "possibility." And quite a few people have fought and died to bring socialism into existence-- not just a "hope" for a "possibility." And some of those folks were intellectuals, social theorists, like you and me -- Rodney, Cabral, Trotsky. Gramsci, Nkrukmah... Is it a "faith?" Of course it is a faith! Is it an "ideal?" Of course! Who is so stupid as to think that we scientists are value-free, above it all, neutral, etc? If you don';t do Marxism because you think you're helping to bring a better world into existence, then why are you doing it? If you answer "because I'm interestedd in this or that and nobody has yet done this or that," I have to answer: who is paying you to inquire into this or that? Or is it that you have lots of liesure time to inquire into this and that because your're not just a working stiff like the rest of us? A Marxist scientist is like a medical scintist. Both are studying interesting things not becaus they're interesting but because one hopes to improve people's lives by doing this work. Capitalism, after all, is a disease. When a progressive comrade, a revolutionary, tries to intellectually force the Marxist concept of social evolution into a genus of "evolutionary" theories, Darwinism, "modernism," etc., it depresses me no end. What are we after, a metatheory of evolutionary theories? Something that will domesticate Marxism into just another theory for academics to play with? Finally, I have written a lot and read a lot about theories of progress and non-progress and I'm certain that all of them are in one way oe another ideological. Weber's evolutionism (probably also Darwin's) was Whiggish but no less ideological for being so. Cultural evolutionists like Leslie White were evolutionists because they were socialists, like you and me. When social scientists theorize that progress and evolution are just disconfirmable theories, they're usually trying to uphold the status quo: no change is just as intellectually supportable as change. Of course, as they say in Kansas, evolution is just a theory. We Marxists believe in progrss because we wouldn't waste our time and energy, and would not go out and take life risks, or career risks,if we didn't have a faith in progress toward socialism. So don't nobody try to tell this old warhorse that Marxists do not believe in social evolution. Jim Blaut
[PEN-L:11908] Re: Re
Doug says: Charles Brown wrote: England and Holland had both colonial systems and free labor , and so they were able to capitalistically accumulate the colonial treasures of Spain and Portugal when the later were not able to because they did not establish free labor. Sounds right to me. What's wrong with that, Jim Blaut? Doug Whats wrong with that is that its factually incorrect. There was no slave labor in Spain and Portugal, no more than there was in Holland and England. And England and Holland didn't have colonial systems until the Portuguese and spanish systems had gone into serious decline -- 1600. And Doug: I'm getting bored by your one-liners, always asking a coy question that I've answered two or three time already in posts that you didn't bother to read. The result is that you're not conversing, you're just quipping. Jim B
[PEN-L:11907] Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Wojtek: "those third world dummies" "Eurocentrrism is a straw man" That says it all. As of this minute I'm ceasing to respond to your s... stuff, just as I decided some time ago to ignore Duchesne (on H-world and wsn), who at least is civil. Jim Blaut
[PEN-L:11906] Re: Re: white hope?
Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 04:37PM At 03:42 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Charles B. wrote: Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 03:10PM The police endorsed Bell (the current president of city council) as the top law and order guy who btw shamelessly played the race card. The church leaders endorsed Stokes who promised them a greater role in service provision and privatisation of some city services. ((( Charles: The whole concept of "playing the race card" and the ideology attached to it is racist. Wojtek: I agree, it's a case of the growing phenomenon of black racism. ( Charles: The growth in "black racism" is in the form of Clarence Thomas types: Blacks who are critical of other blacks "playing the race card." and that sort of thing, Blacks who are against affirmative action. Your notion of the growth of black socalled racism as "blacks who are racist against whites " is another racist concept. As comes clear in this exchange, you have a significantly racist analysis of U.S. politics. Definite Reaganite racism. This fits your racist analysis of the history of capitalism (( Wojtek As I see it, it the effect of black embourgeoisment. Black politicians and moral entreperneurs use in essentially the same way as white politicians and moral entrepreneurs do - as a claim to attract supporters and followers, sell their intellectual commodity (books, lectures, etc.), attain celeberity status, etc. Sad but true testimony of the entrapments of the commodified US politics. Charles: This way you see things originated and was popularized with the rise of Reaganite racism. Your racism is quite up to date and current, but your views on the history of capitalism give it a long pedigree too. The main racism among black petit bourgeoisie ( there are no black big bourgeoisie) is among black Reaganites like Clarence Thomas who are anti-black racists. including their espousal of the concepts you put on this post. There is not such thing as black anti-white racism, but prejudice. The notion of Black racism against whites, and that it is growing , is a main stay of racist ideology 1999 (and that is a scientific statement). CB
[PEN-L:11902] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Louis Proyect wrote: Sweezy argues that capitalism produces stagnation in the third world, which is its "normal" state. No. You had better reread *Monopoly Capital* as well as the various collections of the essays of Magdoff and Sweezy. Sweezy argues that monopoly capitalism produces stagnation --PERIOD. This doesn't necessarily negate your general argument but does require that it be restated. Also, you need to be careful when talking about whether capitalism is or isn't "dynamic." The Marxian point, I take it, is that capitalism must grow or die. "Stagnation" and "dynamism" are terms used for spin purposes. Continuity if you like it is "stable," if you dislike it, "stagnant." Change if you like it is "dynamic," if you dislike it, "chaotic." The phrase "anarchy of production" refers to the unavoidable and perhaps self-destructive dynamism of capitalism. Don't you remember during the great debates with Heartfield over energy, environment, etc. how willing, nay anxious, you were to accept the Wood (Brenner) argument that it was *only* capitalism in which there was an inherent tendency of the productive forces to grow -- and that this was more a weakness than a strength of capitalism, or at least had become so. It was from the beginning the source of the utter savagery of capitalism. Carrol
[PEN-L:11900] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was:wojtek)
Wojtek writes: Jim [C.], I agree that the nc concept of efficience is highly problematic on both empirical and ethical grounds. However I used that term in a nontechnical way, meaning that capitalist economy is capable of producing more than its predecessors. That is an obvious fact and there is no point denying it. The problem is not with the volume of capitalist output but with its upwardly skewed distribution. also, the "efficiency" is at the expense of the natural environment, which threatens to undermine the natural basis for capitalism itself, while producing so "efficiently" almost always involves authoritarian boss/employee work relations. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11899] Re: Slavery/Colonies/Industry
And by the way, the age of Marx's work places him closer to the relevant "primary documents" (so important to historians)than the modern historians. CB "Michael Hoover" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 03:57PM I haven't followed recent colonialism threads too closely, largely because they began while I was away and had very limited computer access and time. The sheer volume of e-mail I found upon my return would have been impossible to read. Perhaps I'll find some time to check out pen-l archives. In any event, apologies if below has already been posted and discussed. Michael Hoover 'Direct slavery is as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the pre-condition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.' (Karl Marx, _The Poverty of Philosophy_, 1847)
[PEN-L:11897] Slavery/Colonies/Industry
I haven't followed recent colonialism threads too closely, largely because they began while I was away and had very limited computer access and time. The sheer volume of e-mail I found upon my return would have been impossible to read. Perhaps I'll find some time to check out pen-l archives. In any event, apologies if below has already been posted and discussed. Michael Hoover 'Direct slavery is as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the pre-condition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.' (Karl Marx, _The Poverty of Philosophy_, 1847)
[PEN-L:11896] Re: white hope?
Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 03:10PM The police endorsed Bell (the current president of city council) as the top law and order guy who btw shamelessly played the race card. The church leaders endorsed Stokes who promised them a greater role in service provision and privatisation of some city services. ((( Charles: The whole concept of "playing the race card" and the ideology attached to it is racist. CB
[PEN-L:11894] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 11:29 AM 9/28/99 -0700, Jim Craven wrote: We also note how the concepts of "efficiency" are tied-in with central "axioms" of NC theory including the shit about "normative" versus "positive" e.g max output of what?/input and we note how much of the concepts of efficiency are tautological i.e. efficiency defined under capitalism leads to the tautology that capitalism best achieves "efficiency" when the system provides definitions of "efficiency" that are mere descriptions of what capitalism does: capitalism produces/reproduces capitalism. We also talk about time horizons and narrow parameters concepts of efficiency and also short-run maximization versus long-run contradicitions and destabilizations. Jim, I agree that the nc concept of efficience is highly problematic on both empirical and ethical grounds. However I used that term in a nontechnical way, meaning that capitalist economy is capable of producing more than its predecessors. That is an obvious fact and there is no point denying it. The problem is not with the volume of capitalist output but with its upwardly skewed distribution. If the actual producers of wealth could participate in the consumption of what they have produced in proportion to their contribution to the production process rather than their class or social status - there would be no problem with capitalist efficiency. wojtek
[PEN-L:11893] Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 02:13PM At 01:23 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote: I think the issue here is Wojtek's claim that capitalism is "more efficient". Because the capitalist mode of --snip Charles, capitalism *is* efficient (thanks to its superior technology and organization) to the point it can afford conspicuous waste and survive - which no other form of economic organization could. ((( Charles: "Efficiency" must be defined in terms of cost/benefit relation. If capitalism produces as much waste and destruction as production, there is not a high efficiency ratiio. The survival of capitalism does not prove its efficiency. Capitalism has survived for about 400 years. Hunting and gathering survived for about 2 milllion years. Slavery survived for thousands of years. Therefore, capitalism by that survival measure is less "efficient. Wojtek:It is an obvious fact - there's no point denying it. Charles: This demonstrates the epistemological point about facts not being anything independent of theory. Your theory of "efficiency" generates false "obvious facts." ((( Wojtek: Capitalist economic superiority was the main point Marx tried to make vis a vis utopian/moralistic socialists. ( Charles: Marx does not say capitalism is more "efficient". It has more powerful forces of production. Your constant criticism of utopianism/moralism is off the mark with me. It is a scientific and empirical fact that capitalism's mode of destruction is as big as its mode of production. Marx does not speak on the issue of the status of capitalism if it doesn't turn into socialism, which is is not doing now. That poses the possibility of barbarism resulting , which would make capitalism's powerful productivity somewhat analagous to the power "productivity "of cancer cells. Bigger is not necessarily more efficient. For another natural analogy , take the dinosaurs' extinction. They were bigger for many more years than capitalism has been bigger. ((( His criticism of capitalism was not about the efficiency or even destruction of pre-capitalist societies and institutions - but about the distribution of surplus. So the point is not to explain the history of capitalist development differently, but to change its fundamental flaw - skewed distribution. That is what makes Marx's view *progressive* looking to the future - as opposed to sentimental defences of pre-capitalist rural idylla which makes much of today's left a *reactionary* force, defending the past. ((( Charles: Lack of distribution is an inefficiency. If capitalism ends in barbarism or annihilation of the human species, then previous modes of production will have been more efficient. The historic status of capitalism' s efficiency has not been settled until it does or does not turn into communism. Charles Brown
[PEN-L:11892] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Part of the problem here involves the nature of the internet. Many of us like to make what we think are amusing sarcastic remarks. If we were in a room face to face with those we were addressing they could see our grin or smirk or sneer or raised eyebrows, or other body language, not to mention that all crucial tone of voice, that would indicate, "ah ha, this self-mocking sarcasm," or whatever. But we are not. Lots of people read what they see literally and are much more ready to take offense at something that is not to be offensive. We all need to be aware of this. I am personally aware of this with regard to Henry Liu who took offense when I said that it was "silly" to think that the US government had intentionally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The guy took it personally and has refused to communicate with me ever since, much to my regret, which I have expressed to him without any luck. (BTW, I read in Parade magazine of all places that one reason for continuing suspicion among the Chinese is that the bomb hit the portion of the embassy where the intelligence section was located, knocking out the whole Chinese operation throughout much of Eastern Europe and even the Middle East, hm). Anyway, the bottom line is that we cannot presume that people will catch our "jokes" and must presume that lots of people will read what we write very literally and take it very personally. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:17 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11864] units of analysis (was: wojtek) Not only is "dummies" pretty mild, but I read Wojtek as using the word in the specific way of saying "if you take the Blaut perspective seriously one can lambaste the third-world as being inhabited by dummies." It is mild to you, but--trust me--to an Argentinian or Brazilian leftist it would be highly insulting, in or out of context. Part of the problem with PEN-L is that there is not a single regular poster from a legitimate colonized country. And the last time somebody who even had a marginal connection to such a country--Henry Liu--was here, he resigned in protest over what he regarded as naked racism. Now I know that most people here are glad that he is gone with his constant rejoinders, but I can assure you that anybody from Jamaica, Brazil, Uganda or the Philippines who showed up might have similar reactions, but would not be so vocal in their objections. I don't believe words can be ripped out of context, the way some people want to ban HUCK FINN because of its use of the n-word. It's not a matter of putting a spin on anything. The context is Wojtek's hatred for "third worldism" in general, which was articulated a couple of weeks ago in his excitement over the prospects for a law and order "white hope" Mayoral candidate in Baltimore. BTW, I don't understand your attack on Wojtek as a "professor." Are professors always wrong? My problem with Wojtek is that he acting unprofessorial. I try to imagine how language like "third world dummies" would go over here at Columbia in a room with Gayatri Spivak, Manning Marable and Edward Said in attendance. Even uttered in a "sarcastic" fashion, it would earn the speaker nothing but opprobrium. I guess the standards on PEN-L are a lot more lax. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11891] white hope?
At 01:16 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Louis P. wrote: The context is Wojtek's hatred for "third worldism" in general, which was articulated a couple of weeks ago in his excitement over the prospects for a law and order "white hope" Mayoral candidate in Baltimore. White hope? So how come that he got more (about 30%) black votes than two other leading black candidates Bell and Stokes who received 17% and 26% respectively. As i hear, it is the poor blacks who are most excited about the change of guard - they are tired Schmoke paying a lip service to 'black' issues while stuffing the pockets of his proteges and mignons. The alleged 'white hope' was the only candidate who promised not to privatize city services (a major employer of blacks in B'more) and fire top city bureaucrats the chief of police, the director of public works and the director of public housing (all white males) tainted with corruption. Ok, he did not get endorsed by church leaders, but that's a plus, no? The police endorsed Bell (the current president of city council) as the top law and order guy who btw shamelessly played the race card. The church leaders endorsed Stokes who promised them a greater role in service provision and privatisation of some city services. I think people grew smart enough to see through those paying a lip service to "racial concerns" - which was the point I tried to make about the election. wojtek
[PEN-L:11890] taking stock
Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 01:21PM At 11:56 AM 9/28/99 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Charles Brown wrote: England and Holland had both colonial systems and free labor , and so they were able to capitalistically accumulate the colonial treasures of Spain and Portugal when the later were not able to because they did not establish free labor. Sounds right to me. What's wrong with that, Jim Blaut? I'm not Jim Blaut, but I see a problem. We need to know why Spain or Portugal did not establish free labor while England and Holland did. That brings us back to the crucial importance of internal institutional factors. Charles: It is not a "problem" in the sense that it gives an answer to critical and central questions on this thread. One can always ask another "why" of any answer. And there is nothing wrong with pursuing the question Wojtek poses. I would refer to socio-historical or cultural factors, which Wojtek seems to label "institutional". If he means by "institutional" "socio-historical" and "cultural", then I agree. To see why England and Holland discovered wage-labor when Spain and Portugal didn't is an appropriate research. Note I would emphasize this relations of production discovery over technological discovery, trying to avoid technological determinism or "vulgar" materialism. The main "internal" innovation leading to capitalism was wage-labor (not my idea, but Marx's). The main "external" innovation leading to capitalism was a larger colonial system than ever seen before. The latter may be a quantitative innovation and not be a qualitative innovation as wage-labor was. Did any previous colonialism have settler colonial populations as prominent as the European ones especially in the Western Hemisphere ? Perhaps this is a qualitative innovation of European capitalist colonialism. Charles Brown
[PEN-L:11886] Explanation vs. Paraphrase (Marx, Pov. of Phil)
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: I'm not Jim Blaut, but I see a problem. We need to know why Spain or Portugal did not establish free labor while England and Holland did. That brings us back to the crucial importance of internal institutional factors. I think part of the problem in this whole debate is distinguishing explanations which in fact only name what is to be explained and explanations that do explain historically. The following passage from the *Poverty of Philosophy* seems to me central to understanding (and practicing) historical materialism: -- Thus *Providence* is the locomotive which makes the whole of M. Proudhon's economic baggage move better than his pure and volatilised reason. He has devoted to Providence a whole chapter, which follows the one on taxes. Providence, providential aim, this is the great word used today to explain the movement of history. In fact, this word explains nothing. It is at most a rhetorical form, one of the various ways of paraphrasing facts. It is a fact that in Scotland landed property acquired a new value by the development of English industry. This industry opened up new outlets for wool. In order to produce wool on a large scale, arable land had to be transformed into pasturage. To effect this transformation, the estates had to be concentrated. To concentrate the estates, small holdings had first to be abolished, thousands of tenants had to be driven from their native soil and a few shepherds in charge of millions of sheep to be installed in their place. Thus, by successive transformations, landed property in Scotland has resulted in the driving out of men by sheep. Now say that the providential aim of the institution of landed property in Scotland was to have men driven out by sheep, and you will have made providential history. Of course, the tendency towards equality belongs to our century. To say now that all former centuries, with entirely different needs, means of production, etc., worked providentially for the realisation of equality is, firstly, to substitute the means and the men of our century for the men and the means of earlier centuries and to misunderstand the historical movement by which the successive generations transformed the results acquired by the generations that preceded them. Economists know very well that the very thing that was for the one a finished product was for the other but the raw material for new production. Suppose, as M. Proudhon does, tht social genius produced, or rather improvised, the feudal lords with the providential aim of transforming the *settlers* into *responsible* and *equally-placed* workers: and you will have effected a substitution of aims and of persons worthy of the Providence that instituted landed property in Scotland, in order to give itself the malicious pleasure of driving out men by sheep. But since M. Proudhon takes such a tender interest in Providence, we refer him to the *Histoire de l'economie politique* of M. de Villenneuve-Bargemont, who likewise goes in pursuit of a providential aim. This aim, however, is not equality, but catholicism. *Pov. Phil* (Moscow, 1973), pp. 104-105 - One may note that in my recent posts on "Progress" (don't ignore that upper case P) one could easily substitute Providence for Progress. Progress (the Idea of Progress) is the secular equivalent to Providence in 19th c. bourgeois thought. One may find a bourgeois idealist critique of this bourgeois idealist conception in Charles Dickens, *Dombey and Son*, *Our Mutual Friend*, *Bleak House*, and *Hard Times*. The habit of taking some paraphrase of the facts and turning it into an explanation of the facts is a hard one to break, and we are all almost certainly often guilty of it. Social Darwinism (based on an equation of change with desirable change) is based on a whole series of such mistakes. And of course the WSJ editorial use of "progressive" makes the same equation. It is progressive to drive people from the welfare rolls. Market efficiency seems to be a similar tautology. Efficiency is the name one gives to whatever results from market exchange. It seems to me that "Eurocentrism" is an example of treating a label that paraphrases the facts as a *cause* or explanation of the facts. Carrol
[PEN-L:11884] Re: Re: Re: taking stock
Jim B., I have not said it my latest message, but I agree that the sugar trade was important. The issue about Holland and England goes to the question asked by Doug Henwood. Why was it that the gold and silver ended up in Holland and England? The alternative hypothesis would be that they got the gold and silver because they were in the lead in developing capitalist institutions and relations and were better positioned to take advantage of it. The further argument would be that they did not need the gold and silver to develop capitalism, even if it helped some, but would have done so anyway, perhaps the core Eurocentric, especially Anglo-centric, argument. To repeat, I do think that they gained substantially from the colonization of the Americas. But I am a lot more inclined to accept the significance of the sugar and cotton trades than I am to the bullion flows. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: James M. Blaut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 8:00 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11811] Re: Re: taking stock Barkley: Silver and (less importantly) gold were only significant in the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th. Slave-produced sugar wasa much more important in the 17th century. The importance of Portuguese trading activcities in Asia has been romanticized and inflated: the accumulatioin in America was much more important until the real, solid colonial conqueests in Asia of the 18th century (Diutch East Indies, India). I don't understand what problem you have with my explanation of the fact that Spain and Portugal were not the beneficiaries of the colonial accumulation but Holland and England were...?? Cheers Jim B
[PEN-L:11883] RE: Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
In my classes, I always ask, quoting several textbooks that argue that "efficiency" (doing more with less) is always good, is "efficiency" always "good". We review the various forms of "efficiency": techological (max output/input or min input/output); economic (minimum $Total Cost/$ value of output); productive (cannot increase Qx without necessarily decreasing Qy); consumer (cannot reallocate expenditures and increase total utility); exchange (P = MSC = MSB) and of course "allocative" ( no person can be made better off without necessarily making someone else worse off). We also note how the concepts of "efficiency" are tied-in with central "axioms" of NC theory including the shit about "normative" versus "positive" e.g max output of what?/input and we note how much of the concepts of efficiency are tautological i.e. efficiency defined under capitalism leads to the tautology that capitalism best achieves "efficiency" when the system provides definitions of "efficiency" that are mere descriptions of what capitalism does: capitalism produces/reproduces capitalism. We also talk about time horizons and narrow parameters concepts of efficiency and also short-run maximization versus long-run contradicitions and destabilizations. Then I hit them with a copy of an SS document that Michael P has a copy of and that I have sent to others showing the accounting and "efficiency" of Auschwitz. If you love capitalist concepts of "efficiency", they were quite "efficient" in technological (max output/input) and economic (min $Total costs per death) senses. More "efficiency" at Auschwitz meant inexorably simply more genocide per RM of expenditure or per machinery of genocide input. Jim C. James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion* -Original Message- From: Wojtek Sokolowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11878] Re: RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek) At 01:23 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote: I think the issue here is Wojtek's claim that capitalism is "more efficient". Because the capitalist mode of --snip Charles, capitalism *is* efficient (thanks to its superior technology and organization) to the point it can afford conspicuous waste and survive - which no other form of economic organization could. It is an obvious fact - there's no point denying it. Capitalist economic superiority was the main point Marx tried to make vis a vis utopian/moralistic socialists. His criticism of capitalism was not about the efficiency or even destruction of pre-capitalist societies and institutions - but about the distribution of surplus. So the point is not to explain the history of capitalist development differently, but to change its fundamental flaw - skewed distribution. That is what makes Marx's view *progressive* looking to the future - as opposed to sentimental defences of pre-capitalist rural idylla which makes much of today's left a *reactionary* force, defending the past. wojtek
[PEN-L:11881] Re: Re: Re: Re: Free labor as a preconditionforcapital
Wojtek would probably see "kulturkampf waged by intellectuals in the symbolic realm of blame and guilt", etc. in Marx and Engels' references to the bourgeosification of English workers and Lenin's categories of labor lieutenants of capital and labor aristorcracy as the result of superexploitation of the colonies in imperialism. However, I find Marx, Engels and Lenin to be more pro-Euro-American workers than Wojtek. They knew that honest criticism/self-criticism was necessary to the victory of proletarian internationalism. It is not pandering to working class opportunism that is in the ultimate interests of the Euro-American workers in the dispute on this thread. Opportunism has been the main failing of the U.S. and Western European working classes. Failure to combat this opportunism is anti-working class. Charles Brown Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 11:43AM At 11:10 PM 9/27/99 -0700, Max S. wrote: To me any negative connotation to "Third worldism" does not stem from any interest in discounting any Third World struggle in the slightest. Max, I am totally with you on that, I do not think third worldism is about political struggle, abroad or here - it is a kulturkampf waged by intellectuals in the symbolic realm of blame and guilt. It has the signs of a religious guilt trip cum denying the obvious to claim a moral victory written all over it. It has no implications whatsoever on the political struggle, except perhaps alienating American and European workers by asking them to accept their collective guilt before they can be admited to a 12-step program of the third world revolution. wojtek
[PEN-L:11880] Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 11:5 You do good sarcasm, Louis. And I reckon you know it when you see it. So 'fess up, and lay off with that 'racist' stuff. ((( Charles: "Racism" and "racist" are scientific ,not personal insult, categories. The effort to exclude the use of "racist" from discourse on these lists is unscientific. To exclude use of "racist" in analyzing capitalism is a racist and unscientific error. Racism is a defining characteristic of the capitalist mode of production equal with "wage-labor" in defining it. Capitalism cannot be analyzed correctly without reference to the institution of racism. Charles Brown
[PEN-L:11877] Re: Re: Re: progress
Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 11:35AM And we might take care to try to avoid 'barbarism-as-'socialism'', too. I reckon we've had some of that during the course of this century (and, yes, Chas, we've also endured 'barbarism as 'liberal democracy''), and we have to find a way ruthlessly to criticise 'our' side of the fence without the flames of wrath scorching the participants. 999 Charles: Not only that Rob, but isn't pretty clear that the worst barbarism of all times has been that perpetrated by capitalism , that is paleo and neo liberalism in its colonialism, slavery and WWI and WWII ? The original capitalism was liberalism, laissez-faire and all that. I mean just on body counts. The dialectical opposite of capitalism as the most powerful productive mode of which we have evidence in human history is its most powerful destructive mode in human history , no ? Charles Brown
[PEN-L:11879] a modest proposal
Let's have one-week moratorium on the terms "third worldism" and "Eurocentrism." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11875] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free labor as a precondition forcapital
What is one to say to this? This is so disheartening. -Original Message- From: Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 10:42 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11843] Re: Re: Re: Re: "Free labor" as a precondition forcapital At 11:10 PM 9/27/99 -0700, Max S. wrote: To me any negative connotation to "Third worldism" does not stem from any interest in discounting any Third World struggle in the slightest. Max, I am totally with you on that, I do not think third worldism is about political struggle, abroad or here - it is a kulturkampf waged by intellectuals in the symbolic realm of blame and guilt. It has the signs of a religious guilt trip cum denying the obvious to claim a moral victory written all over it. It has no implications whatsoever on the political struggle, except perhaps alienating American and European workers by asking them to accept their collective guilt before they can be admited to a 12-step program of the third world revolution. wojtek
[PEN-L:11876] Re: Re: Re: Re: Free labor as a precondition for capital
Max writes: My concern is that support for TW struggles is *sometimes* associated with pissing all over progressive struggles in the U.S. of A. pertaining to the interests of the U.S. working class. 1. Max, could you please give me an example--a few would be better, but I'll take one--that fits this description? 2. You say "is sometimes associated with..." This leaves the meaning (to me) unclear. Is the association made by others? Is the association intended by those showing "support for TW struggles"? 3. Also, as something of a separable issue, could you enlighten me as to the usefulness of using this language in terms of advancing the dialogue in a constructive way? thanks, mat
[PEN-L:11874] Re: progress
I think Marx, Engels and Lenin went beyond "hope" to cheerleading and integrating a certainty about the potential working class victory, because, part of what determines whether capitalism will result in socialism or barbarism is the actions ( or lack of action) of the masses of workers for socialism, and the masses of workers will more likely act for socialism if they have a certainty , yes faith, in its possibility and more probability. The revolution does not occur because of a mechanical , objective , clocklike process, but because of the conscious action of the workers of the world. There is an element of the power of positive thinking in Marxism, but Marx , Engels had to deny it because idealism was so corrupted. One of the most dangerous aspects of the current period is that the fall of European socialism undermines the world working class's certainty that socialism can be achieved, aggravating the negative feedback loop sketched above. Working class self-confidence is very low today. CB Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/99 10:37AM Jim B. writes: Jim D. and Carrol: On progress: How does the song go... "A better world's in birth." so a phrase from the INTERNATIONALE that expresses a _hope_ that maybe the world will get better as the workers' movement grows is equated with a _faith_ that it _will_ get better, a _belief_ in the progress, a committing of the modernist sin? Well, if you want to interpret it that way, you may do so (not that you need my permission). There are obviously many different ways to interpret any given lyric. But I wonder if you reject hope in all forms as examples of the dreaded belief in progress. Life must be depressing without hope. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html Hope, yes, but hope doesn't require the translation of history into a history of Progress. Evolution is contingent (and necessities exist within contingency). Yoshie
[PEN-L:11870] Re: Re: taking stock
At 12:10 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: It can not be reduced to "free labor". Portugal took sides in the Spanish war of succession between England and France, choosing the former. Part of the treaty included exchange of port for woolen goods, which was to the advantage of England. England had superior weaponry and could dictate commercial terms to the Portuegese. We should not make the mistake of creating a reductionist category called "European capitalism". Within But that undermines if not contradicts the significance of looted American wealth - England's superior military organization and technology prevailed over the spoils of plunder. So we need to ask what made England so superior prior to extorting the gold the Portuguese stole form America. While I am not denying the role of accident, I would above all look at internal institutional factors for an explanation. wojtek
[PEN-L:11868] Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 01:12 PM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote: Jim Devine wrote: I should be up-front. Not only am I a professor, but I'm a _full_ professor, with tenure. Mea culpa. In a Catholic school no less, as that "mea culpa" shows! Speaking of which, I read in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that Holy Mother Church is insisting on more doctrinal purity at Catholic colleges universities. I believe you're not the only PEN-Ler working for the tentacles of Rome. What's do you all make of this? I haven't talked to the resident theologians (who are the ones who would take the brunt of this attack on academic freedom). However, my impression is that LMU is not owned by the RCC (Roman Catholic Church). It's an independent organization -- so that our students can get federal financial aid without violating the Church/State division, etc. The Jesuits don't really own it either. It's owned by the Trustees (or is it the Regents? we've got both) which includes Jesuits. If the RCC comes down on LMU, this autonomy will be asserted more explicitly. In any event, it's places like the Catholic University that have to worry, since they are officially part of the RCC. They are the ones who fired Charles Curran a few years ago for going against Dogma. (BTW, he had tenure.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11867] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Louis Proyect wrote: Gayatri Spivak "The banality of leftist intellectuals' lists of self-knowing, politically canny subalterns stands revealed; representing them, the intellectuals represent themselves as transparent." - Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can The Subaltern Speak?"
[PEN-L:11865] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: taking stock
At 11:56 AM 9/28/99 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Charles Brown wrote: England and Holland had both colonial systems and free labor , and so they were able to capitalistically accumulate the colonial treasures of Spain and Portugal when the later were not able to because they did not establish free labor. Sounds right to me. What's wrong with that, Jim Blaut? I'm not Jim Blaut, but I see a problem. We need to know why Spain or Portugal did not establish free labor while England and Holland did. That brings us back to the crucial importance of internal institutional factors. wojtek
[PEN-L:11864] units of analysis (was: wojtek)
Not only is "dummies" pretty mild, but I read Wojtek as using the word in the specific way of saying "if you take the Blaut perspective seriously one can lambaste the third-world as being inhabited by dummies." It is mild to you, but--trust me--to an Argentinian or Brazilian leftist it would be highly insulting, in or out of context. Part of the problem with PEN-L is that there is not a single regular poster from a legitimate colonized country. And the last time somebody who even had a marginal connection to such a country--Henry Liu--was here, he resigned in protest over what he regarded as naked racism. Now I know that most people here are glad that he is gone with his constant rejoinders, but I can assure you that anybody from Jamaica, Brazil, Uganda or the Philippines who showed up might have similar reactions, but would not be so vocal in their objections. I don't believe words can be ripped out of context, the way some people want to ban HUCK FINN because of its use of the n-word. It's not a matter of putting a spin on anything. The context is Wojtek's hatred for "third worldism" in general, which was articulated a couple of weeks ago in his excitement over the prospects for a law and order "white hope" Mayoral candidate in Baltimore. BTW, I don't understand your attack on Wojtek as a "professor." Are professors always wrong? My problem with Wojtek is that he acting unprofessorial. I try to imagine how language like "third world dummies" would go over here at Columbia in a room with Gayatri Spivak, Manning Marable and Edward Said in attendance. Even uttered in a "sarcastic" fashion, it would earn the speaker nothing but opprobrium. I guess the standards on PEN-L are a lot more lax. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11862] Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 09:07 AM 9/28/99 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: of the earth, just as one can believe (as a "third-worldist" theory might) that capitalism in Europe arose simply because Europe was lucky enough to get there first in conquering the rest of the world and then turn around and criticize the rest of the world for not being able to resist Europe's attacks. To pursue that point even further, Gerschenkron makes a somewhat similar argument by claiming that timing of the development is crucial - those who got there there first got an edge over those who did not. However, he seems to be more dialectical and instituitional about that process - he believes thatthe latecomers can overcome their backwardness by borrowing superior organization of the economy from early developers and adapting them to their own conditons (this is, btw, how he explains the origins of Soviet "communism"). I find that argument more compelling than the third worldist accounts that emphasize the importance of gold and slave labor, because it gives due credit to the key importance of technological and institutional innovation. wojtek
[PEN-L:11861] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 12:24 PM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote: I don't think it's "racist garbage" if it's read in context. There is no "context" for using terms like "third world dummies". It is beneath you to try to put a positive spin on this, Jim. I am shocked. If somebody wrote that women were paid less because they were a bunch of "dumb broads", would you put a positive spin on that. We are dealing with naked racial prejudice, not even of the more subtle kind that Blaut discusses in his "Cultural Racism" paper that was posted here last month when Henry Liu was around. Not only is "dummies" pretty mild, but I read Wojtek as using the word in the specific way of saying "if you take the Blaut perspective seriously one can lambaste the third-world as being inhabited by dummies." Wojtek wrote: For it would seem that before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they were sitting for centuries. note the use of the word "seem." I don't believe words can be ripped out of context, the way some people want to ban HUCK FINN because of its use of the n-word. It's not a matter of putting a spin on anything. Wojtek's point is related to mine, in a previous missive, that one can believe (as the "Eurocentric" theory does) that capitalism arose solely from internal causes and then turn around and _damn_ Europe as the scourge of the earth, just as one can believe (as a "third-worldist" theory might) that capitalism in Europe arose simply because Europe was lucky enough to get there first in conquering the rest of the world and then turn around and criticize the rest of the world for not being able to resist Europe's attacks. Wojtek has been making no points at all in this discussion other than the kind made on AM talk radio. It is just hostility to a vague category called "third worldism". You get the same thing in David Horowitz's columns in Salon magazine. I'll let Wojtek defend himself concerning his points. But I think you are over-reacting to his use of the phrase "politically correct." I don't like that phrase myself. Rather than being concerned with "political correctness," I'd say it's important not to reject a theory simply because you don't like its apparent political conclusions. First, a theory may have more than one political interpretation. Second, sometimes we have to face unpleasantness and learn to live with it. (I don't like this one, by the way.) Third, theories are often wrong, but factual, logical, and methodological critiques are much more convincing and are more productive for building an oppositional movement than are rejections based on the unpleasantness of conclusions. Brenner, it can be argued, develops his theory and does his empirical research because he doesn't like third-worldist politics (as he sees them). The introduction to the Blaut article that Wojtek was reacting to could be interpreted as criticizing Brenner and the like simply because he doesn't like Brenner's anti-third-worldist politics. This is an endless loop that should be avoided. Like Doug, but unlike you and Ricardo, I don't see why we can't accept some middle ground between the third-worldist and the Eurocentric dogmas. BTW, I don't understand your attack on Wojtek as a "professor." Are professors always wrong? I should be up-front. Not only am I a professor, but I'm a _full_ professor, with tenure. Mea culpa. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11860] Re: Re: enough already!
The Third World Dummies statement was not appropriate, I agree. As I mentioned before, I intend to begin enforcing better "communication techniques" on the list soon, probably tomorrow. I have four classes to teach today and anything I do until I get some rest will be ill tempered and ill considered. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11858] RE: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
W's crime here is profundity, hence some obscurity and scope for misunderstanding. If colonial exploitation afforded Europe a key boost in capital accumulation, for an area that was otherwise on a par with the rest of the world, why didn't the colonies-to-be exploit themselves and attain the same preeminence? That was the point, IMO. The 'dummies' term actually reflects the implied view of colonials by erstwhile anti-Eurocentrics. Maybe right, maybe wrong; provocative, but not racist. As usual Louis rips something out of context and applies his elemental moral condemnation to it. Scholarship marches on. mbs W said: . . . For it would seem that before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they were sitting for centuries. wojtek This is racist garbage. I don't think it's "racist garbage" if it's read in context. Wojtek's point is related to mine, in a previous missive, that one can believe (as the "Eurocentric" theory does) that capitalism arose solely from internal causes and then turn around and _damn_ Europe as the scourge of the earth, just as one can believe (as a "third-worldist" theory might) that capitalism in Europe arose simply because Europe was lucky enough to get there first in conquering the rest of the world and then turn around and criticize the rest of the world for not being able to resist Europe's attacks. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11859] Re: Re: Re: Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 01:57 AM 9/29/99 +1000, Rob S. wrote: developments (a better word than progress') in Europe. And perhaps this the point that Wojtek is actually making (sorry if I'm ascribing a load of ill-considered crap to you if you weren't, Wojtek). You do good sarcasm, Louis. And I reckon you know it when you see it. So 'fess up, and lay off with that 'racist' stuff. Rob, as you said, I tried to be sarcastic. Unfortunatelly, saracasm often does not sail very well in this medium. I wonder why The sarcasm was prompted by my earlier exposure to an ttempt to 'deconstruct' a political-economic system, namely central planning in Eastern Europe. Some neo-liberal hacks had problem accepting the fact that central planning, which according to the received hayekian wisdom was supposed to be structurally inefficient, did in fact produce considerable economic development in EE. So they tried to "deconstruct" that by claiming that most central planning successes were due to external factors, such as 'inherited' industrial base or foreign credits - to make it appear that it was the efficient capitalist West that "really" developed Eastern Europe. A similar strategy seems to be pursued by our resident third worldist champions (I wonder where do they get those ideas from?) except that they shoot themselves in the foot by claiming an external factor. While the neo-liberals can believably claim economic superiority of Western economies, the third worldists beg a question "if the plundered wealth brought from the outisde was so important for european development, why did not those from whom it was plundered use it for their own development?" cheers, wojtek
[PEN-L:11854] enough already!
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: At 03:25 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: you. I wish to hell you would exercise a little restraint and stay out of a discussion in which you have nothing substantial to add. I take exception to that. I think i do have something to contribute by asking the right kind of substantive questions. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:11852] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
At 11:30 AM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote: For it would seem that before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they were sitting for centuries. wojtek This is racist garbage. I don't think it's "racist garbage" if it's read in context. Wojtek's point is related to mine, in a previous missive, that one can believe (as the "Eurocentric" theory does) that capitalism arose solely from internal causes and then turn around and _damn_ Europe as the scourge of the earth, just as one can believe (as a "third-worldist" theory might) that capitalism in Europe arose simply because Europe was lucky enough to get there first in conquering the rest of the world and then turn around and criticize the rest of the world for not being able to resist Europe's attacks. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11851] Re: taking stock
England and Holland had both colonial systems and free labor , and so they were able to capitalistically accumulate the colonial treasures of Spain and Portugal when the later were not able to because they did not establish free labor. Sounds right to me. What's wrong with that, Jim Blaut? Doug It can not be reduced to "free labor". Portugal took sides in the Spanish war of succession between England and France, choosing the former. Part of the treaty included exchange of port for woolen goods, which was to the advantage of England. England had superior weaponry and could dictate commercial terms to the Portuegese. We should not make the mistake of creating a reductionist category called "European capitalism". Within Europe, there were gradations that had a lot to do with accidents of nature, military fortunes, etc. The same thing is true of the Latin America Portugal and Spain conquered. The Incas had superior military forces and were able to create an empire that extended from northern Argentina to southern Colombia. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11849] Re: units of analysis (was: wojtek)
You do good sarcasm, Louis. And I reckon you know it when you see it. So 'fess up, and lay off with that 'racist' stuff. Yours pompously, Rob. I am not sure Rob understands what the problem is. This list clearly expresses the Eurocentric biases that Blaut is trying to combat. For a Johns Hopkins professor to use language like "third world dummies" reflects open racism. If he used this kind of language in a faculty meeting with colleagues from Bolivia, Uganda, the Philippines, etc., it would be a slap in the face. Michael often wonders why PEN-L'ers from outside the United States do not post more frequently or subscribe. Perhaps the Eurocentist climate has something to do with this, where terms like "third world dummies" do not bother people, only objections to the insult. My mailing list has folks from Brazil and Argentina. If they read Wojtek's mail, they would insist that he be thrown off for racial insensitivity and I'd probably oblige them. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11846] Re: IMF and Orwell
''In Britain there was a famous nuclear power station which was called Windscale. There was a big accident there in the 1950s and they renamed it Sellafield,'' recalled [Andrew] Simms, of Christian Aid. ''You can change the name but does it alter the toxic content?'' [Inter Press Service] correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a company called "U.S. Ecology" is a very big polluter. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11845] Re: Re: progress
Hope, yes, but hope doesn't require the translation of history into a history of Progress. Evolution is contingent (and necessities exist within contingency). exactly! that's what I've been saying! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:11836] Re: Re: Re: Free labor as apreconditionforcapitalism
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/99 06:02PM At 05:34 PM 9/27/99 -0400, you wrote: Charles: I read Marx differently on this. The capitalist mode , manufacture or industrial, is defined as you say by free labor. But the industrial phase is marked by "cooperation" and "mechanization", a shift from manufacture, as discussed in Part IV Production of Relative Surplus-Value starting with Chapter XII. Or set me straight , please. I don't know German, but the Penguin/Vintage translation is said to be better than the International Publisher's transl. In the P/V version, the IP chapter on "Machinery and Modern Industry" (ch. 15) is called "Machinery and Large-Scale Industry," which to me breaks the seeming link between "industry" and "machinery." (( Charles: I'm not sure why you say "Machinery and Large-Scale INDUSTRY" links machinery and industry any less than "Machinery and Modern Industry" ?? Jim D: As I read Marx, "industrial capitalists" do not have to employ machines along with proletarians. All they have to do is extract surplus-value from proletarians. They are defined _relative to_ (purely) merchant capitalists and money-dealing capitalists who are dependent on the industrial capitalists to organize the extraction of surplus-value. Nowadays, the three are often well-mixed, though Marx argues that the purely merchant capitalists and money-dealing capitalists preceded the rise of full-bore industrial capitalists. (( Charles: I think I agree with you for the original "industrial capitalists" ( as discussed in Chapter XXXI "The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist". Those first captalists in production as opposed to exchange or usery were in the manufacturing period of capitalism, and did not link proletarians and machines. But for the industrial capitalists in the era of the Industrial Revolution, use of machines is a distinguishing characteristic Thus, Part IV of Capital one of the main points is that the transition within capitalism from the manufacturing phase to the industrial phase is the qualitative increase in the use of machines as the instruments of production. For example, at the beginning of Chapter XV Marx says: " In manufacture, the revolution in the mode of production begins with the labour-power, in modern industry it begins with the instruments of labour. Our first inquiry then is , how the instruments of labour are converted from tools into machines, or what is the difference between a machine and the implements of a handicraft ?..." ((( Jim D.: In what's called "protoindustrialism" (or what used to be called putting-out), the merchant capitalists were able to take advantage of household workers and make a profit. Pen-l's Gil Skillman (who has been silent of late) argues that this shows that mere market exchange (or mere usury) can lead to the production of surplus-value. I argue that the merchants and usurers were relying on their unity (they were often the same people) and their alliance with political rulers to engage in precapitalist exploitation (or protocapitalist exploitation or protosubjection or protosubsumption) involving the direct application of coercion, including reliance on precaptitalist traditions, rather than the structural coercion we see under full-blown capitalism. (This structural coercion is based on the reserve army of labor and proletarians' dependence on selling their labor-power to survive, along with the state's occasional use of direct coercion against strikers and the like.) Charles: I agree that there was a proto or precapitalist phase in its primitive accumulation. And in this phase the way of accumulating surplus-value is more of a mixture of non-free labor modes transitioning into free labor and predominance of the non-productive sectors of capitalism, such as merchants and userers. Of course, today capitalism again dominated by a predominantly userer capitalist or finance or moneylending capitalist sector, merged with the industrial sector. In a way, Marx seems to agree with what Gil Skilman says above in the ChapterXXXI "The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist" when he says: "Today industrial supremacy implies commercial supremacy. In the period of manufacture properly so called, it is, on the other hand, the commercial supremacy that gives industrial predominance. Hence, the preponderant role that the colonial system plays at that time. It was "the strange God" who perched himself on the altar cheek and jowl with the old Gods of Europe and one fine day with a shove and a kick chucked them all of a heap. It proclaimed suplus-value making as the soel end and aim of humanity." I quoted the whole paragraph , because Marx addresses here an issue in hot dispute on the list. CB
[PEN-L:11835] BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 Children of working parents praise them, but note stress, says The Washington Post (page A1) in reporting on a study of family life by researcher Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute, a New York think tank that tracks workplace trends. Two-thirds of the U.S. children report worries about what they perceive as work-related stress and fatigue. The study is among the first to take such questions to children rather than their parents. ... Existing home sales lost ground again in August, eroded by higher mortgage rates and rising prices. The National Association of Realtors said sales of existing homes fell 2.8 percent last month. August ended with the fourth drop in 5 months, following a 4.1 percent decline in July. Despite the stumbles, most analysts believe housing demand is strong enough that only a big jolt in the economy could unhinge things for the industry. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A8; New York Times, Sept. 25, page B1). application/ms-tnef
[PEN-L:11837] IMF and Orwell
In case you missed it, the IMF's "Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility" (ESAF) is now the "Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility" Not surprisingly, the compromised NGOs are ecstatic. Oxfam, etc. "new commitment to poverty reduction", etc., even though these groups' own analyses show that there is no there there. On the other hand, we have: ''In Britain there was a famous nuclear power station which was called Windscale. There was a big accident there in the 1950s and they renamed it Sellafield,'' recalled [Andrew] Simms, of Christian Aid. ''You can change the name but does it alter the toxic content?'' [Inter Press Service] --- Robert Naiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202-265-3263 x277 fax: 202-265-3647 http://www.preamble.org/ ---
[PEN-L:11841] units of analysis (was: wojtek)
For it would seem that before the European arrrival those third world dummies could not put together a system of more effcient utilization of the riches on which they were sitting for centuries. wojtek This is racist garbage. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11839] Re: Re: Re: taking stock
Perhaps because Spain and Portugal did not institute the other necessary condition for initiating full capitalism: wage-labor, removing masses of Spanish and Portuguese peasants from the land, their means of production, making them free labor with only their labor power to sell as a commodity. Interesting that capitalism started in Holland, a Spanish colony, before England even. In his Chapter XXXI in _Capital_, "The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist", Marx says: "The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and EnglandHolland is the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century...Holland, which first fully developed the colonial system, in 1648 stood already in the acme of its commercial greatness...Gulch forgets to add that by 1648, the people of Holland were more over-worked, poorer and more brutally oppressed than those of all the rest of Europe put together." Marx discusses even more at length the establishment of free labor in England by removing the English peasants from the land in the socalled primitive accumulation. England and Holland had both colonial systems and free labor , and so they were able to capitalistically accumulate the colonial treasures of Spain and Portugal when the later were not able to because they did not establish free labor. Charles Brown Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/99 05:59PM J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: I grant that you have agreed that it was Holland and especially England who really carried the process forward to full-blown (but still undefined by me) capitalism, albeit according to you especially stimulated by that bullion that flowed through the hands of the Spanish and Portuguese. Yes, why was it that all that plunder didn't do much for Spanish and Portuguese industry, while England exploded? Poor Portugal, reduced to an exporter of processed agricultural goods in Ricardo's famous example. Doug
[PEN-L:11838] Re: Re: progress
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Jim B. writes: Jim D. and Carrol: On progress: How does the song go... "A better world's in birth." so a phrase from the INTERNATIONALE that expresses a _hope_ that maybe the world will get better as the workers' movement grows is equated with a _faith_ that it _will_ get better, a _belief_ in the progress, a committing of the modernist sin? Well, if you want to interpret it that way, you may do so (not that you need my permission). There are obviously many different ways to interpret any given lyric. But I wonder if you reject hope in all forms as examples of the dreaded belief in progress. Life must be depressing without hope. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html Hope, yes, but hope doesn't require the translation of history into a history of Progress. Evolution is contingent (and necessities exist within contingency). Yoshie Turning hope (even reasonable or probable expectations) into a metaphysical necessity (which is how the doctrine of Progress operated) is one, perhaps primary, reason for the "God-that-failed" syndrome. "The world shall rise on new foundations" is quite reasonable as agitation or as a shared expression of solidarity, but on the relationship of agitational slogans to revolutionary thought, see Engels's introduction to the German edition of the *Poverty of Philosophy*. "No pasaran": men and women died for it (and doubtless will in the future), but again it would be counter-productive as an ontological principle. On the other hand, Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarism" does work both as slogan and as historical analysis: it is this either/or that the anti-marxists on this list will not acknowledge, since *their* hope for progress depends on the amelioration of capitalism Carrol
[PEN-L:11833] Re: Re: progress
Jim B. writes: Jim D. and Carrol: On progress: How does the song go... "A better world's in birth." so a phrase from the INTERNATIONALE that expresses a _hope_ that maybe the world will get better as the workers' movement grows is equated with a _faith_ that it _will_ get better, a _belief_ in the progress, a committing of the modernist sin? Well, if you want to interpret it that way, you may do so (not that you need my permission). There are obviously many different ways to interpret any given lyric. But I wonder if you reject hope in all forms as examples of the dreaded belief in progress. Life must be depressing without hope. The third world will never be able to throw off its shackles. The environment will continue to be destroyed, leading to a global melt-down. Neo-nazi movements will take power across the world. Pauly Shore will come out with a new movie. We are powerless to resist. So let's play "hearts" and drink ourselves in oblivion. I wish that the third-worldists who cheered for various third-world dictators would listen to the INTERNATIONALE's rejection of "condescending saviors." (I am sure, of course, that Jim B. is not one of those.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
[PEN-L:11832] Re: Contemporary Politics and Academic Theory
I'm not sure why you are saying that my comment is off the cuff. Being the first to become capitalist is not necessarily a compliment to Europe. Capitalism has not turned out alright yet. It only will if we win communism. If we don't, and capitalism falls into barbarism or annihilates the human race, after perpetrating the most horrendous mass murdering and vicious mode of destruction in the history of humanity (slavery, colonialism, usurpation of the indigenous North Americans, WWI, WWII, nuclear arms race) it is not at this point a sign of a good decision or course that Europe entered onto capitalism. The mode of destruction of capitalism has not been compensated for by the enormous development of the mode of production. The fact that China feared to tread where fools rushed in has the Chinese smelling like angels for NOT starting capitalism on its own. But at this point in history, China and everywhere else has to deal with capitalism and getting rid of it, because the Europeans brought capitalism into the world and it dominates and takes over all other modes of production (knocks down all Chinese Walls). So, what are the reasons you think my comment is off of the cuff ? CB "James M. Blaut" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/99 10:09PM Carrol: It seems that comradely types want to find some reason for disagreeing with me when no real reason exists. I'm not accusing you of ANYTHING. I was answering an uunfortunate off-the-cuff comment by Charles. "This, I have to say respectfully, is wrong: 'Thus, whether those other areas would have become capitalist on their own is a moot point or somewhat dead issue'." I know Charles did not mean that literally -- he says the opposite time after time. Any progressive who SERIOUSLY thinks that the struggle against Eurocentrism in history and social thought is a dead issue is very badly informed. Also, they are telling me that I've wasted 25 years on a something irrelevant to our struggle for socialism. Damn right I'm passionate about it! Jim B
[PEN-L:11830] Re: progress
Jim D. and Carrol: On progress: How does the song go... "A better world's in birth." Jim B
[PEN-L:11828] Re: Re: Re: Role of Total Foreign Trade
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: Ricardo, I think we would be more inclined to fall at your feet in fawning admiration if you did not keep giving us major bloopers like this last one about large mammals. Last time I checked there still are elephants in Asia. Barkley Rosser But they are not as big as the African ones! Cheers, ajit sinha p.s. I think one needs to be clear whether we are talking about capitalism or industrialization. Conceptually they may not be the same thing. -Original Message- From: Ricardo Duchesne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11740] Re: Role of Total Foreign Trade Yeah, but you're working with outmoded data. It is the best available, most recent data out there! Check the year of the sources I cited. LP: If you are serious about these questions, you should examine the chapter on slavery and primitive accumulation in Blackburn's book that I posted from already, including the devastating numbers pointing out the nearly equal ratio between "triangle trade" profits and fixed capital investment in Great Britain in 1770. Yes, this was one of the few sources which went beyond such *absolute* numbers as how many tons of gold were extracted from the Americas (facts which do not address the role of the colonial trade *as compared to other sectors of the economy*). I did not respond because I thought I better post the stuff on total trade before Micheal had enough. From what I recall that stuff by Blackburn (took a course with him 'The strange history of Marxism') lacked a context in terms of who he is arguing with and where ere he got those numbers and what exactly they include. But I' ll I check it again, if I still have it. I don't know what your deal is, Ricardo, but you are stuck in the 1980s on a lot of these questions. I recall that you posted once on how the Mayans self-destructed because of anti-ecological farming practices. This too was an argument based on out-of-date evidence. More recent scholarship has refuted this claim rather definitively. I might add that Blaut takes up this question as well. It seems that part of the Eurocentrist arsenal is a belief that capitalism did not take hold in places like Africa and Central America because of "shifting agriculture" practices which involve burning fields and then moving on to new locales. It turns out that such practices do not damage the soil at all since fires were not allowed to get out of control and were appropriate to less than fertile soil conditions. Dont buy this 'out of date' argument which seems to be the only one Blaut has against me. I already showed here that one of those sources he cited as new and anti-eurocentric contains an artilce by Parker, and I can cite other articles there in that book edited by Tracy. But the fact is that a lot has been published recently which challenges the stuff Blaut keeps parading around. If he keeps mentioning Goody I will forward here my own analysis of that book which I posted last year to the World history list, to which he has yet to respond. I don't know what slash-burn agriculture has to do with capitalism, but the fact is that hunters and gatherers exterminated all large animals in the World except in Africa where such large animals were fortunate to grow side by side with the evolving australopithecines and homo species, thereby learning to adapt to them. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:11826] Re: Re: Re: Free labor as a precondition for capital
. . . I don't suggest that someone can be Eurocentric on the matter of European and non-European history and not be progressive on contemporary struggles. . . . Let me try to join in on this new love feast. To me any negative connotation to "Third worldism" does not stem from any interest in discounting any Third World struggle in the slightest. I can cheer along with everybody else. I've done a few things too, like march in the Fifth Avenue Peace Parade. It was only 30 years ago. My concern is that support for TW struggles is *sometimes* associated with pissing all over progressive struggles in the U.S. of A. pertaining to the interests of the U.S. working class. We can have reasonable arguments over which struggles/reforms are too trivial to deserve attention. But if none deserve attention, somebody has a deeper political problem. Naturally, I don't think it's me. mbs
