Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Phil Ferguson)
Hi Lou: Here is a note in response to Phillip Ferguson. Phillip was responding to, "Cullenberg et al" who are apparently some kind of postmodernists. In his response Phillip wrote, "Ironically, these days it is probably the squeeze on surplus-value and the stagnation of the productive sphere that is driving globalisation and communications development." I think that you are off about the "stagnation of the productive sphere". On the world scale the production of "old economy" commodities: steel, metals of all sorts, machinery of all sorts - especially consumer durables; energy - petroleum, natural gas, coal and electricity; and consumer non-durables - clthing, food products etc., has been over fifty years increasing with only minor ups and downs. The only real problems has come recently with fossil fuels - as exploration fails to find sufficient new reserves to continue the pace of the pumps - but still production keeps growing in the short run. (as others have pointed out before on this list.) There has however, been a shift of production from what people used to call "the first world" to what people used to call "the third world" of old economy production. Mexico and South Korea are now major exporters of automobiles to the United States - for example. Brazil is a major exporter of autoparts to Europe. Brazil is also an important exporter of airplanes. Britain has been "deindustrializing" since the Second World War. The United States since the 1970's. Their domestic economies however, can not be understood as "national" entites - but only as part of the already global economy. Where your postmodern opponents talk about the "creative" sector - other would have called that part of the economy the non-productive, and parasitical sector. I don't. But the shift to "service" economies - i.e. administrative, financial, research, military, and cultural centers is clear in all of the economies of the imperialist centers. You also wrote, "In any case, given the massive *potential* for IT, what is interesting is not the development that has taken place, but that such development is still quite slow and impaired. This is true even in the imperialist world. In the Third World, there is no sign of a mass computer culture. After decades of IT development, the vast majority of humanity is still excluded." I have to say, that while the potential of "IT" in terms of all humanity has barely been touched, more than 50% of all households in the USA now have access to PCs, and in many "third world" countries the petty bourgeoisie is computerized. This is certainly true of India and the Phillipines which supply all sorts of systems engineers to silicon valley. It is also true of Colombia, where I live. The only companies that have not did not see their sales fall during the current recession here, are the computer companies whose sales increased. In Bogota computer labs and computer classes are common in private schools except in the poorest neighborhoods - and in all public schools (even if they are outdated and inadaquate.) I think that it is true in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. Earlier today I looked at a map of the world IT market - and it showed Brazil ranking higher than some European countries as an IT market (the map was dated 1997, however.)" Anthony P.S.: You also wrote, "It has always seemed to me that postmodernist intellectuals' understanding of the world is limited to what they can see in their own university departments and out their windows. Their worldview is often less broad than that of the small shopkeepers of their class. At least the shopkeepers deal in the real world." I think you are being generous to the postmodernists. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
The legacy of Juan Perón
The government of Juan Perón was one of the most progressive in Latin American history in the 20th century. Here is a list of its accomplishments: 1. Taking advantage of government leniency if not outright support, trade unions were formed in every industry. 2. Social security was made universal. 3. Education was made free to all who qualified. 4. Vast low-income housing projects were created. 5. Paid vacations became standard. 6. A working student was given one paid week before every major examination. 7. All workers (including white-collar employees like bank tellers, etc.) were guaranteed free medical care and half of their vacation-trip expenses. 8. A mother-to-be received 3 paid months off prior to and after giving birth. 9. Workers recreation centers were constructed all over Argentina, including a vast resort in the lower Sierras that included 8 hotels, scores of cabins, movies, swimming pools and riding stables. This resort was available to workers for 15 days a year, at the cost of 15 cents per day, all services included. In order to strengthen Argentina's economy, Perón created the Argentina Institute for Promotion of Exchange (AIPE), a monopoly that handled all commodity exports. Cattle, wheat, etc. were sold at a high price overseas. While not socialism, this measure was consistent with the traditional Marxist demand for a monopoly on foreign trade. Perón also bought out the local ITT operation and the railroad and trolley system from Great Britain. He paid off Argentina's foreign debt and launched a 5-year plan in 1946 that covered everything from the woman's right to vote to shipbuilding. By 1954 Perón had initiated more than 45 major hydroelectric projects designed to produce 2 billion kilowatt-hours of energy, 20 times the amount that was available in 1936. While in hindsight we can say that these projects had ecological drawbacks, they still represented an audacious step in the direction of making every citizen's life more fulfilling. By 1947, Argentina had launched its own iron and steel industry. It was also moving forward in coal extraction and other raw materials using the most advanced technology available at the time. It began to make farm machinery, planes and cars in modest numbers. Ship-building had expanded by 500 percent under Perón's regime. But Perón failed to sustain these progressive changes over the long haul. All of the gains of the Perón era have disappeared as workers' lives and fortunes have gone downhill. What happened? Basically Perón failed because his reforms were not radical enough. For example, although he raised rural wages and forced landlords to sell cheap to the AIPE, he refused to take the next step when they balked. He did not nationalize the land. Thus, the amount of land under cultivation dropped from nearly 22 million hectares in 1934-38 to just over 17 million in 1955. What you had was a producer's strike, not that much different from the kind Allende was confronted by. His philosophy was not fascist at all, but a 'third way' called "Justicialismo" that tried to steer clear between capitalism and socialism. Although I have not made a systematic study of the ideological roots of Perónism, it appears closely related to the APRA movement launched by Haya de la Torre in Peru. Progressives associated with this movement, including Alan Garcia, have a record of caving in to imperialism. The one thing that they can do to keep imperialism at bay is impermissible: to arm the workers and expropriate the expropriators. Despite their inadequacies, the workers movement has an obligation to defend such governments under attack from imperialism. After Perón was overthrown by the military in 1955, the ruling class took steps almost immediately to foster the development of democracy, which in reality was a fig leaf for their brutality and greed. Arturo Frondizi was groomed to take over as the first 'democratic' President. In this venture he was backed by a millionaire ex-Communist named Rogelio Frigerio, who defined democracy as "that system where money speaks louder than principles." It was no accident that an ex-Communist would lend his energy and resources to such a project. As a Communist, Frigerio--following the party line--was for the overthrow of Perón. Now as a capitalist, he could have his cake and eat it too. Using funds from Frigerio, Frondizi launched a magazine titled "Qué" that recruited both rightist and leftist talent. All you needed to get a job was a facile pen and hatred for the Perónist legacy. Meanwhile, Frigerio had no trouble making pals with the military, even though his magazine was promoting 'democracy'. Paying heed to Mexico's revolutionary President Alvaro Obregón, who once said, "I do not know of a single general able to resist a cannonade of one million pesos," Frigerio got no less than two hundred generals to serve on the boards of corporations he either influenced, owned or controlled. Once Frondizi was elected, he gave the
RE: Feminism (posted originally on marxism@lists.panix.com)
Hi All, My question was a more rhetorical one guys. Yoshie said that work, as I was suggesting pomo is, that concentrates on the life of the mind is a waste of time. One of the things she mentioned was that the life of the mind confuses issues when it come to doing actual activist type work. This is not exactly what she said. She may be able to give you a better answer - I didn't keep the post. Anyway, I was suggesting that feminism didn't start outside of the mind. Pomo, in fact, would help support burgeoning theoretical approaches to scholarship, because it takes into account the need to reevaluate theory. It is a dialectical approach as Kristeva points out. -Nico -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Feminism (posted originally on [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Nicole wrote: So, how did feminism start? As someone who was outside the process, my impression was that the recent wave of feminism that came out of the 1960s anti-war and other movements in the US was a reaction to the male chauvinism of the "New Left" leaders. Paraphrasing, many women said: you men talk about liberating Vietnam, liberating Blacks, etc., but what about women? Why are you men making all the decisions while we make coffee? (FYI, according to eye-witness accounts I've heard, no bras were actually burned, at least at the first, famous, "bra-burning" event.) BTW, I can see no reason why feminism is necessarily postmodernist, nor why postmodernist is necessarily feminist. (Justin, thanks for the summary of what "pomo" means.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
