[PEN-L:7289] Re: Vote for Nader
Raising the minimum wage (also "legitimizes the present system"), defeating the racist Prop 209, preventing further destruction of public space and public lands (a variety of different initiatives in different regards), etc., are all "reformist" issues the shape the terrain on which we do battle and therefore important. Blair Yes, these are all important matters, but they are, at best, remedial policies, remedial in character, especially so long as they block investigation of their monopoly capitalist context. In order to eradicate problems, people must address the root cause, the origin of the problems plaguing society: the capitalist system, a form of class society. People must go to the heart of the matter in order to bring about the New, to end the Old. Shawgi Tell Well, Shawgi, this discussion could go on forever. We (you and I) are agreed that we both want to overthrow the dominance of capitalist relations. Obviously then the question is how to do this. I believe that further destruction of public space (by public space I mean both natural and social public space), intensification of racism and racial inequality, e.g. will make that task more difficult. I also think that, e.g. the passage of Prop 209 is going to make that more difficult. Thus, I chose to organize and vote against it. Of course the arguments I make when I talk about Prop 209 are undoubtedly different than those made by e.g. liberal Hispanic forces (deliberate choice of terms). This is a separate question though related question. Perhaps (I don't know) the difference between us lies in the fact that I don't think simply heightening the contradictions of capitalist life and making people more miserable will make the overthrow of capitalism easier or quicker or more likely. Quite the opposite, I think. I don't think reducing people's wages makes them more likely to become active revolutionaries, and I don't think raising their wages makes them less likely to become so. But the question of the dialectical relationship between reform and revolution has a long history and I don't particularly think I can contribute anything new and important to it at this point. Thanks for the discussion. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7256] Re: Vote for Nader
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: Merhaba Fikret, is it possible to know how you think Nader will change the present system of the financial oligarchy which effectively marginalizes and ghettoizes the broad masses of the people? Or is this not his aim? Shawgi Tell Shawgi: you didn't ask me, but I don't think Nader will change anything, since he's not going to be elected. And if he were, everything would be different and so who could say what might change in that event?! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] You say that if Nader were elected "everything would be different..." Is it possible to know how everything would be different? For example, how would the essence of a system based firmly on the dictates of the financial oligarchy change? Would sovereignty actually be vested in the broad masses of the people for the first time in history if Nader were elected? Shawgi Tell Shawgi, I didn't express myself clearly. Sorry. I meant that if it were possible that Nader could win the election, it would be because everything would already be different. Under anything like current circumstances, Nader could not win. Nader could be elected only if things were very different. I was *not* suggesting (!) that under the present circumstances Nader could win and this would make it possible to "change" things. Such a suggestion would not be much different from "after the revolution" fantasies. Is this clear? Blair P.S. Neither do I mean to suggest that if sovereignty *were* "vested in the broad masses of the people," as you put it, that they would choose to elect Ralph Nader. :) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7255] Re: It is gone to far: Tim
What I meant was that Social Text Co. were caught with their pants down and have had a lot of explaining to do. Certainly no question about that in my mind! What if anything it says about post-modern wars is another question entirely. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7280] Re: It is gone to far: Tim
At 12:01 AM 11/5/96, Blair Sandler wrote: What I meant was that Social Text Co. were caught with their pants down and have had a lot of explaining to do. Certainly no question about that in my mind! What if anything it says about post-modern wars is another question entirely. One thing it says is that people who go on about science should actually know something about science. When Stanley Aronowitz says something like this, he just has no idea what he's talking about: "I want to insist that the convention of treating natural and human sciences according to a different standard be dropped I want to treat the controversies within each domain as aspects of the same general problematic: How are the objects of knowledge constructed? What is the role of the culturally conditioend 'worldviews' in their selection? What is the role of socail relations in determining what and how objects of knowledge are investigated? ... [T]he distinctions between the natural and human sciences are not as significant as their similarities" [Aronowitz, "The Politics of the Science Wars," Social Text 46/47]. Doug Reading the quote above from Aronowitz quickly, Doug, I think I agree with it. But I could change my mind about that with more discussion and/or re-readings. However, I reiterate my point above that it says basically nothing about post-modernism, though it may indeed say something about the specific individuals at SOCIAL TEXT. I've already made reference to, and still intend to describe briefly, three excellent science books that are more or less explicitly post-modern. There are others. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7279] Re: Economia al Pomodoro
Max: I am one of the people who have been trying to argue that post-modernism offers valuable insights Marxists cannot afford to pass by. I also consider myself a Marxist (first and foremost, perhaps only after being a Wittgensteinian, because I learned to think by reading Wittgenstein, and then when I read Marx (right afterwards), I said, "Hey, this is just like Wittgenstein," that is, I recognized my world in what he was saying. But to get to my point: My income last year was about $11,000. This is such a small percentage of my accumulated debt I am embarrassed to say just how small. I make a living, such as it is, by contract labor for local colleges, which is all the work I can get. (Real wage rate counting classroom time, prep, commuting, etc., around $6 or so per hour.) I have to believe, judging from other remarks in your post, that the comment below is intended to be sarcastic and frankly I resent it, considering my situation. I bet you make a hell of a lot more money and have far more extensive privilege of all sorts than I do. Much of my time is spent doing all sorts of unpaid political activity. So, your association of postmodernism with careerist academics is not appreciated. Of course, if I'm being overly sensitive and in fact your hopes expressed below are sincere, than I thank you for your good wishes. I would indeed appreciate a reasonable full time paid job that would enable me to get out of debt. Sincerely, Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hoping all the academics here get their desired pomotions, MS
[PEN-L:7222] Re: post modern courtesy
Trond writes, And, btw, Chomsky is merciless against f.inst. Lacan and Focault. What have the PoMo adherents to say this interesting conflict? Chomsky has control of the most amazing amount of facts about basic political economic relations. His basic view of the world is similar to mine (on a basic level), and so the facts he spews out are familiar, recognizable, intelligible, and therefore congenial, to me. And he is very good for propaganda purposes precisely because he is able to come up with so many detailed examples of capitalist chicanery, theft, malfeasance, dishonesty, etc. However, I've never been as impressed with his theoretical grasp (or explanations) of these political economic relations as I am with his memory for information. Actually, the little book by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, TOXIC SLUDGE IS GOOD FOR YOU!: LIES, DAMN LIES AND THE PUBLIC RELATIONS INDUSTRY (Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine: 1995) has what I think is a far more sophisticated analysis of the capitalist power/propaganda interface. I came out of his recent, long movie (I forget the title -- boy I wish I had his memory!) thinking that it was fun and would be great for my students but I hadn't learned anything I didn't already know, except a few details. And don't be misled here: I'm not against facts and information. Doug Henwood, for example, has a way of producing information that often leads me to new understandings, or at least assists me in developing my understandings further. Case in point, his great articles in LBO 71 and 72 criticizing David Korten's book, WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD, and the International Forum on Globalization. Those articles really helped crystallize my own thinking already in formation. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7223] Re: nattering nabob
Doug wrote, When Habermas said that "technology and science become a leading productive force, rendering inoperative the condition for Marx's labor theory of value" and "scientific-technical progress has become an independent source of surplus value" he contributes to an erasure of the working class from political life, and allies himself with George Gilder and Wired magazine. Ditto Manuel Castels, with his vision of "information" as a directly productive force. Oh? Catch this old dead white guy, Karl somebody, writing in his notebooks a century and a half ago: "The exchange of living labour for objectified labour... is the ultimate development of the *value-relation* and of production resting on value. Its presupposition is -- and remains -- the mass of direct labour time, the quantity of labour employed, as the determinant factor in the production of wealth. But to the degree that large industry develops, the creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set in motion during labour time, whose 'powerful effectiveness' is itself in turn out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production "No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing... as middle link between the object... and himself; rather, he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and inorganic nature, mastering it. He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body -- it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the gerat foundation-stone of production and of wealth. The *theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based*, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The *surplus labour of the mass* has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the *non-labour of the few*, for the development of the general powers of the human head. With that, production based on exchange value beraks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of penury and antithesis" The old guy rambles on in this unintelligible manner for another page, blathering in this pretentious way about disposable time and the reduction of necessary labor of society to a minimum, the free development of individualities, and so on. ;-) [And just in case you missed the emoticon connected to the preceeding paragraph:;-) ] These two pages of GRUNDRISSE 704-706) presage the whole discussion of leisure from folks like Rifkin and Schor (who, as far as I know, don't credit him at all -- but I could and would like to be wrong about this point). The thought here is that Marx says essentially the same thing you quote from Habermas, but for Marx it becomes not "an erasure of the working class from political life," but on the contrary, proof that the working class must insert itself into the center of political life even as it moves to the side in the production process, and precisely for that reason. And by the way, these two pages from the GRUNDRISSE demonstrate as well as anything else, I think, the powerful *predictive* ability of Marxian theory. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7250] Re: post modern courtesy
At 7:44 AM 11/4/96, Blair Sandler wrote: Doug Henwood, for example, has a way of producing information that often leads me to new understandings, or at least assists me in developing my understandings further. Case in point, his great articles in LBO 71 and 72 criticizing David Korten's book, WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD, and the International Forum on Globalization. Those articles really helped crystallize my own thinking already in formation. Thank you very much Blair (and those articles are now up on the LBO website). But remember that the theoretical foundation for these information-productions are pretty classically Marxist, even if I don't much use the classical vocabulary. And the anti-Shiva portions of those pieces are, in part, informed by an anti-postmodern stance. Since I'm doing journalism, and trying to appeal to something like a popular audience, I don't foreground those theoretical considerations. But they're in my head as I write. Doug "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman Doug, this whole discussion has taken place as if there are two diametrically opposed positions, yet I and others have stressed that modernism and post-modernism are not best understood as diametrically opposed. Their very relationship is contradictory. As Rob Garnett has argued, Marx has his modern and post-modern moments. So, you and I are both Marxists, each reading Marx in our own way. It would be more surprising to me if we did not actually agree on very much. The only question is: do our agreements reside in a larger context of disagreement, or do our disagreements reside in a larger context of agreement? :) Blair P.S. Even Jim Devine and I, notwithstanding all our disagreements over mo and pomo, are both voting for Ralph Nader. And we also both agree that Jim has a great sense of humor. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7248] Re: Vote for Nader
Merhaba Fikret, is it possible to know how you think Nader will change the present system of the financial oligarchy which effectively marginalizes and ghettoizes the broad masses of the people? Or is this not his aim? Shawgi Tell Shawgi: you didn't ask me, but I don't think Nader will change anything, since he's not going to be elected. And if he were, everything would be different and so who could say what might change in that event?! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7249] Re: nattering nabob
The difference between [Habermas and Marx] is that Marx could never say that info and tech were directly productive in themselves, Correct: he was a Marxist, after all :) and I doubt he'd have conceded the (Ziegler-like) inoperativeness of the LTV. Actually, that's what the quote says. The difference is that for Habermas technology was not overdetermined by class, so he imagine the transcendence of LTV even without the overthrow of capitalism, whereas for Marx, technology necessarily remained the overdetermined effect of class, so he was describing precisely how capitalist development created conditions for communist class processes, in which LTV would be transcended. [I'm being simplistic and sloppy here but the general idea should be clear.] Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7164] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
I strongly doubt there is *anyone* on this list who considers Rick Wolff to be "an infallible god and guru." Perhaps your difficulties with him have to do with the fact that your expectations along these lines were disappointed? The rest of your post expressing your experience at UMass was unobjectionable, but this kind of patronizing remark is completely unproductive. Blair Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7179] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
I can certainly appreciate that some former students can have [legitimate or illegitimate] grievances against individual faculty members. But ... I would strongly prefer that those grievances not be aired on PEN-L. Moreover, demands that individuals apologize would only mean that this rather fruitless [and flame-intense] thread will continue. I strongly suggest that we move on to other topics for discussion. Jerry I completely agree with Jerry. I couldn't care less whether Ron and Peter apologize (it would be a mark of maturity if they did, but that's their business). The thing that gets me about both their criticisms of Wolff and Resnick is that they concern events that took place fifteen or so years ago. It's appropriate to criticize (even personal) behavior that impinges on political work (and education obviously has important political ramifications) if it's still going on, but Ron in particular emphasized that he knows neither the people he criticized nor their work. What's to be gained by this? For all he knows Steve occasionally recalls the events in question with a certain embarrassed or rueful self-criticism. (Maybe he doesn't recall at all; maybe if it's brought to his attention he thinks it was the right thing to do. But Ron obviously has no idea.) I would ask Peter and Ron if they have lived "infallible" lives, if they have never committed actions that they later regretted, or wished they could do over differently or simply recognized that other people might view differently. I certainly can't say this about myself. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7180] Re: post modern wars
Correlation is not causation, fer sure, but I notice that the assertion of all these new ways of knowing and doing have coincided with the rise of the right. If these new modes were of such great practical utility, why aren't we seeing some results? And why is it that in the U.S. at least the right has been the great beneficary of class resentments? Doug Doug, of course you are absolutely right about the importance of class processes and class struggles. But attacking people associated with RETHINKING MARXISM on this point has got to be a losing proposition. Recall that just yesterday Ron was accusing Wolff and Resnick of being dogmatic traditional Marxists. People around RM are the ones *most consistently* raising issues of class, insisting on the necessity of integrating class concepts into social analyses, asserting that class has its own, independent (overdetermined) effects, and that left, radical, and democratic analyses and strategies that don't take class into account are likely to be weaker and less successful, that even if successful on their own terms they are likely to produce continuing difficulties associated with continued exploitation, etc. Diskin and I, for example, in our critique of Laclau and Mouffe, showed that their rejection of the "basic economic categories" or Marxism is the result of *insufficient committment*, one might say, to their post-modern insights. We demonstrated clearly the hollowness of their economic analysis due precisely to the rejection and consequent absence of class concepts, and showed how their own post-modern ideas implied, contrary to their stated positions, precisely the *need* to retain a Marxian concept of class. Similarly, my own work on environmental economics argues that the Eco-Marxism of Jim O'Connor (who, no doubt about it has done great work around ecology and whose journal, _Capitalism, Nature, Socialism_, is an oasis in a desert of environmental garbage) is fundamentally based on neo-classical externality theory. I elaborate, on the other hand, an understanding of the relationship between capital and environment based not primarily on relationship to the market but on surplus labor. Perhaps part of the problem in this discussion on PEN-L is that while many post-modernists (like most modernists) are indeed anti-Marxist (the correct term for which post-Marxism is just an excuse), the people on *this* list most closely associated with post-modernism are confirmed and committed Marxists who have nonetheless been able to garner from post-modernism certain insights we feel helpful to our understanding and application of Marxism in our political and theoretical work. To answer your immediate question, I would think that someone of your persuasion (hell, and mine: I read the WSJ every day, too. Far and away the best writing of any mainstream rag :) would want to focus on the differential access to wealth and power held by the right and the left. Brief historical perspective: in the post-war (WWII) era, the right crushed the left (McCarthyism). Resistance springs eternal, and in the space created perhaps by a certain complaisance on the part of the right, a new left arose during the 60s. Taken by surprise, the right was slow to respond, but respond they eventually did, and their superior resources (among other things, like our own mistakes) enabled them to reassert their power during the course of the latter 70s and 80s and into the present. If I'm not mistaken, you recently agreed with something very much like just this characterization in a recent (private) post, Doug. In other words, I think blaming the current counterrevolution (of the past 20 some odd years) on post-modernism is according to post-modernism much more power than it actually has in academia, on the left, or among the massess. Much regards, Blair P.S. Still planning to write some of my own perspectives on pomo (those three books), but keep wanting to respond to specific things that come up and I'm already stealing time from other deadline things I need to do. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7200] Re: It is gone to far: Time Out.
Let us put the pomo discussion to rest. More harm has been done than information shared in the last posts. For newcomers, we have put discussion of Israel on hold, for similar reasons. The personal is not political, at least as far as this discussion has gone. I guess we can conclude, that some people feel that pomo has furthered their political work; others, that it is irrelevant or even a distraction. Let the pomos pomo and the others go their own way; let 1000 floowers bloom. But enough of the insult and innuendo. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael, I agree with the halt to insult and innuendo, but I see no reason why we shouldn't continue discussing the pros and cons of pomo. The majority, or anyway quite a good number, of posts have been entirely civil, unobjectionable and thought-provoking. A bit of edge (like most of Jim Devine's humor, in my opinion), is not a reason in my book to cut off discussion or even debate. So, are you requesting tolerance and ordering a time out or may I, as I get time, try to relate my sense of the three books I mentioned as examples of accessible, political theory based on pomoish insights? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7201] Re: Marilyn Waring
I read the book a while ago and found it as you found the video a bit
simplistic but basically good. Note however that her economics is basically
NC externality theory. In all my intro and intermediate level mainstream
(NC) classes I use the diagrams on pp. 300-301 to situate the NC theory of
markets in a broader context (overdetermination, in my mind), even if I
don't use anything else from the book.
Note also that there is now a lot of this "green accounting" going on. The
material from Redefining Progress on the "Genuine Progress Indicator," and
their article in the Oct. (?) 1995 ATLANTIC MONTHLY ("If the GDP is Up Why
is America Down) is very useful. The basic point, of course, is that GDP is
not, as all the textbooks call it, a measure of the value of all goods and
services produced in the economy; it is only a measure of the value of all
goods and services *exchanged* in the market economy. This little sleight
of hand conflates market with economy and, as Waring and others have often
pointed out, slights the role of women, as well as the fundamental
importance of the natural environment.
The whole notion of the "efficiency" of the equilibrium market solution in
NC theory depends on the absence of "externalities," as everyone here is
aware and NCs themselves recognize. The question immanently is whether
externalities are few and far between, occasional glitches in the NC market
mechanism, or pervasive and overwhelming. I believe the latter.
For instance, I have a flyer (I don't know the source, sorry) advertising
the "Apocalypse" automobile for $250,000, a price based on the indvidual
car share of social costs over ten years ("At this price it will surely
take your breath away.") This cost includes pollution-related cancer,
respiratory and heart disease: $100 billion; injuries and related expenses:
$400 billion; gas and auto subsidies, congestion, road construction and
maintenance: $900 billion; military expenses to protect the oil supply, $30
billion (except during the Gulf War); but does not counting environmental
costs of oil spills at sea and on land, acid rain, global warming, damage
from road salts, noise pollution, neurological damage from lead, 500
million mammals killed by cars, 3 million acres of farmland displaced
yearly by roads and suburbanization,...). Now the average cost of a new car
in the U.S. is very approximately $20,000, and I think the annual market
cost of driving and maintaining the car is another $5,000 or so? which
would make the ten year market price of a car around $75,000. What does it
mean when the "externalities" associated with a commodity are three to four
times the market value?
[I would really like to know the source of these estimates and am pissed
that they aren't cited. What I tell my students is that even if the
estimates are too big by three to four times, then they're still the
equivalent of the market cost and the same question is appropriate.]
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7135] Re: PoMoTown
Blair presents a bibliography, without a clear summary of the content of the books. For example, Laurie Garrett's book seems more an example of left-inflenced science journalism than of postmodernism. As I said, Jim, more will be coming later (I'm working under multiple rapidly approaching deadlines). Sheesh! Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7136] Re: pomo communication: spider net approach
I don't know why people think pomo is so difficult. Here's a young twenties non-native English speaker expressing his understanding of my classroom discussions of Neoclassical reductionism and Marxian overdetermination: Blair Thanks Blair Your answers were helpful. What I'm trying to find out is where exactly these two theories start arguing about. Currently my image is the following: Marxists see society as a spider net with economics embedded. All parts, strings, are interrelated and processes define the entity; a soft wind blow and the whole net starts wobbling. Neoclassical theorists select the economic part out of the spider net and therefore have only some strings left. The problem now with the Neoclassical approach is, that the content gets lost to a high degree. In other words, the spider net floats in the air with an unknown off-set. Also, for the sake of simplicities, the strings lack of elasticity when talking about basic Neoclassical economics, the remaining strings are assumed to be stiff. My interpretation is, that here with the spider net is the initial connection and simultaneously starts the divergence. What do you think about that? Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7156] Re: obnoxious personal attacks
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: I hate to say it but UMass Amherst is the obvious place to go, with Rick Wolff, Steve Resnick, Sam Bowles, Nancy Folbre (and Ann Ferguson down the hall), Julie Graham in geography, David Kotz, Jim Crotty, Jim Boyce, even (shudder) Herb Gintis. :) Whatever anyone thinks of any of these individuals or their work, UMass offers a broad range of different heterodox perspectives on social theory. And Ron Baiman responded: Jen, Blair, As someone who was suspended from Steve Resnick's class for daring to disagree with him (in a non-disruptive academic way - Eric Neilson , Gary Dymsky, and others who were in t hat class are my witnesses) , I would not put him on this list. I found the essentially dogmatic view of Marxism espoused by Resnick and Wolf (in 1981 - I havn't bothered to keep up with their stuff since for obvious reasons) to be profoundly disturbing and distressing. I know this debate has been had (p-robably many times) on Pen-L, but I thought my experience might be of interest (Jen, if you go to U Mass which does have some excellent people , I would advise that you steer clear - as much as possible of RW). And I reply Ron: I would think that since you haven't kept up with their work (or obviously them) for the last 15 years, perhaps a more appropriate warning to Jen might be to keep her eyes open at UMass and watch out for herself, or something along those lines, rather than to "steer clear" of them. Separately: I was totally screwed by certain faculty at UMass (graduate econ) for absolutely no good reason, so much so that none of the students were ever able even to find out from the faculty member in question (the chair at that time) or any of his comrades why I was being screwed. The faculty in question were not Wolff and Resnick but from "the other camp." Nonetheless, the grounding in mainstream and a variety of radical economics theories I received there was in my opinion top notch. [In my original post on the program I mentioned a number of faculty with whom I have significant theoretical and other issues but whose work I respect. (The one who fucked me over is no longer there, though colleagues who colluded still are).] Furthermore, though I initially had serious reservations about working with Resnick and Wolff, as dissertation committee members they were absolutely stellar. I was able to have a completely free rein about what I studied, yet they were both emotionally (!) and concretely extremely supportive through the entire process, truly my allies through the dissertation itself and all the bureaucratic relations with the dept. and the school. Over and over Wolff turned around work I did for him in record quick time. If I had to do it again (ugh!) I couldn't think of better advisors. Before I went to Wolff, I tried to work with Sam Bowles. For half a year I wrote pieces for him more or less weekly, trying to construct a dissertation prospectus. He never actually responded to anything I wrote but simply and continually suggested I do work that *he* thought interesting. I got nowhere. I would prefer not to discuss these things on PEN-L, but frankly personal attacks combined with closed-mindedness really pisses me off. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7092] post-modern wars
Anders, I think it was, asks for someone to discuss the advantages of post-modern conceptual frameworks. My ignorance is boundless and my time limited (gotta go teach intro micro to business students -- not what I call high theory :) though my critique of NC theory, which highlights all the "standard" lefty/Marxist critiques, is basically a critique of NC theory as modernist) but let me try briefly to suggest a few post-modernish efforts to intervene in important and concrete political struggles. Part of the problem here is that people are using words loosely. Post-modern means a lot of different things to different people. Folks around Rethinking Marxism, for example, which I basically consider a kind of post-modern Marxism, do not all consider themselves post-modernists. One, in particular, said that, for him, overdetermination as a conceptual tool and post-modernism as a social phenomenon are distinct. So let's just be clear that we have not been clear about this. That is why it is a good idea, if we are serious about having a productive discussion and not just beating our chests and seeing who can thump louder (alpha male, alpha male!), to discuss specific ideas, as both Steve Cullenberg and Anders (?) have suggested in slightly different ways. That said, I want to refer to three relatively recent works: BREAKFAST OF BIODIVERSITY, by John Vandermeer and Ivette Perfecto, from Food First, 1995 DEVELOPMENT BETRAYED, by Richard Norgaard, Routledge, 1994 THE COMING PLAGUE, by Pulitzer Prize winner Laurie Garrett, 1994 All of these books are written in a thoroughly accessible manner, all of them engage in important current political struggles, and all of them are more or less explicitly arguments based on post-modern concepts and logical relations. BREAKFAST OF BIODIVERSITY is a great, short, very readable book about rainforest destruction. THE COMING PLAGUE is "one of the best science studies books I have ever read, and one of the most radical," according to a friend who is competent to judge these things (and decidedly anti-post-modern), about the political economy/ecology of public health. And DEVELOPMENT BETRAYED is a book-length critique of modernism (NC theory comes in for repeated attacks on just that basis) in the form of development theory and practice, and a post-modern analysis of the need for and possibilty of sustainable development. I have to go now but I'm going to send this out now as a teaser. I'll be back later this weekend with more about my take on post-modernism and what's valuable about these three books. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7126] Re: post-modern wars
At 8:39 AM 11/1/96, Blair Sandler wrote: And DEVELOPMENT BETRAYED is a book-length critique of modernism (NC theory comes in for repeated attacks on just that basis) in the form of development theory and practice, and a post-modern analysis of the need for and possibilty of sustainable development. Well aren't we using modernism rather sloppily now too? There's the modernism of Marx and Freud, and the modernism of Pound and Eliot. What is distinctly modern about the idea of sustainable development? There's the famous bit in Capital, beloved of all red-greens, about how progress in capitalist production jointly robs the worker and the soil. Was Marx thereby a proto-postie? Doug Doug, if you're asking me, of *course* Marx was a a "proto-postie!" I would say he was one of the earliest inventors (and in that lonely situation, inevitably his development of it was partial, contradictory and uneven). I didn't say "sustainable development" was modern. But read the book for yourself. I'll be back later, as I said, with more about this. Saturday or Sunday. Only snippets 'til then. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7128] Re: post-modern wars
Most postmodern writing doesn't sufficiently appreciate the treachery of its own ground (or "ungroundedness"). For example, it's easy to sneer at Marx's "essentialism" as Laclau and Mouffe did; it's much harder to establish a unequivocal position from which to do the sneering. To continue with Laclau and Mouffe as an example of bad postmodernism, the unparralled ugliness of their prose can easily be understood in terms of the contortions they had to go through to hurl critical rocks without shattering the fragile walls of their own glass house. For a post-modern Marxist critique of Laclau and Mouffe that a former assistant director of education for SEIU (I think was the title) once called "accessible," see Diskin and Sandler's article in RETHINKING MARXISM 6.3, Fall 1993. The relationship between modernism and postmodernism has to be more subtle than this. Postmodernism *needs* the modernist grand narrative as a foil. Postmodernism is a crack in the smooth surface of the modernist urn. Yes, the urn leaks, but don't throw it out, yet. The crack, by itself, doesn't carry any water at all. Agreed. Post-modernism developed in the soil of modernism. Read Rob Garnett's work (RM, forthcoming or recent) on the modern and post-modern "moments" in Marx. I have a surprise. I think postmodernism makes a worthwhile contribution to analysis of political and economic issues and it makes this contribution best when it doesn't bother to flamboyantly announce and tediously insist upon its supposed postmodern credentials. Agreed again. Garrett, for example, makes no big deal about "constructionism," "post-modernism," or the like (though she does explicitly critique reductionism), but simply goes about elaborating her argument, which is nonetheless fundamentally post-modern. (THE COMING PLAGUE). Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7088] Re: White collar/unproductive worker?
Hi Folks! The other day I was at my dentist's office for checkup and cleaning. As the dental assistant was scraping my teeth I was thinking: is she blue collar or white collar worker? I know she is "unproductive" worker. Can someone care to comment? Fikret I don't understand why you think someone providing health care is an unproductive worker (assuming she's working for a capitalist enterprise, that is, the business is incorporated -- which is likely): she's an employee and wage laborer and the health care she provides is part of a service sold as a commodity by the dental corporation. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6972] re: Krugman
The first economics class I took as an undergraduate at Yale, where I eventually got a B.A. in economics, was intermediate macro, with yours truly [unless my mind is playing tricks on me, I'm sure it was Krugman]. All semester I did fine on homeworks and the mid-term, and basically kept my mouth shut in class, as I was at that time *just* beginning to read lefty and Marxist material. On the last day of class, Krugman explicitly asked for our opinions about what we'd been learning. I had just read Seymour Melman, so I very respectfully pointed out that Krugman himself had noted several unresolved problems with the theory he'd taught us, and that Melman's work seemed to resolve those problems. I asked Krugman to comment. His response? "I'm not going to answer that question except to say that Melman's theory is stupid and wrong." [This is perhaps not an exact quote, but damn close.] Never mind whether Krugman was right or wrong about this; pedagogically his response is inappropriate and unacceptable. Of course he gave me no opportunity to respond, but immediately called on another student. A week or so later was the final exam, four questions of detailed macro analysis. I answered the first two questions perfectly (I got all possible 25 points on each), and then, tired of the exercise, rather than continuing on to deal with the third and fourth questions, spent the following hour explaining why I thought the whole theoretical framework of the first two answers was problematic. I figured that I had demonstrated my understanding of the theory by my answers to those first two questions. Uh-uh. Krugman gave me a 50 for the final, an F, and an F for the course. I went to talk with him about it afterwards, explaining why I thought I had sufficiently demonstrated my understanding of the course material and more, and when he wouldn't raise my grade, requested another opportunity to take a test. Nope. The only F I got at Yale. I wasn't an econ major at that point; I'm not quite sure why that didn't stop me from switching my major to economics later. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6974] Re: AI unionbuster?
Max Sawicky responds to Maggie's stories about "progressive," "lefty" organizations turning reactionary when unionization approaches: I've been hearing stores like this for 25 years. I mention this not to air pessimism but because I think there's a moral: it pays to be cognizant of the limits of collective political action, including the capacity of the working class or their representatives (much less anyone else) to make virtuous, disinterested decisions when given the power to do so. In other words, there are proper limits to government. Obviously what that means in practice leaves a lot to the imagina- tion. For me it reinforces the premise that the US public sector should be larger than it is now, but not as large as, say, Sweden's. I think Max's response is interesting. I have a very different response. I don't think these stories say anything in particular about the "limits of collective political action." Or, for that matter, about the proper size of the public sector. [Technically speaking, non-profits are neither more nor less public than capitalist enterprises: a board of directors runs the organization.] On the contrary, it seems to me to indicate the necessity of *greater* collective political action, specifically of communal or communist class processes, wherein workers collectively appropriate their own surplus labor and decide what to do with it (and thus how to organize their work, etc.). Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6980] Re: pol econ PhD programs
I've been looking for a PhD program with an interdisiplinary approach, combining (radical/intl/comparative) political economy, gender and labor studies.The New School's economics program looks great, but I've heard they can't offer much financial support. What advice does PEN-L have on the subject? I hate to say it but UMass Amherst is the obvious place to go, with Rick Wolff, Steve Resnick, Sam Bowles, Nancy Folbre (and Ann Ferguson down the hall), Julie Graham in geography, David Kotz, Jim Crotty, Jim Boyce, even (shudder) Herb Gintis. :) Whatever anyone thinks of any of these individuals or their work, UMass offers a broad range of different heterodox perspectives on social theory. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6952] would that it would happen here
From the WSJ, 10/25/96: "Employees of Victor Co. of Japan in France locked their Japanese and French managers in a room at the stereo plant to protest its planned closure. The electronics group said earlier this month it would move the operation to Scotland, where labor costs and taxes are lower. Earlier this week, workers at a French state-owned weapons maker, also frustrated by job cuts in France with 12.5% unemployment, held 11 executives hostage for a day to protest defense cutbacks." Of course, in the U.S., under Ol' Bill, we don't even have the opportunity to protest defense cutbacks, because there aren't any! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6932] Re: I'm afraid to say this...
At 9:01 PM 10/24/96, bill mitchell wrote: 4. why censoring the USA for the whole world is a breakthrough. Though of course we wouldn't even be talking to each other like this if it weren't for the Pentagon. Doug Yeah: the other day there was an opinion piece in the WSJ that actually had the nerve to argue that the Internet was the proof that government can't pick research and should stay out of the way and let private capital decide what to do. It even acknowledged (in one sentence) that the Pentagon started the Internet. Sheesh! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6880] typo
I wrote, Tom: I'm not clear if you missed the all-important "wink" at the end of my comments to Doug. Marx spent twice as many pages (K, vol. III, chs. 14 and 15) elaborating the "countertendencies" as he did the tendency itself (ch. 13). In my reading of CAPITAL, Marx was arguing not *for* but *against* the Ricardian notion that the rate of capital falls. Of course in the last sentence I meant that the rate of *profit* falls, not the rate of *capital*. Sorry for the typo. It was 5:00 AM when I wrote that. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6881] Re: rising rate of profit?
Blair wrote And you a Marxist! Doug, theory tells us that the rate of profit falls over time. These data must be incorrect! ;-) Tsk, tsk, Blair! You left out the crucial term "tendency". Virtually all of Das Kapital is an exercise in explaining what the capitalists do to _resist_ this tendency (including lengthening the working day and introducing new technology) and how that ultimately reinforces the tendency. There's a world of difference between a tendency and a trend. Regards, Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286 The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm Tom: I'm not clear if you missed the all-important "wink" at the end of my comments to Doug. Marx spent twice as many pages (K, vol. III, chs. 14 and 15) elaborating the "countertendencies" as he did the tendency itself (ch. 13). In my reading of CAPITAL, Marx was arguing not *for* but *against* the Ricardian notion that the rate of capital falls. Also, see Steve Cullenberg's book, THE FALLING RATE OF PROFIT: RECASTING THE MARXIAN DEBATE, Pluto Press, 1994. Regards, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6895] Re: rising rate of profit?
Jerry commented on Steve's book: Also, see Steve Cullenberg's book, THE FALLING RATE OF PROFIT: RECASTING THE MARXIAN DEBATE, Pluto Press, 1994. Steve's book is an interpretation of debates _among Marxists_ concerning the FRP rather than an interpretation of Marx _per se_. He makes this point very explicitly in his book. Yes, but it should be obvious that in interpreting debates on a subject one's own interpretation on the subject is revealed as well. And I know Steve would agree with this. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6897] Re: GM-CAW agreement
I wrote, On the other hand, CAW workers got health and some other benefits for same-sex partners. And Rudy replied, Although I haven't seen the details of the CAW agreement I would tend to agree with your first assessment. Giving health and other benefits for same sex partners is probably not that costly for GM because 1) all Canadians are covered by Medicare and 2) there probably are not that many people who will use the benefits. Absolutely. I didn't mention this as a counter to my argument but simply as an aside. I think it's significant and positive on the cultural front but irrelevant to the question I posed about concessions, rhetoric and saving face. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6901] intro macro textbook?
Hi, folks: Next spring I'll be teaching intro macro at UC extension (evening class) and I get to choose the textbook! I've been working as contract labor, and this is the first time I get to choose my own textbook. My excitement at this FREEDOM OF CHOICE :) is tempered only by the accompanying realization of my ignorance. I've not taught intro macro previously, only intro micro and intermediate micro and macro (of the "core curriculum"). So... I would really appreciate it if people would offer their opinions about what textbooks they've used that have worked well. More generally, I would be entirely grateful if people wanted to share course syllabi with me, or even ideas and general perspectives about teaching intro macro. In light of the pending blackout on US PENLers, perhaps people would be so kind as to email directly to me. I would then be happy to share these posts or a summary with anyone else who requested it of me. Thanks in advance. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6902] Re: teaching reform and revolution? revisited
Helene Jorgensen counterposed exploitation with labor-management
cooperation. But there is no necessary contradiction here: exploitation is
all too compatible with labor-management cooperation ("jointness"). In
liberal North America people tend to use the word exploitation to indicate
situations where workers are *really* badly treated (e.g. garment industry
sweatshops). In Marxism, of course, exploitation has a different meaning.
Workers with flex time and quality control circles and decent benefits and
even some job security are still exploited if they work for capitalist
enterprises.
I don't want to encourage my students to think that capitalism can solve
all its contradictions, that if capitalist bosses are just nicer or more
concerned about their workers, then we will live in the best of all
possible worlds. Exploitation will inevitably produce a continuing stream
of miseries, or at least it would seem so judging by history.
Shawgi, on the other hand, writes that "monopoly capitalists are not
interested in the well-being of workers. Their aim is maximum capitalist
profits." This may be so, but I don't want to teach my students that the
only way to be successful in business is to squeeze the workers dry and
suck the marrow out of their bones by any means possible. If one of my
students ever reaches a position of some authority, I'd like to think that,
perhaps in part due to my influence, s/he might be inclined to adopt
strategies that exploit by producing environmentally-friendly rather than
exploit by producing environmentally destructive commodities; strategies
that exploit by increasing real wages rather than decreasing them (it is
elementary Marxian theory how real wages and exploitation can increase
apace, no?), and so on.
Furthermore, while I agree with Shawgi's statement on an emotional level,
theoretically I think it does an injustice to Marxian theory. First of all,
as Doug Henwood has argued compelling and succinctly in LBO 71, *monopoly*
capitalists are not the only problem. I hate capitalism whether it is
monopolistic or not (and yes I understand the dynamic relationship between
small and large capital). More to the point, capitalists are human beings,
that is, their subjectivity is fragmented and contradictory, the product of
*all* the social relations in which they participate, and not determined
solely by their relationship to the means of production or more generally
their role in social production. (Just as workers' consciousness is not
determined solely by their relationship to capitalist production.) The
capitalist *qua capitalist* may not care about workers, but real
capitalists are overdetermined by the social totality, and not determined
just by capital. Marx himself was very clear about this and stated so at
least several times in CAPITAL. (e.g. see the Preface to the First German
Edition, p. 10, International Publishers: 1967: "here individuals are dealt
with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic
categories"
I don't think that heightening the contradictions by itself will lead to
revolution so I'm not interested simply in making things as bad as possible.
In truth I think these questions are extremely complex and difficult even
in discussion with sophisticated Marxists and radicals; I am at a loss how
to present these complexities at an intro level to students who know
neither NC theory (except unconsciously) or Marxism (at all). Perhaps the
fault is mine: instead of titling my post "reform or revolution?" maybe I
should have used the subject header "teaching reform and revolution?"
Appreciating all the replies so far; keep 'em coming, folks!
Thanks.
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6865] Re:
Someone mentioned that Eudora can filter out mail, though perhaps the shareware version I use is not up to this task. Sandy, I believe this is the case, though as I don't use the shareware version I'm not sure. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6867] reform or revolution? revisited
Okay, folks: here's a question that in various forms has been debated (including on this list) over and over and over and Suppose one is teaching intro econ to "typical" (?) university students, which means mainstream range of conservative, and some liberal ideas, including many who will either in school or later go into "business." Do you (I'm asking for your personal opinions here) teach that corporations *must* e.g. open non-union shops, invest abroad where labor is cheaper, skimp on quality, etc., in order to compete in capitalist markets, thereby reinforcing those tendencies in those who are or will be in business; or do you teach that unions can increase productivity; "environmentally friendly commodities" can be profitable, and the like, thereby reinforcing liberal tendencies at the cost of pushing "socialism" away? Eagerly awaiting your responses. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6869] Re: revolutionary ecological fiction
Thad wrote, Because, I would argue, if you're a firm operating in a market system on a for-profit basis, you'll be under pressure to either grow or die in most instances. You'll also have strong incentive to pass of ecological costs on to the community. And unless you radically undercut the economic insecurity characteristic of present-day capitalism, there'll be pressure to grow politically simply to provide enough jobs, etc. I agree theoretically there are vast ecological gains that reform-under-capitalism might accomplish, but don't think that's a very plausible scenario given the way existing power interests can block meaningful reform. This is certainly the standard eco-Marxist argument (see any of numerous issues of CAPITALISM, NATURE, SOCIALISM, the great journal from Jim O'Connor and Guilford Press). However, for a counter perspective, see my article, "Grow or Die: Marxist Theories of Capitalism and the Environment," in RETHINKING MARXISM 7.2 (Summer 1994), where I argue that the relationship between capitalism and the environment depends upon the "environmental regime," the "complex of natural, cultural, political and economic processes relating to environmentalism that overdetermines class" [class in the sense of surplus labor production, appropriation and distribution]. Better yet, see my Ph.D. dissertation, "Enterprise, Value, Environment: The Economics of Corporate Responses to Environmentalism" (UMI, 1995), which was written after the article and which elaborates the argument in more detail and I think much more persuasively. The argument in my article is contrasted with O'Connor's in the guest introduction to the current special issue of SCIENCE AND SOCIETY on Marxism and Ecology. However, I have to say I don't think the guest editor, David Schwartzman understood the argument as I intended (perhaps the fault of my exposition rather than his reading?): I would by no means say, for example, as he does, that I am "optimistic!" In any case, as Schwartzman does note, like O'Connor, my argument, based on Marxian class analysis, suggests we'll be much better off when communist or communal class processes, rather than capitalist ones, are dominant. While there is no utopianism in my argument (to say the least); it is perhaps a possible basis for a socialist, ecologically sustainable utopian fiction, and maybe even reality. :) Thanks for some of these refs! In general I don't think ecological writers are very strong in facing up to power issues and often act as if you can wish away corporate structures. My preliminary judgement is that serious thought about what a sustainable society would like institutionally is underdeveloped but far from nonexistent. On this point, again, I suggest you look at CNS. Lots of great articles about political economy and political ecology (where in my mind politics is about power). Regards, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6871] The Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism (conference
RETHINKING MARXISM is sponsoring a gala conference this December (12/5 Thursday afternoon to 12/8 Sunday mid-day) as titled above in the subject header. It's been announced on this list previously, but the web site now has the full schedule and I thought folks might be interested in taking a look. There are some 180 panels, on the broadest range of topics imaginable. Plenaries are: Knowledge, Science, Marxism (Rick Wolff, Jack Amariglio, Sandra Harding, Vandana Shiva); Race and Class: A Dialogue (Antonio Callari, Etienne Balibar, Cornel West); Locations of Power (Andrew Parker, Wendy Brown, Judith Butler, Wahneema Lubiano); Postmodern Socialism(s) and the Zapatista Struggle (Carmen Diana Deere, Roger Burbach, Arturo Escobar, Fernando Navarro) In case anyone wants to check it out, the URL is http://www.nd.edu:80/~plofmarx/RM-Home.html The conference also includes a very full program of art and cultural activities. The full schedule of art, panels and plenaries, along with information about registration, travel instructions, accomodations, daycare, and publishers' exhibitions is available on the web site. Hope to see you there! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6872] GM-CAW agreement
I'm having a deja vu: in their "job security" agreement with GM, the CAW agree to let GM cut jobs if (1) productivity increases; (2) technology changes; (3) market share declines; or (4) a product line is discontinued. It's not clear to me what the CAW gained, especially since GM is also allowed to get rid oftwo parts plants they wanted to sell. Maybe I just don't get this process, but time and time again I see unions making various sorts of concessions in exchange for "job security" promises of one sort or another that, as far as I can tell, don't amount to a hill of beans. It seems as if, no less than corporations are alleged to do, unions take a very short-term view, protecting temporarily the status of existing workers at the cost of the union and workers' long-term power. Am I just wrong about this and in fact unions are winning significant concessions from corporations regarding long term job security for workers, or are these various promises on the part of the corporations little more than rhetorical dressing so the unions can save face? On the other hand, CAW workers got health and some other benefits for same-sex partners. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6803] Re: Shawgi Tell's low signal to noise ratio
It has been written: I hit the delete key every time I see Shawgi's messages, primarily because I hate being preached to -- even if there is a vague chance I might agree with the message. However, It is getting very, very tiring having to monitor my entire message list for possible shawgi's before reading said list, This is especially true since my time is incredibly limited right now. How about, we all tie up Shawgi's mail box with static? Make this problem a two way street? I, too, delete most of Shawgi's messages without reading. I occasionally read or skim Shawgi's posts for reasons similar to those mentioned by Susan Fleck, Bill Mitchell, Bill the Cat, Paul Zarembka, and Walter Daum (did I miss anyone?). My personal opinion is that there is a higher signal to noise ratio in Schniad's and Bond's posts then there is in Shawgi's (though I by no means read all of their posts either). The few Shawgi posts I look at are mostly unobjectionable, but rarely new or interesting, at least to anyone who's studied any Marxism at all. So, Shawgi, you're mostly preaching to the converted, and as others have noted, we mostly hate preaching. Actually, I should be more precise: some of Shawgi's posts are purely ideology; others contain information about current events, as list members have pointed out. Susan: I don't believe one must be an anarchist to oppose posting limits. I'm not and I do. Shawgi: Marxism is about social relations, but with only one exception I can think of (prior to this current flap, and contrary to the statements in your responses to Michael and others about your presence on the list), you seem averse to relating socially to anyone else on the list. It's kinda weird, don't you think? I mean, people even talk about you in the third person, as if you're not on the list, because you never respond. What gives? (I'm not convinced by your comments about your willingness to participate in discussion.) Michael: I would have first asked Shawgi to reduce the number of posts, to use more discretion, and to engage in discussion, rather than not to post at all. This I think at least partly addresses Sandy and Doug's important distinction between discussion and broadcasting. (And by the way, I am one of those who does pay for net time.) On the one hand you say you "do not want to get us tied up in endless debates about who [should] and should not be here and whom we will and will not tolerate"; on the other hand isn't it important for people to weigh in on this matter in order for us to get a sense of the sense of the list? All: For those of you who really never read any of Shawgi's posts, and who use Eudora, it is easy enough to filter any message with "Shawgi Tell" (or any other text, for that matter) in the "From" header directly to the trash. You need not even ever see the header, let alone the message text. (If you do this, the first action performed by the filter should be to mark the post as "read"; then transfer to trash. This avoids a dialog box if you manually empty Eudora's trash.) On a Mac, if you're not using Eudora, it's pretty easy to write an AppleScript (or QuicKeys macro) to do the same thing. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6804] revolutionary ecological fiction
Anyone else red I mean read the sci-fi trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, RED MARS, GREEN MARS, BLUE MARS? I just finished the first book, RED MARS, and it's very good: politics, economics, ecology, and revolution. Here are a couple of brief passages folks might find interesting, all excerpted from one large discussion occupying a few pages sequentially: [DISCLAIMER: the following excerpts represent passages I thought of interest, but not necessarily my opinions.] "This usually led to considerations of ecology, and its deformed offshoot economics" "Anyway that's a large part of what economics is -- people arbitrarily, or as a matter of taste, assigning numerical values to non-numerical things. And then pretending that they haven't just made the numbers up, which they have. Economics is like astrology in that sense, except that economics serves to justify the current power structure, and so it has a lot of fervent believers among the powerful." "Everyone should make their living, so to speak, based on a calculation of their real contribution to the human ecoloyg. Everyone can increase their ecological efficiency by efforts to reduce how many kilocalories they use -- this is the old Southern argument against the energy consumption of the Northern industrial nations. There was a real ecologic basis to that objection, because no matter how much the industrial nations produced, in the larger equation they could not be as efficient as the South." "They were predators on the South And like all predators their efficiency is low." "It should be the law that people are rewarded in proportion to their contribution to the system." Dmitri, coming in the lab, said, "From each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs!" "No, that's not the same," Vlad said. "What it means is, You get what you pay for!" "But that's already true," John said. "How is this different from the economics that already exists?" They all scoffed at once "There's all kinds of phantom work! Unreal values assigned to most of the jobs on Earth! The entire transnational executive class does nothing a computer couldn't do, and there are whole categories of parasitical jobs that add nothing to the system by an ecologic accounting. Advertising, stock brokerage, the whole apparatus for making money only from the manipulation of money -- that is not only wasteful but corrupting, as all meaningful money values get distorted in such manipulation." "But all of these are subjective judgement!" John exclaimed. "How have you actually assigned caloric values to such a variety of activities?" "Well, we have done our best to calculate what they contribute back to the system in terms of well-being measured as a physical thing. What does the activity equal in terms of food, or water, or shelter, or clothing, or medical aid, or education, or free time?" Later, there is a separate discussion with Sufis (on Mars: this is sci-fi, remember :) "Whole cultures were built around the idea of the gift Whatever you were given, you did not expect to keep, but gave it back again in your turn, hopefully with interest. You worked to be able to give more than you received. Now we think that this can be the basis for a reverent economics." Separate passage: "He gave them advice in media relations and arbitration technique, he told them how to organize cells and committees, to elect leaders. They were so ignorant! Young men and women, educated very carefully to be apolitical, to be technicians who thought they disliked politics, making them putty in the hands of their rulers, just like always." And one more, in the heat of the insurrection: "Horrible how the revolution was being portrayed on Earth: extremists, communists, vandals, saboteurs, reds, terrorists. Never the words *rebel* or *revolutionary*, words of which half the Earth (at least) might approve. No, they were isolated groups of insane, destructive terrorists." Okay, that's all. I'm interested in comments from others who have (or haven't) read this work. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6449] Re: railing on dole
Robert Naiman writes, "we're tired, we're cranky, we don't like the government" How about, "we're sick, the earth is sick, we're pissed, we hate big business" ?? :) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6434] Re: S. Tell
It seems that the Middle East doesn't command much attention on this list as other regions. Is that because it is a very touchy and emotional issue for some on the list or what? It certainly is for me, but am just curious as to what is pen-lers' take on what is going on and on the whole 'peace process'! People on this list don't seem to shy away from controversy. Otherwise they wouldn't be on the list. So I am very curious. Or am I wrong?!? Thanks in advance. Anwar I hate to be pedantic (okay, maybe I don't really hate it :) but I don't appreciate the geographical locator, "Middle East." Afro-Asia and Western Asia are both identifiers I've heard that locate according to widely accepted regional names, rather than in relationship to England. England is not (!) the center of the globe. And even if it were this would be weird, for e.g. Palestine is as much to the West as to the East of England. So "Middle East" is completely unhelpful in terms of locating anything. It has come to be accepted as a name only because of the history of English (and now U.S.) imperialism. Can't we give this one up? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6439] Re: institutionalism the Greater Levant
BTW, the reason why pen-l doesn't discuss what's happening in
the Greater Levant (is that a good term, Blair?)
Hey, Jimmy D., I should have guessed you'd pick up on this. :)
Actually, I consulted my dictionaries (electronic and paper) on this.
Here's what I found:
"The countries bordering on the eastern Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to
Egypt."
As an intransitive verb, levant means, "To leave hurriedly or in secret to
avoid unpaid debts."
Now, given the history of British colonialism, I wondered where the name
"Levant" came from, and whether it had anything to do with unpaid debts of
the British to that area -- which would, in my mind, render this name
problematic also. Could it be from earlier European interventions in the
area, i.e. the Crusades? I don't know (and would like to).
Notice also that this name ("Levant") would exclude the Persian Gulf
countries as they do not border the Mediterranean. Even Jordan would
technically be excluded. Perhaps "Greater Levant" is intended to solve this
problem.
I actually *like* "Afro-Asia." "Western Asia," of course, does not include
Egypt, so that's a problem with *that* name.
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6440] Re: S. Tell
Blair, You've got the concept right but the facts wrong. It is the US that calls it the "Middle East." The British called it the "Near East." I think that you can figure out why and the significance of the shift in terminology. Barkley Rosser Right. I've been careless. My apologies. It should be obvious that my question/criticism refers equally to the "Far East" or "the Orient." Actually, from the point of view of England, I'd think that Ireland is the Far East. And for the U.S. the Far East would be California. Hey, that's me! :) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6443] UAW job guarantees
I read in the WSJ that the guarantees Ford and Chrysler made to keep employment at 95% of current levels have some escape clauses: 1. The companies can cut jobs if there's an economic downturn (okay, we knew this already); 2. They can eliminate jobs if they become more efficient at producing cars (so there are no obstacles to replacing labor with capital); 3. They can cut jobs at specific plants deemed "troubled or uncompetitive"; and 4. they can eliminate jobs if "workers who have become redundant due to productivity gains at certain plants turn down transfers" (did I hear someone say bye-bye community?). It seems that the only circumstance in which the job guarantee will take effect is if a company wants to produce fewer cars because it loses market share. Perhaps I'm missing something, but what exactly did the UAW gain with this contract? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6253] Re: value of labor power and wage
How do you explain relative surplus value when the money wage is constant? Does the constancy of money wages imply that the adjustment of wages to the value of labor power can only occur periodically, through crisis for instance? Or should we conceive this adjustment as a process happening as a result of several small actions of laying-off and recontracting for less. I particularly do not like Foley story on the value of labor power because all you are left with is the wage share. I hope to get some inspiring responses on how to go about teaching this story to undergraduate students withou sounding silly. Paulo. My answer to this is so basic that I wonder if I'm misunderstanding the question or simply wrong If either productiveness or intensiveness of labor or both increase, relative surplus labor and real wages (never mind money wages) can both increase simultaneously. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6206] Re: nonmarket enviromentalism
Well, this is one way to look at it... A CLEAR View Volume 3 Number 14 September 16, 1996 NOTABLE QUOTE "Every time a species goes extinct, we're bouncing a check in the trust fund that God called us to manage." -- Peter Illyan of Christians for Environmental Stewardship, a group protesting at the GOP convention in San Diego. Doug This is literally wrong even if the underlying assumption is accepted. Species go extinct all the time. It is not the case that all extinctions are due to human activities. What is reasonable is that the current historically high rate of extinctions manifests poor management on our part. Perhaps a better metaphor would be not bouncing checks but managing a stock portfolio. Of course in any portfolio some stock prices will sometimes decline, but if the value of the portfolio as a whole declines continually then it would indeed be appropriate to question management. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6122] NAFTA strikes again
WSJ, 9/11/96, p. A10: "Ethyl Acts to Avert Losses If Canada Bans Fuel Additive." "Ethyl Corp. announced a US$201 million damage action against the Canadian government to recover estimated losses from a proposed Canadian ban of an octane-boosting fuel additive produced by the Richmond, VA., company. ... "Ethyl served notice with the Canadian government yesterday that it intends to make its claim against Canada under a seldom-used arbitration provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement The NAFTA Provision allows a company to bring before an arbitration panel claims against NAFTA governments for alleged violations of their obligations toward investors. [!!!] ... "A spokesman for Canadian Environment Minister Sergio Marchi said the government intends to proceed with legislation to stop the sale of MMT [methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl] in Canada, because of lingering health concerns about the product and because of the auto industry's warnings that the aditive would hamper the operation of auto computer systems which monitor tailpipe emissions. The government's legislation is expected to be approved by Parliament" * Under NAFTA, governments have obligations to investors, but not to environment or public health. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6089] Re: What did Herb say?
I didn't say history is made by elites. I said that revolutionary movements are spearheaded by relatively well-off, well-educated people. This is why dictators always close down the universities, and why education and communication are so important. Of course, all the great historical struggles have be mass struggles by brave, valiant, and resourceful people from the oppressed and dominated classes. Actually, Herb, I stand by my statement. My notes from your European History Class (Fall 1982), indicate that you said, "History is made by elites." [or perhaps "the elite"] Furthermore, the larger context was precisely your point that, contrary to lefty presumptions, history is not made by mass struggle but by maneuvers, negotiations, struggles, etc., among the elite. Your argument made mass struggles an appendage to struggles among the elite. We were not talking about the importance of education among the masses, nor about the leadership of mass struggles, but about the relative historical importance of mass struggles vs. conflicts within the ruling class. I distinctly remember talking after that class with a number of students who were also struck and dismayed by your comments. I am on cordial terms with Wolff and Resnick, but our intellectual projects are almost wholly disjoint. There was a time when we both read Althusser, but we took different things from it, radically different things, I believe (Sam and I took the notion of practices and sites, which we used in our book Democracy and Capitalism, whereas Resnick and Wolff took epistimological notions). In my opinion Bowles and Gintis on the one hand and Wolff and Resnick on the other took some different and some of the same things from Althusser. I think those of us who studied with both pairs of teachers were the beneficiaries of their mutual interest in Althusser, sometimes complementary, sometimes at odds and sometimes quite compatible. Wolff and Resnick, for instance, also talk about sites and practices, if, for sure, not in exactly the same way as Bowles and Gintis. For the first two years I studied at UMass I was in strong sympathy with the projects and perspectives of Bowles and Gintis, which is why I find it interesting now that I am close to Wolff and Resnick's work and not that of Bowles and Gintis. However, I would never deny that I learned a great deal of important and interesting social theory from Bowles and Gintis. (This statement, of course, is not intended to make them responsible for my limited understanding.) Indeed, with only a few exceptions, I felt that the vast majority of the courses I took at UMass, almost everything I read for my courses, and most of the class and extra-curricular discussions with professors and students, were extremely valuable. I do not regret for a moment having obtained my Ph.D. from there. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6071] Re: Clinton and Blair NOT! on same wavelength
Just so there is absolutely no mistake: I am NOT! on the same wavelength as Clinton. I'm only sorry we're even on the same planet. I am one of those folks who does *not* believe in lesserevilism, so I will not be voting for Clinton and I will be telling stories everywhere I get the opportunity about what a sleezy slimy slug he is. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6073] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Antonio wrote, I hope I am not irking any Hegelians out there Oh come now, Antonio: you *like* irking Hegelians! :) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6074] Re: Fwd: re: rethinking overdetermination
I'm listening to a very cool CD of Thelonious Monk (advanced jazz?) as I write this. But he's African American, so it's okay, right? Blair (who is NOT on the same wavelength as Clinton) Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh shit, I better turn in my union card, I listen to classical music (rgh) maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Multiple recipients of list) Date: 96-09-09 13:15:21 EDT At 9:27 AM 9/9/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is especially so since people can often use "ruling class music" for purposes for which it was not designed. Classical music has become upscale muzak for sensitive yuppies, an aural marker of "sophisticiation" popular in cafes, boutiques, and Jeep Explorers. Most of the classical canon is a relic of when the bourgeoisie was vital - Adorno said that the Beethoven concerto, with the soloist interplaying with the orchestra, but not dominant as in later Romantic concerti, was the high point of bourgeois individualism. Now products of that high bourgeois moment entertains the higher salariat, but I doubt their minds are much on the subtleties of the sonata form, or soloist-orchestra relations. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6077] Re: Clinton and Blair NOT! on same wavelength
Okay, perhaps I was unnecessarily insulting. Maybe Clinton is *not* a sleazy slimey slug. Let's say he's a sleazy slimy scumbag. After all, while I don't like slugs in my garden, sea slugs are very cool beings. :) Blair P.S. sorry about the sleezy spelling error. I wrote, Just so there is absolutely no mistake: I am NOT! on the same wavelength as Clinton. I'm only sorry we're even on the same planet. I am one of those folks who does *not* believe in lesserevilism, so I will not be voting for Clinton and I will be telling stories everywhere I get the opportunity about what a sleezy slimy slug he is. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6019] re: re: overdetermination redux
Jim Devine, You seem to have lots of time to argue about this question, but I don't, or perhaps I just don't have time to argue with someone whose mind is obviously already quite made up. You're welcome to interpret a lack of response from me to your posts as a victory in argumentation. However, I'm not clear why this should cause you any "ire." I did not use any of the names you refer to: "petty bourgeois," "essentialist," or "merely traditional." Yes, I could try to "sketch" the broad conclusions of the AS to guide you through such reading as I mentioned, but you are obviously determined (overdetermined? :) ) to understand what you want to understand, so I don't think that would be a very productive use of my time. Yes, of course suggesting that you read certain books is no kind of argument. It's not intended to be one. It's intended to signal that I am not particularly interested in continuing the argument, as I do not believe it is increasing my understanding and I doubt it is helping yours either (though that's for you to say). The fact that everyone on PEN-L is busy is no argument for me to engage with you if I don't think it's productive. I am not of a mind to let you or PEN-L rule my life. I have other commitments. If you or other PEN-L subscribers choose to engage on PEN-L that's your decision. Obviously, I choose to engage on a limited basis, depending on my interest, the value I think I obtain from any particular engagement, and my level of energy at various moments. I don't have to answer to you about my level of engagement. PEN-L is about discussions, but why have useless discussions? I agree with you that Cullenberg's response is more substantive. So are Antonio Callari's. Again, I was signalling my disengagement by that list of authors. (This post, like my last, is not intended to be substantive but rather mostly about process.) Even now I am tempted to indicate my various points of agreement and disagreement with you and suggest alternative understandings on the latter. But I won't, because I am convinced that nothing I could say would change your understanding (though it *might* change others less committed one way or the other, and this too has been part of my interest in dialogue). This is precisely because, in my view, as Antonio said of Eric, your comments seem "to insist on sifting statements... through the lenses of the very different positivist... perspective." For example, you repeatedly make the mistake that Laclau and Mouffe call an "essentialism of the elements," which presupposes that things are in effect preconstituted in themselves and only then understood in interaction with other similarly constituted elements.* It is this sifting, as it seems to me, that makes it unlikely in my opinion that I will be convinced by anything you are likely to say, as I continually see you mischaracterizing overdetermination in the same way and therefore, in my eyes, "misunderstanding." Thus: you are convinced and I am convinced and there is little purpose in dialogue on this question. (As I have indicated previously, on many other issues I find your posts interesting, thoughtful, helpful and, perhaps best of all, often very funny. Regards, Blair * "The abstract laws of motion... say one thing. But in interaction with pre-capitalist modes of production, racial/ethnic domination, patriarchy, and resistence from oppressed groups, we may see different results in some cases." -- J.D. P.S. One other thing: Steve Cullenberg said that for him, "things are all of equal importance, but... they are differentially important" I disagree with Steve on this point (as on so many others :) ). I don't even think it makes sense to say that different things are "equally" important, precisely because the effectivity of a "thing" is just what the thing is. Since things are all different, so is their effectivity, and thus it doesn't make sense to say they are "equally" effective (important). For a concrete argument of this point, see THE ECOLOGIST 26/3, May/June 1996, pp. 98-103, for John O'Neill's short but excellent critique of cost-benefit analysis on just these lines. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6018] Re: property and ownership
Frank F. Klink wrote a piece which discussed property and ownership. I thought this was interesting for the following reason: In San Francisco, Blue Shield of California has billboard signs for their Access HMO. Two I have seen are as follows: You've lived in your body since day one. That makes you the boss. You've lived in your body since you were born. That makes you the landlord. I thought: So suppose I'd lived in a rented house since the day I was born. Would that make me the landlord? Or if I'd given my whole working life to one company, would that make me the boss? If I'm the landlord of my body, does that mean I can rent it out? Is this billboard not really about health care but about legitimizing wage labor? What does it do to us to think that our body is something we "own?" Does anyone else think these messages are weird? Politically/culturally significant? Is this old territory, written about and discussed ad nauseum already? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5974] Re: overdetermination redux: come on, Jim, at least hit the
This is a response to Jim Devine's message, copied below. I frankly did not understood what Steve meant by his off-the-cuff, tongue-in-cheek (?) comment about "what you see is what you get." I didn't think it helped explain anything, and I don't think your snide (so it seems to me) response below is helpful either. Your whole post below appears to be a critique of empiricism, which anyone even vaguely familiar with the work of the Amherst School would have to acknowledge misses the target entirely. In this sense your post *is* irrelevant. Herb Gintis once said something which struck me as valid (gasp! :) ): it's easy, he noted, to criticize something by attacking its weakest points. A strong critique first builds the strongest case for its target and then attacks that strongest target. Jim, I really get the impression from you that you are not interested in understanding overdetermination, or what people in the Amherst School are doing, but rather simply in defending a more "traditional" (admittedly intelligent and sophisticated) variant of Marxism. If you really are interested, instead of spending your time attacking poor metaphors/analogies/tongue-in-cheek characterizations, why not *read* the works of people in the school. For one thing, your continued reference to "Wolff/Resnick overdetermination" is disrespectful of the many people who have contributed to the Amherst School's work, going beyond and in many cases against Wolff and Resnick's original thinking. Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio, Bruce Norton, J.K. Gibson-Graham (a.k.a. Julie Gibson and Katherine Graham), Jonathan Diskin, Antonio Callari, John Roche, Carole Biewener, Steve Cullenberg, Ric McIntyre, Jenny Cameron, Ulla Grapard, Andriana Vlachou, Claire Sproul, are just a few of the many people who have developed and applied the insights that spring from overdetermination in interesting and productive ways on a wide range of topics, from gender to race to ecology to culture to economics, as well as, of course, specifically class. (These names are just those that spring to mind immediately and I apologize for omitting other productive members of the Amherst School.) If anyone is interested in finding out for themselves what people around the Amherst School are doing, I suggest you visit their web site at http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx/RM.html. (This is actually the web page for the journal RETHINKING MARXISM, which contains links to an extensive bibliography of Amherst School members' work, to books by AS folks, and to the upcoming international gala conference to be held this December, "The Politics and Language of Marxism." Regards, Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim Devine wrote, sorry if you think this irrelevant, but it's easy to erase. It's also short... If I understand him correctly, Steve Cullenberg summarized the main message for research of the Wolf/Resnick overdetermination theory (i.e., that all entities in society determine the character of all other entities, just as the characters of all entities are determined by all other entities) as the methodological principle that "what you see is what you get." (This imples a critique of the efforts of benighted people like myself who want to figure what's really going on. We're mere "essentialists" and should stop.) Okay, I decided to apply the axiom that "what you see is what you get" in practice. So I looked at the world for awhile. As far as I could tell, I didn't see any overdetermination going on. I saw cars hitting telephone poles and cruise missiles hitting Iraq. But I didn't see any overdetermination. I saw the movie "Independence Day" but I didn't see any overdetermination, in or out of the theater, not even at the popcorn stand. I realized that _not_once_ in my entire life had I ever seen overdeter- mination. So based on my empirical investigation, I concluded that since I didn't see any overdetermination, and because "what you see is what you get," it could not exist. The concept of overdetermin- ation should be rejected. But if overdetermination -- the very essence of the Wolf/Resnick theory as presented by Steve -- doesn't exist, then the principle that "what you see is what you get" could not apply. On the other hand, if I go beyond just seeing, to interpret what's going on, to find out what's _really_ going on (as is my usual wont), then I might decide that overdetermination is an aspect of reality, or even the most important aspect of reality, the essence of social reality, as in Wolf/Resnick. But then I would be violating the principle of "what you see is what you get." It seems to me that the methodological principle of "what you see is what you get" embodies a commandment: thou shalt not think rationally. BTW, how does the "what you see is what you get" principle or overdetermination help us answer the question of whether or not the aliens and flying saucers in "Independence Day" are real? and whether or not the missiles hitting Iraq are real? I'm confused.
[PEN-L:5943] First Internet Union Born
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 19:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: Conference "env.justice" [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: EcoNet Environmental Justice Desk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: First Internet Union Born To: Recipients of conference [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Gateway: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Lines: 48 From: EcoNet Environmental Justice Desk [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEWS RELEASE FIRST INTERNET UNION BORN San Francisco, California August 29, 1996 Contact: Jim Philliou, SEIU Local 790 415/575-1740 x131 Alair MacLean, IGC 415/561-6100 Employees of the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) voted today 18 to 7 to be represented as a union of the Service Employees International Union Local 790. This historic vote represents the creation of the first unionized Internet Service Provider. IGC is a non-profit organization that was formed in 1987 to assist progressives, activists, and grassroots organizations to use the newly evolving medium of the Internet. IGC has 15,000 subscribers across the country. IGC operates five Internet computer networks: LaborNet, EcoNet, PeaceNet, ConflictNet and WomensNet. IGC and LaborNet have pioneered the use of the Internet among unions, labor activists, and labor researchers. LaborNet Steering Committee member Steven Hill says: "Finally, the labor movement has a home on the Internet that is pro- union and organized." LaborNet and IGC provide full Internet access and World Wide Web publishing services to union locals, internationals and rank and file members. LaborNet's Web page is http://www.igc.org/labornet. "The emergence of the Internet has raised new issues in workplaces that we have sought to address," says Alair MacLean, a member of the union organizing committee, and Director of IGC's Environmental Justice Networking Project. "We are delighted about the result, and hope it will inspire other Internet workers to examine issues about pay, working conditions, diversity and workplace hazards related to keyboard use and repetitive strain injury." IGC is a project of the Tides Center and is based in the Thoreau Center for Sustainability in the Presidio of San Francisco. -30- Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5905] Re: Korea
At issue is how to build a more democratic Korea, one that draws from the best in both parts of the country while building something new. Martin: thanks for your helpful analysis of the current situation in Korea. You referred to "the best in both parts of the country." Obviously in the mainstream press North Korea is described as near-Gulag, not to mention desperately poor, etc. Could you say briefly what you see as "the best" of the North? Thanks in advance. In ignorance, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5864] Crack and CIA
ral intelligence agency; colombia; sandanistas; NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. --Peter Montague, Editor Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5805] Re: Crack Intelligence Agency
I haven't seen them in the WSJ or NYT. Blair Shocked and dismayed. -- From: pen-l Subject: [PEN-L:5791] Crack Intelligence Agency Date: Thursday, August 22, 1996 7:54AM Have Gary Webb's stories from the San Jose Mercury News showing the CIA's heavy involvement in bringing crack to the U.S. gotten wide play? I guess that's a way asking how many people have heard about it who don't read the SJMN? The stories can be gotten, for now, at www.sjmercury.com/drugs/. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5667] Re: welfare
Peter Burns wrote: I've read in several places that the real value of AFDC payments has declined by 46 percent since 1970, and that even when food stamps are added, the combined real value has gone down 26 percent. Since 1970 out-of-wedlock births have increased by over 75 percent. The obvious conclusions are that welfare benefits were astonishingly high to begin with, and that the recipients are slow learners. Peter You, Sir, have a dry and acerbic sense of humor I rather like. :) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5605] Re: Evaluating and grading critical thinking skills
Hello. I'm an old, lapsed PEN-L member. I am back on to ask for advice: I want to include a lot more writing and team assignments in both introductory macroeconomics and upper level courses (this year on gender discrimination). I would even like to dispense with multiple choice tests. However large cl asses, no teaching assistants etc prevent me from taking on eg sic written essay assignments from each student each term. I would love to hear from people who have structured their courses innovatively to help their students develop analytic skills AND HAVE DEVISED EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WAYS TO GRADE that work. Please send me notes at my email, send your syllabus and even copies of assignments as soon as possible (by fax (207) 780 5507), email or snail mail. Thanks very much in advance. Nance Goldstein nance @usm.maine.edu I too would be extremely interested in such information. Please copy any email notes to me. Thanks. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5590] Info request from Susan Feiner
Hi Folks: I'm teaching a course next term which will begin with a couple of weeks taking a look at the "privatization/deregulation debates." I want to give the students articles expressing the range of policy/theoretical views which are at play. Do you have any suggestions? My strongest preference is for material from journals like The Nation, Commentary and so forth (non-technical, but fairly high reading level). Thanks in advance, and PLEASE respond privately (I am not on PenL). Susan Feiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE NOTE NEW SUMMER ADDRESS Phone Number Susan F. Feiner 603 374 9263 (ph) 603 374 6509 (fax) Assoc. Prof./Economics Women's Studies GENERAL DELIVERYUniversity of Southern Maine Bartlett, NH 03812Portland, Me 04103 Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5557] Re: science essentialism
1. "science" means among other things trying to understand what in heck is going on in the real, empirical, world. This involves, if possible, positing "essentialist" theories and hypotheses, that say what is going on beneath the surface appearances. (E.g., there Marx's laws of motion of capitalism give us understanding about how capitalism works and can suggest conditional predictions about the future.) Understanding does not necessarily mean positing essentialist theories. I think essentialist theoretical moves can hinder understanding. 2. It also means that no hypothesis is the final word on the subject. Any hypothesis is subject to logical, empirical, or methodological criticism. Of course, criticism alone does not trump a theory. An alternative theory is needed to do that. (E.g., Marxian political economy can incoporate the valid claims of the neoclassical school and then add more.) Sometimes the alternative is that no theory is possible, as when most reasonable people conclude that no reasonable theory can exist about the connection between astrological signs and human life, contrary to astrological "theory." 3. Science should make no claim about objectivity or value-freeness. (Even Newtonian physics recognizes the role of frames of reference; nowadways it also recognizes that Newtonian physics is a special case, based on restrictive assumptions.) Maybe something like that might arise if enough people look at an issue from different perspectives, but that's hardly guaranteed. 4. Just because scientific progress _is possible_ (point 2) doesn't mean that it will happen. Wrong theories have replaced right ones, due to the factors of point 3. (The rise in the belief in the aggregate production function is an example; that theory still lingers.) 5. The Wolfnick theory, as I understand it, argues that no scientific knowledge is possible, i.e., that it's all subjective. Their epistemology suggests that emprical reality is all in our perceptions; they reject the "realist" view that even though empirical reality is damn difficult to see and understand, we can get some insights by studying, thinking, and/or experimenting. You don't seem to understand "Wolfnick theory." I certainly don't think empirical reality is all in my perceptions; I don't know anyone around RM who thinks it does. Nor does anyone I know think we cannot get some insights by studying, thinking,... 6. Further, efforts to understand what's going on are denounced as "essentialist" and thus dismissed. The basic Wolfnick insight is that everything depends on (i.e., is overdetermined by) everything else. That doesn't really say anything substantive or help us understand the world; it makes no effort to say which factors are more important than others. Hearing Wolfnick talk about these matters at an ASSA confab awhile back, it was clear that there is no reason for them to decide to write books rather than crossword puzzles, no reason for them to be Marxist rather than neoclassical -- except personal preference. It's all subjective. Only certain efforts -- essentialist efforts -- to understand what's going on are denounced as essentialist. Jim, your parody of the Amherst School is little more than slurs. 7. Blair, you once sent me a copy of an article you wrote, criticizing Jim O'Connor's ecological theory. It showed that some effort is being made to break the confines of Wolfnickism. After a quick recap of criticism slapping O'Connor for essentialism and the like, the rest of the paper provided some substanitive criticism and a broader, more general perspective than O'Connor. It was clear that criticism was not enough. That goes beyond Wolfnickism as I understand it. I repeat, you don't seem to understand it. (Hey, thanks for reading my paper! Feedback always welcome.) "Essentialist" is shorthand -- a designation -- for certain kinds of theoretical moves. In my paper I argue that it is precisely those moves that get O'Connor into trouble, and that my perception of his making those moves is what enables me to see what I see as trouble (he obviously doesn't see it that way) and how to make some different moves. The critique of essentialism is not just some irrelevant high-falutin rhetoric, and it's not separate from what you call "some substantive criticism and a broader, more general perspective than O'Connor." Jim, as I've made clear to you, I appreciate your contributions to PEN-L and respect your work (not to mention your sense of humor). But I really think your understanding of the Amherst School is extremely deficient, and I wonder when you last gave it any serious consideration. The body of work being produced by the Amherst School has grown and developed tremendously over the past 10 or more years and particularly so in the last half of that period. Regards, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5570] Re: We MUST be essentialists
Unfortunately, Blair leaves the impression that the Wolff/Resnick crowd has no (public) answer to the question, "Why desire socialism"? Eric . Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's right, Eric, the Wolff/Resnick crowd has no public answer to the question, "why desire socialism?" [You have to use your imagination now to hear the sarcasm, folks.] Think what you like Eric. I made clear to you I'm overwhelmed with work and haven't time to get into a long and complicated discussion. I also made clear that I am not willing nor have I been authorized to act as spokesperson for any "crowd." Frankly, the tone of your posts makes it sound to me much more like you're trying to win points in some perceived battle than desirous of learning something new (and this is surprising to me because it's not how I remember you). If you're genuinely interested, look at the literature of the Amherst School over the past 4 years to see a significant number of people thinking creatively about socialism. (And if I've misread your tone, my apologies.) Sincerely, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5575] Re: We MUST be essentialists
Blair wrote, . . . I'm overwhelmed with work and haven't time . . . I apologize for suggesting that Blair should discuss the various issues I've raised when he clearly is pressured by job market concerns. As thoughtless as I've been along the lines above, I DON'T think I've been merely, . . . trying to win points in some perceived battle . . . The questions I've asked are fundamental and not nit-picking just to score points. The questions I've raised (e.g., "why desire socialism in the W/R world?") go to the heart of key issues. In deference to the wishes of Blair--and as no one else is contributing to this thread--, I won't respond to any of the other parts of his last posting. But I can't help myself: Q: How many Wolfnicks does it take to change a light bulb? A: That's an essentialist question: let me tell you about overdetermination and how changing lightbulbs, in my theory, is no more important than dancing in the streets or . . . ;-) I always appreciate a good joke, Eric,... or even a bad one. :) Thanks for your gracious response. I agree that the issues you raise are key ones (as I already acknowledged). It's a long and broad-ranging discussion (been going on for 15 years already and still going strong, no?). Perhaps sometime we can get into it and give it the attention it deserves (maybe you could do that now but I can't). Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5554] Re: We MUST be essentialists
At 2:25 PM -0700 8/5/96, Eric Nilsson wrote: I'll be unfair to Blair and assume that he is willing to act as the representative of the RM crowd. Fairness is not particularly relevant. It's just a bad assumption. As I indicated, I don't have the time or energy to get into what are necessarily long involved discussions on this matter. I'm broke, unemployed, job-searching, paper-writing, and leaving in a week on a trip for a week. Sorry, Eric. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5533] Re: We MUST be essentialists
Eric raises entirely reasonable questions that deserve an answer. Of course, I can only answer for myself, not for "the world of Wolff/Resnick." I seem to detect (not just from Eric) the sense that people around RETHINKING MARXISM form some monolithic camp reminiscent of the government of the Soviet Union. Not so. Disagreements are rife on all sorts of issues, theoretical, political, rhetorical, and cultural. I do not have time to discuss the entire project of the Amherst School. I will just point out that Eric's comments in the last paragraph do not resolve the issue of aesthetics: what he calls "positive" consequences are a matter precisely of aesthetics -- the sort of statement NC theory refers to as "normative." However, when Eric says that his theories must be "a bit" essentialist and economistic I think he is getting at the question of how a theory of overdetermination can say anything about "the real world" if it can't claim "necessary" consequences. I will only say that it is possible to consider the likely bundles of processes (I'm just making up this phrase now) and likely consequences as reason to prefer one over another class process, while recognizing that we cannot in truth say we know the consequences will be such and such. I would be surprised if Eric really believes that "socialism" will *necessarily* have certain consequences in other realms of society. Of course, it might depend on one's definition of socialism. Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ideas below are distinct from those expressed in my previous message. (Question: should we start a new list called Herb-l?) Let me hit the ball in Blair's side of the court for a second. I'm an agnostic humanist: I THINK (but I'm not entirely sure) that capitalism fails to permit people to fully develop their potential and, so, I desire a switch to a different type of economy. Why exactly, in the world of Wolff/Resnick, does one desire a transformation to socialism/communism? I understand that in such a theory one is not permitted to invoke anything like "human essences" or unfulfilled human essences; why then desire socialism? I've heard it claimed by some within the Wolff/Resnick camp that they once played around with the idea that the move to socialism was motivated by "aesthetic" reasons. But this was many years ago and I imagine they now have a more fully realized idea of their motivation. This is particularly important because their rejection of essentialism also led them to reject the idea that various social processes that we might dislike (say, gender discrimination) were not CAUSED by capitalism (why?: simply invoke the notion of overdetermination). Therefore, it is theoretically possible that a transformation to socialism might MAKE WORSE bad things like gender/racial/ethnic discrimination. "Our theory does not permit us to make the claim that a transformation to socialism will have NECESSARY consequences on other rhelms of society" it might be said. I long ago reached the conclusion that my theories MUST BE a bit essentialist AND economistic. A change in the way things are produced and distributed will have NECESSARY (and positive) consequences on the achievement of human potential and on other rhelms of society. Otherwise, why care about a transformation to socialism? Eric . Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5492] Re: Gintis and all that
g, 10,900 Euclid Ave., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7206 (216) 368-4294 (w) (216) 368-5039 (fax) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5501] Re: gintis and all that
Of course, the "Science Wars" are all the rage right now, with "real" scientists disagreeing precisely over the points in contention here (as below). So saying that economists have to be "scientists" or that "a scientific approach is needed" is to say exactly nothing, since all agree that science is needed and the question is, "what is science?" or, "How do we do science?" or, "What does it mean 'do do science?' " Jim does not exactly say but comes very close to saying that Wolff and Resnick (and by implication other people in the Amherst School) reject any effort "to say anything about the real world." Anyone who could think so has clearly not read or understood the work coming out of the Amherst School over the past bunch of years. Of course, I'm just an "airheaded pomo," so what would I know? ;-) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric N writes:My sense is that Herb's current line of thinking is not influenced much at all by the "Wolfnick" crowd at UMass, Amherst. He probably hasn't been influenced by much of the details of Wolf/Resnick research. But when he came on with guns shooting on both pen-l and the Post-Keynesian thought list, a major part of his message was that economists have to be "scientists" and to "say something" about the real world. The point is that one standard view of Wolf and Resnick, one which I think Herb agreed, is that they are epistemological nihilists who reject any effort to be objective (and thus scientific) or to say anything about the real world. (With very broad strokes, I happen to agree with Herb's view that a scientific approach is needed, though I am sure my vision of what "science" is differs radically from Herb's current view.) -- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 72467,[EMAIL PROTECTED] "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5297] Re: The No-Fault Corporation
Gene: this is precisely my critique of the enviro justice movement: it is trying to make good citizens of corporations: viz: "good neighbor" agreements. See the reasoning in DYING FROM DIOXIN, e.g. Blair At 9:41 PM 7/23/96, Eugene P. Coyle wrote: Forwarded mail received from: CENTER1:CENTER2:TCPBRIDGE:CI:SMTPGATE:"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" This is from the PUBLABOR list, a response to Clinton's economic Herbert Stein's column in WSJ last week. Further grist for the discussion of the "evil of two lessers" discussion recently. Thanks to Jim Devine for the posting of David Brower's piece. LaborTalk: The No-Fault Corporation By Harry Kelber Here's the latest word on the subject of corporate responsibility. It comes from no less an authority than Herbert Stein, former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President Nixon. Writing in The Wall Street Journal of July 15 under a banner headline, "Corporate America, Mind Your Own Business," Stein says that corporations "discharged their responsibilities when they maximized profits." It's a hard-nosed message that's easy for ordinary folks to understand: The sole guiding principle of any company is to make as much money as possible for its investors. It's a blunt response to those who criticize corporations for their outrageous executive salaries, bloated profits and tight-fisted attitude toward their employees. Stein strongly advises that "corporations should not accept responsibility for doing anything the government asks them to do." That, of course, should not inhibit them from accepting the innumerable tax breaks, depreciation allowances, subsidies, grants and special favors they get from Congress, presumably to make them more competitive and improve the American economy. Stein argues that a company's "shareholders"--its employees and customers--do not deserve any special consideration, except in instances where it maximizes its profits. Corporate greed is a healthy instinct, economically justified since, as Stein says, "maximizing profits is the guide for attaining a certain kind of efficiency in the use of the economy's resources." According to this view, corporations have every right to move their factories to low-wage countries to boost their profit margins and they have no responsibility whatever for the economic and social wreckage they leave behind. It's not their problem that their employees are left without a livelihood and that the communities that provided them with essential services suffer financial loss. It is not only their right but their duty to fight against any legislation that puts a crimp in their profit picture. To cut labor costs, they must exert pressure to keep wages and benefits to the lowest possible level. That also means they must use whatever means at their disposal to develop a "union-free environment." In short, corporations must strive to be a law unto themselves and oppose any government regulations that interfere with their single- minded mission to enrich their investors. Obviously, this is a view that the labor movement must challenge. But how? Outside of the occasional blasts against corporate greed, there is no clearly-defined strategy or legislative agenda to compel corporations to be accountable for their behavior to the American people. We need not expect the Clinton administration to take on this job. The White House and virtually all members of Congress are beholden to Big Business, not only for its political contributions but for the enormous pressure it can exert as the nation's most powerful "special interest" group. The best that President Clinton has been able to do is to create a "corporate citizenship award" in the name of the late Ron Brown, the former Secretary of Commerce, who acted as a salesman for our corporations, drumming up business for them by using the economic and military power of the U.S. government as selling points. Does anyone think that corporations will abandon their quest for superprofits in order to get the President's award? The question of corporate responsibility should be a prime issue in this election. It is not. Candidates are avoiding it. Can the AFL-CIO come up with a specific program to make corporations accountable and compel the major political parties to respond to the issue, as it did with the minimum wage and Medicare? I hope that neither Labor nor any other group of people puts any effort into trying to make corporations into "good citizens." The (short-run) goal should be to take away their power by revoking their charters. Richard Grossman has a national movement started to revoke corporate charters. His analysis includes a history of how corporations became people and thus got Free Speech. Ending corporate personhood would be a big step in curbing their control over our minds and over legislation. Grossman's group is Program on Conporations,
[PEN-L:5272] Re: nature as public good
At 6:24 AM 7/23/96, Doug Henwood wrote: At 7:12 PM 7/22/96, Blair Sandler wrote: I don't know whether ecological economists agree, but I wonder what it would mean to say such a thing. Usually "goods" are things that humans produce, in which case what is the point of calling it "nature?" Nature may not be produced by humans, but "nature" is. Or as Adorno said, "The image of undistorted nature arises only in distortion, as its opposite." Doug Absolutely right, but this kind of "production" doesn't seem to have much to do with the "production of goods" -- or anyway, that's my question. What is gained and what is lost by referring to "nature" as a "good?" What insights are opened up to us and what understandings are precluded or occluded? Blair
[PEN-L:5273] Re: nature as public good
At 10:31 AM 7/23/96, Gil Skillman wrote: In response to this passage from Doug, Is it pretty universally agreed by ecological economists that nature is a public good, or is that at all controversial? Blair writes: I don't know whether ecological economists agree, but I wonder what it would mean to say such a thing. Usually "goods" are things that humans produce, in which case what is the point of calling it "nature?" I suppose you could say that nature provides goods (and services) to humans (not to mention other species?), but then whether these goods are public or private would depend on existing definitions of property rights, no? I would like to hear what other folks think about Doug's question. OK. Strictly speaking, I'd say a "good" is simply an item whose consumption makes someone better off, however the latter condition is interpreted. From a social scientific standpoint, the provision of goods is only problematic if they are "things that humans produce", which may be the basis for Blair's distinction above. One way of getting at this distinction is to define as public *bads* human depredations of nature---depletion of the ozone layer via production of chlorofluorocarbons being a leading example. Does it make sense to say "nature" is an "item?" Does it make sense to say "nature" is or can be "consumed?" (This is not the same thing as, for instance, the consumption of specific resources in some specific production process, as when iron is consumed in the production of steel, or coal in the production of electricity. These "items" -- iron or coal -- *are* goods in the conventional sense that to be consumed they had to be produced, made part of various labor processes, and so on.) Things can be "good" without being "a good." Or at least, this is what I am trying to suggest: the human production of actually existing nature, so to speak, is an entirely different phenomenon than the production of a massage, a car, a meal, etc. Does it help to confuse these two distinct kinds of processes? Clearly they are related to each other by a whole web of natural-social processes but that does not mean they are commensurable or comparable in any useful way. This also gets at the point behind Blair's last question. By definition, a "public" good is one characterized by joint consumption and non-excludability. But if nature is understood to be the "supplier" of the good, there is no question of "exclusion", which is a social act. Doug points out that nature is constructed by social acts. This (though perhaps not solely this) does make it possible to exclude individuals and groups from certain aspects of nature. For instance, urban dwellers are denied clean air, green space, etc.Poor people who have access only to commercial, toxic food (i.e., containing high levels of pesticide residues and so on) for financial, geographical, or other reasons, are denied access to nature that others enjoy. So there are two questions here that Doug raises: what are the social/political/theoretical consequences of calling "nature" a "good"; and *if* nature is a good, is it a public good? Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5281] Re: efficiency
I guess I'm just in a disagreeable mood today, at least where Jim Devine is concerned. :) It's *not* a clear case of waste, if the people are occupying resources (land, housing, educational facilities, etc.) that could be put to better use by a people who are less lazy and shiftless, less dirty, less inclined to theft over production and honest labor, etc. If the Jews were just (financial) parasites, an exrement on society, if they were undermining the gene pool, then what's the waste in clearing them out? On the contrary, allowing them to remain, doing what they are doing, would be inefficient, and a waste. Waste, like efficiency, is in the eye of the beholder (which Jim recognized in the earlier part of his post deleted from the following), and so "human resources" has no necessary "progressive content" even in the case of genocide. That progressive content depends on a "progressive" view of people in general. Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Please note that the disgusting opinions offered in the first of the foregoing paragraphs are *not* opinions I hold, but my attempt to "think like the enemy." At 3:34 PM 7/23/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, genocide isn't "efficient" in the Pareto sense since one group is made much worse off (or rather, bumped off). Further, genocide isn't just immoral in the usual senses of the word (racist, treating people like objects, violating their rights, abuse of power, etc., etc.) but it's also a clear case of _waste_, a waste of human resources. (Much as I hate the phrase "human resources" (since it dehumanizes people), in the case of genocide it has some progressive content.)
[PEN-L:5282] Re: neoclassical economics efficiency
The problem with Jim's analysis below, as I see it, is that efficiency *is* in the eye of the beholder, or that dynamic efficiency is impossible to pin down. Unemployed resources can be *efficient* if they spur the economy onto greater growth and thus everyone always enjoys a higher standard of living than they would with equality. In other words, this (unemployed resources) is only inefficient in the short run; NC economics takes a longer view than the jaundiced critics who can hardly see beyond their own short-term special interests. (Please note the sarcasm in the last sentence.) Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 11:59 AM 7/23/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marxian political economics is not really normative in this way [i.e., the way of neoclassical economics which sets up an ideal standard, the A-D general equilibrium model, for measuring everything]. I have found that Cornell West's [work to be] illuminating here: rather than setting up a moral yardstick of his own, Marx's normative focus in his more mature works was on the contrast between bourgeois ideals and capitalist practice... What this says to me is that Robin Hahnel's use (with Michael Albert) of neoclassical notions of efficiency, specifically Pareto optimality, can make sense even to Marx: if capitalism does not produce efficient outcomes, it is failing _by its own standards_. The blatant inefficiency of unemployed workers coexisting with unused means of production (I forgot who brought up this example) is thus quite relevant. Going beyond Marx, I think the efficiency criterion is quite relevant to ideal plans for how a socialist economy could be organized. In fact, utopian authors from Thomas More to Edward Bellamy to Paul Baran and beyond argued that their ideal schemes were more efficient than capitalism, avoiding unproductive labor, depressions, and the like. (Paul Baran didn't actually construct a utopian scheme, though: my impression is was that he instead saw the U.S.S.R. as moving toward utopia, at least in the 1950s.) It's hard to imagine that anyone would prefer inefficiency over efficiency unless that choice isn't really available.
[PEN-L:5288] Re: nature as public good
At 4:17 PM 7/23/96, Doug Henwood wrote: At 2:05 PM 7/23/96, Blair Sandler wrote: Absolutely right, but this kind of "production" doesn't seem to have much to do with the "production of goods" -- or anyway, that's my question. What is gained and what is lost by referring to "nature" as a "good?" What insights are opened up to us and what understandings are precluded or occluded? Well, Marx said that there are two factors of production, labor and nature, and that under capitalism both are appropriated, exploited, and otherwise abused. So calling nature a "good" is the intellectual part of the commodification of nature. If you have no problem with that, then I suppose you have no problem calling nature a "good." Doug Actually, I *do* have a problem with the concept of "exploiting nature," which I wrote about in my dissertation, and will forward to you later, but I have a ton of work to do before I leave town for a week, so it will have to wait. This is all an open question for me, and certainly you are making good points that nonetheless fail to convince me of the general point. Perhaps I'm just fuzzy brained and internally inconsistent. Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5260] Re: nature as public good
At 11:52 AM 7/22/96, Doug Henwood wrote: Is it pretty universally agreed by ecological economists that nature is a public good, or is that at all controversial? Doug I don't know whether ecological economists agree, but I wonder what it would mean to say such a thing. Usually "goods" are things that humans produce, in which case what is the point of calling it "nature?" I suppose you could say that nature provides goods (and services) to humans (not to mention other species?), but then whether these goods are public or private would depend on existing definitions of property rights, no? I would like to hear what other folks think about Doug's question. Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5234] Re: Bumper Stickers
At 8:04 AM 7/19/96, Max B. Sawicky wrote: In a related vein, so to speak, the Washington Post recently reported that by agreement with his current spouse, the Speaker of the House had a vasectomy. So the "Newter Newt" stickers turn out to be redundant. I don't think so, Max. Vasectomy prevents fertilization, but does nothing to temper arrogance, aggressiveness and Newt's other unpleasant qualities. I believe (though this could be myth) that castration would go a longer way to opening up the softer side of Newt. After all, they suggest it for men who rape one woman; why not for someone like Newt who has metaphorically raped a substantial portion of the domestic population? ;-) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5230] Re: Bumper Stickers
At 5:55 PM 7/17/96, James Michael Craven wrote: Date sent: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 17:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blair Sandler) To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:5211] Re: Bumper Stickers At 10:57 AM 7/17/96, James Michael Craven wrote: Just thought I would share the message I saw on a bumper sticker the other day--wisdom often comes in diverse forms through diverse media: "Silence is the voice of complicity" Jim Craven Yup: Silence = Death - \ / \/ \ / \/ (think pink) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Blair, Thanks for the note. Did you read my polemics on Becker? I just can't believe some of the shit that is being written--heap praise on this neoclassical motherfucker because he "discusses" gender, women, family etc in order to further obscure, mystify, sidetrack etc. That is like praising Nazi anthropologists for studying trade unionists, gays, communism, gypsies or Jewish history--in order to more efficiently put more in the ovens. Jim Just for the record, Jim, I read *everything* you post to PEN-L. There are fundamentally two diametrically opposed attitudes to NC theory and also to capitalism. One is manifested by those "world leaders" or "businessmen" who, while perhaps disagreeing with e.g. Apartheid, or in an earlier epoch, Nazism, can nonetheless sit down peaceably to a negotiating table with De Klerk, or Hitler, speak civilly with them, and shake hands with them before and after. It is manifested too in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Kissinger, for instance. Then there are people like you and me. Blair P.S. I'm not even, at this juncture, making a judgement (though my judgement should be obvious from the way I write the above); that would require a longer statement. Right now I'm simply observing the difference.
[PEN-L:5231] Re: Bumper Stickers
Well, now everyone knows I hate neoclassical theory. That's what I get for "replying" to a personal message mistakenly sent to the list. ;-) At 6:24 PM 7/18/96, Blair Sandler wrote: There are fundamentally two diametrically opposed attitudes to NC theory and also to capitalism. One is manifested by those "world leaders" or "businessmen" who, while perhaps disagreeing with e.g. Apartheid, or in an earlier epoch, Nazism, can nonetheless sit down peaceably to a negotiating table with De Klerk, or Hitler, speak civilly with them, and shake hands with them before and after. It is manifested too in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Kissinger, for instance. Then there are people like you and me. Blair P.S. I'm not even, at this juncture, making a judgement (though my judgement should be obvious from the way I write the above); that would require a longer statement. Right now I'm simply observing the difference.
[PEN-L:5190] updated RM conference announcement
Rethinking MARXISM announces an International Conference POLITICS AND LANGUAGES OF CONTEMPORARY MARXISM December 5--8 (Thursday--Sunday), 1996 University of Massachusetts at Amherst Call for Papers and Session Proposals Join with Jack Amariglio, Etienne Balibar, John Beverly, Tim Brennan, Wendy Brown, Judith Butler, Joseph Buttigieg, Terry Cochran, Carmen Diana Deere, Samuel Delany, John Ehrenberg, Gregory Elliott, Arturo Escobar, Ann Ferguson, Alan Freeman, Martha Gimenez, Julie Graham, Ulla Grapard, Sandra Harding, Barbara Harlow, Nancy Hartsock, David Harvey, Frigga Haug, Wolfgang Haug, Makato Itoh, Joel Kovel, Wahneema Lubiano, Robbie McCauley, William Milberg, Warren Montag, Fernanda Navarro, Vicente Navarro, Kai Nielsen, Richard Ohmann, Bertell Ollman, Andrew Parker, Stephen Resnick, Frank Rosengarten, E. San Juan, Paul Smith, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Michael Sprinker, Bill Tabb, Thomas Wartenberg, Cornel West, Richard Wolff, and hundreds of others. . . For further information, see our new web site: http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx PURPOSE: The editors of Rethinking MARXISM announce the third in the series of international conferences. The first two conferences, attended by over one thousand persons each, brought together under a common tent many different voices of the Left from around the world. "Marxism Now: Traditions and Difference," held in 1989, created a forum where new, heterogeneous directions in Marxism and the Left could be debated after the end of orthodox uniformity. In 1992, the conference "Marxism in the New World Order: Crises and Possibilities" confronted directly the challenges--theoretical, organizational, and spiritual--which face the Left and Marxism as the millennium nears. The editors of Rethinking MARXISM intend this third conference on the "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism" to open new and creative spaces for political, cultural and scholarly interventions. The global restructuring of social relations now taking place (which some call a new offensive of "capital"), and the accompanying new crises and forms of resistance that, in a more or less systemic way, affect the lives of people the world over, require a strategy of cooperative dialogue between and among diverse Marxian and other communities of struggle. It is in the dialectics of these varied notions and forms of community, and in the struggles to wrestle them from the hegemony of bourgeois discourse, that the future of Marxism lies. The purpose of "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism" is both to continue the ongoing dialogue among all already existing Marxisms and to nurture the development of new visions of community that will serve our shared hopes for a more ethical and uncompromisingly humane world. STRUCTURE: The conference will be held over four days, beginning at noon on Thursday, December 5 and ending in early afternoon on Sunday, December 8. There will be concurrent sessions, art/cultural events, and plenaries throughout the conference. We invite the submission of sessions that follow non traditional formats and are open to dialogue among and between presenters and audience, such as workshops and roundtables. We encourage those working in areas which intersect with Marxism such as feminism, cultural and literary studies, queer theory, postcolonial studies, and around the issues of race and ethnicity, to submit paper and panel proposals. We also encourage the submission of papers and sessions with all forms of artistic and literary modes of meaning. The plenary sessions will be interspersed throughout the conference and each plenary session will be limited to no more than two speakers. SPONSORSHIP:The conference is sponsored by Rethinking MARXISM: a journal of economics, culture, and society. LOGISTICS: The Conference will be held on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Detailed information on hotel accommodations and travel directions will be provided to all conference registrants. PUBLICATIONS: Selected papers, poems, and other forms of presentation from the conference will be published in Rethinking MARXISM and/or in a separate edited volume of contributions. REGISTRATION: Registration fees will be as follows. All conference participants will be required to register. Preregistration On Site regular/low-income regular/low-income Full conference $50/$30 $60/$40 two days$40/$25 $45/$30 one day $25/$15 $30/$15 SUBMISSION PROPOSALS: Send submission proposals to: Stephen Cullenberg, Department of Economics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA. Fax: (909) 787-5685. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The deadline for submission proposals is September 30, 1996.
[PEN-L:5165] Re: on efficiency
At 10:57 AM 7/14/96, Gil Skillman wrote: In particular, to mention Blair's related post, there is nothing in it which intrinsically justifies "poverty and economic inequality." When you brush away all the fancy models it really comes down to this: wealth is the incentive for hard work and risk taking that makes the economic pie grow and makes everyone better off. Without inequality there is no incentive for economic growth and everyone is worse off. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5159] Re: on efficiency
At 1:38 PM 7/13/96, Eugene P. Coyle wrote: Only very weak neoclassicals "define efficiency as what the market does and then miraculously deduce that the market is efficient." I have many students entering my classes these days who have been bombarded with the western -- and now eastern -- medibarage that markets always do the efficient thing who are capable of this kind of simple methodlogical error. But few trained neoclassical economists make a mistake quite this elementary. No, the mistake they made -- as did most of us on PEN_L, including myself, was in learning neo-classical economics in the first place. We learned it, along with them. And then we learned and embraced the critiques. But our minds are still screwed up by what we learned. And we spend a lot of time talking about what NC is and how to fix it and/or how to rebut it. When you think of the EFFICIENCY of teaching a year or a semester of neo-classical micro in order to give the students what "the Profession" says they NEED and at the same time trying to show how empty it is, the efficiency of PEN-L academics is certainly questionable. This is a good and interesting point, Gene, but I do not know whether or not I agree. Given that: * many college students are going to study NC theory in required (for many) intro micro and macro courses, and that * NC theory is the economics we all already know whether we know it or not (because we learn it from day one in our homes, schools, churches, public discussions, mainstream media, etc., is it not preferable that students learn: that NC theory has objectionable practical consequences, that it justifies poverty and economic inequality, that their own ideas are already to a large extent based on NC theory and that if they wish to solve certain social problems they must reject NC theory and adopt another way of thinking about economics, then that their unconscious acceptance of NC theory is consolidated, solidified and strengthened? Notice that this argument is not, "somebody is going to do it so it might as well be me." The way I teach teaches the NC model precisely as a means of showing students *concretely* the ways that NC theory justifies the wealth and power of the rich and powerful, so I am not just asserting that it is true. By the way, I learned Marxism first, and only then studied NC theory in college economics classes. In struggle, Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the germ theory of communism is true then I would be the virus.
[PEN-L:5149] Re: libertarianism
At 6:50 AM 7/12/96, GC-Etchison, Michael wrote: Blair Sandler rightly complains 7/11 that when I wrote that libertarians might riposte that the Left says "I've got your, fuck you," I was ahead of the times. I'm probably the only one on the list, I guess, that takes the possibility of your notions becoming institutionalized so seriously that I forget it hasn't happened yet. g Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's] Please don't misquote or mis-paraphrase: I did not complain that you were "ahead of the times." I simply noted that the statement doesn't even make any sense. The problem with the above, Michael, is that just because it doesn't make sense now, does not mean that, were conditions to change so that it made sense, it would then be true. That would be an entirely different question. I wanted to point out that the truth of nonsense is not a topic sane people can discuss. Your argument above is another example of the difficulty of ceteris paribus-based arguments. You say (granting for the sake of argument the libertarian position), that the attitude of the left is "fuck you," acknowledge that they're not in power to operationalize that "fuck you," but imply that if the left were in power its attitude would be the same. Yet, if the libertarians' claim were true that the left's attitude is "fuck you," the left would never come to power. Institutionalization of the left implies elimination of "fuck you" attitudes. Therefore, even if the libertarian claim were true, you are not ahead of the times but just wrong. Notice, by the way, that self-avowed "leftists" with a "fuck you" attitude could, in principle, come to power, but that is not the same thing. This conceptual difference is possibly related in a different way to the "truth" of the libertarian claim (if it made any sense). Regards, Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5134] Re: libertarianism
At 1:20 PM 7/11/96, GC-Etchison, Michael wrote: Of course, a libertarian would respond that the Left amounts to "I've got yours, so fuck you," and all the talk about oppression and entitlement is diversion and rationalization. If this read, "We want yours, and fuck you," it would make at least *some* sense, but as written is completely absurd, especially in light of people's comments about the institutional and official support that e.g. Becker gets while lefty analyses rot in dissertation microfilm archives. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5038] Re: Careeris...
At 9:59 PM 7/9/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tavis asks; "Written by runaway computers or space aliens?" I vote for the aliens. maggie Alien computers. -- Blair
[PEN-L:5039] Re: Three Mile Island and efficiency
At 9:49 PM 7/9/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barkley Rosser notes, correctly, that there is no way to measure efficiency outside the nc framework. I would take this a couple of steps further: 1. The nc frame work does not measure efficiency. It measures a trade off between a couple of points which may or may not lead to an efficient outcome BECAUSE: 2. Efficiency is in the eye of the beholder. Was Three Mile Island efficient? How does one define efficiency? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey, Three Mile Island was *very* efficient! Along with the just released movie THE CHINA SYNDROME, it made a big contribution to stopping nuclear power in the U.S. (though, sadly, not anywhere else). It could be argued (though this doesn't make it true) that without that accident the movement would have been less effective, there would have been more nukes, more radiation releases and accidents, and the overall damage to the environment (air, water, land; plant, animal (including human), and other species) would have been worse in the long run. Blair
[PEN-L:5069] Re: progress in economics
Doug: one of the funniest posts I've seen on PEN-L for a long time. Thanks! Blair At 8:16 AM 7/10/96, Doug Henwood wrote: From today's Labor Economics abstracts: "The L.A. Riot and the Economics of Urban Unrest" BY: DENISE DIPASQUALE University of Chicago EDWARD L. GLAESER Harvard University and NBER Paper ID: NBER Working Paper 5456 Date: February 1996 Contact: Denise DiPasquale E-Mail: MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Social Sciences Collegiate Division, 225 Gates-Blake Hall, 5845 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637 Phone:(312) 702-8555 Fax: (312) 834-0289 ERN Ref: LABOR:WPS96-153 PAPER REQUESTS: Papers are $5.00 (plus $10.00/order outside continental US). E-mail: MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: 1050 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge MA 02138. Phone: 617-868-3900. Fax: 617-868-2742. Subscriptions: e-mail MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or write to "Subscriptions" at the address above. The Los Angeles riot of 1992 resulted in 52 deaths, 2,500 injuries and at least $446 million in property damage; this staggering toll rekindled interest in understanding the underlying causes of the widespread social phenomenon of rioting. We examine the causes of rioting using international data, evidence from the race riots of the 1960s in the U.S., and Census data on Los Angeles, 1990. We find some support for the notions that the opportunity costs of time and the potential costs of punishment influence the incidence and intensity of riots. Beyond these individual costs and benefits, community structure matters. In our results, ethnic diversity seems a significant determinant of rioting, while we find little evidence that poverty in the community matters. JEL Classification: J15, J18
[PEN-L:5068] Re: progress in economics
At 9:27 AM 7/10/96, Doug Henwood wrote: At 8:57 AM 7/10/96, Terrence Mc Donough wrote: Does this boil down to arguing that Blacks and Hispanics have too much time on their hands? That's sorta what it sounds like, eh? And that idle hands are the devil's playthings especially when the idle hands are of many different hues. Doug Right: it's an argument against immigration and diversity. A kind of externalities costs of immigration critique of immigration Blair
[PEN-L:5019] Re: Gary Becker
At 9:51 AM 7/9/96, GC-Etchison, Michael wrote: The cliche (among conservatives) is that the left loves The People but not people, and conservatives love people but not The People. The appalling incivility of the posts so far about Gary Becker do nothing to challenge that cliche. Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's] Gary Becker is not a person. He's a utility-maximizing organism. Two entirely unrelated species. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4949] Re: Fwd: Emotion is required for ...
At 9:54 PM 7/1/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For all those digit heads out there. fondly (heh, heh, heh) maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-07-01 17:21:27 EDT To Myra and anyone else interested in this topic: Antonio Damasio, one of the world's foremost neurologists, has written a book entitled Descartes' Error (Putnam, New York, 1994) in which he presents medical evidence, based on patient studies, that decision-making ability depends upon the proper functioning of those parts of the brain that are associated with emotion--that is, emotional response is critical to "rational" decision-making. Brain-damaged patients, whose logical thought processes connected with math etc were fine, could not function properly in normal work settings. Haven't read too much of book yet, but it seems that without an emotional response to "bad" numbers, for example, the brain does not retain a sense of what is more important. Good stuff! Marianne Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] - NOTICE FOR JOURNALISTS AND RESEARCHERS: Please ask for written permission from all direct participants before quoting any material posted on FEMECON-L. Daniel Coleman (I think that's the author) makes the same point in a popular book, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. Blair
[PEN-L:4955] Re: Marginal Utility of increasing output
At 11:00 AM 7/2/96, Max B. Sawicky wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Has there been empirical research into "wants"? There may be some people, like Bill Gates, for whom the MU of Y is upward sloping. But for normal people, what do we really know about this? Maybe the MU of Y starts sloping downward at a level $10,000 above one's present Y? From grad school I remember a paper by Tibor Scitovsky to the effect that the motives of the rich to get much richer could only be explained by very strange utility functions. Then there's the classic Friedman and Savage paper which tries to explain the motives of someone who buys insurance (reflecting decreasing MU of income) but also gambles (the opposite) by reference to some kind of S-shaped utility curve. Economists can only explain gambling or buying lottery tickets by saying people take actuarially unfair bets for the sheer thrill of it. I don't believe this, partly because I have taken such bets myself with no attendant pleasure -- only the desperate hope that I might win and solve a few problems. According to neoclassical theory, which I generally support (in its micro form), I must be irrational. But you knew that. Well, it goes without saying that anyone who supports neoclassical theory, even "generally," is irrational. ;-) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4932] Re: mothers-in-law
Ellen has hit the nail right on the head -- hard! Thanks! By the way, while I understand the problem, the attitudes you describe make life unpleasant for all, not just parents. I'm single white male, I love kids, and have genuine friendships with a number of young people, including children of friends, my nieces and nephews, and others. Yet when I approach a public playground I am looked upon as a predator. I am always extremely cautious about striking up a conversation with children or relating to strange children in any way at all precisely because of what Ellen describes. As I say, I understand why it is so, but these circumstances are completely destructive of relations of solidarity and community. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:38 PM 7/1/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay. I'll answer Max's question. If I had kids (I do) would I want to know if the guy down the street was a convicted child-molester? My answer is -- not really. Why not? Because it wouldn't make any real difference in the way I treat my child. Attacks on children by strangers are rare -- as many have noted. Their relative rarity does not in any way allay parent's fears for their children. All it takes is one incident (there have in fact been several in this area in the past few years) to turn parents into paranoid over-protective wrecks. When any child disappears and is found dead and raped months later it makes parents crazy. It's terrifying to know someone could do such a thing, horrible to think it could happen to your own child. And so I, like everyone else I know, supervise my daughter continually. She is never outside alone, unless in a public park, with adults present. Like most children these days, my daughter is under constant surveillance. Would I be any more vigilant if I knew a convicted child-molester lived down the street? No. In most cases where the perpetrator is caught, he turns out not to have a prior record. So I already assume that every stranger is a potential threat to my child. Certainly every strange male. Moreover, as a progressive person, I recognize that the existence of a few predatory child-rapists is not really the problem here. The streets aren't safe for children because they're choked with automobiles and devoid of community life. In my neighborhood, there are no grandparents sitting on stoops, no homemakers looking out windows. Add to this a commercial culture that sexualizes children and wallows in sexualized violence. Add to that an economy that produces far too many idle, angry and ego-crazed men. And we have the conditions where an alienated man can drive along, abduct an unsupervised child and apparently convince himself that he has a right to harm this child. What kind of society produces this kind of behavior? THAT'S the question we should be asking. When people accuse Clinton of pandering, it's because Clinton has done absolutely nothing to address the conditions that create these problems. Where's his courageous stance on family leave, reduction in work hours, funding for public parks and recreation facilities? THESE would actually make children safer and parents calmer. Ellen Frank
[PEN-L:4399] government statistics on the web
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/html/briefroom.html#fsbr This is the newly centralized web address for federal economic and social statistics, with links to BLS etc. Everything from the GDP to the national mortality rate at your fingertips. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4299] Re: Robert S...
At 8:59 AM 5/15/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come ON guys, you don't expect someone in Samuelson's position to deal with REALITY do you? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maggie: I would say, "you don't expect someone with Samuelson's politics to deal with REALITY do you?" Blair
[PEN-L:4300] Re: social secur...
At 8:25 AM 5/15/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, let's kill off the old people then we won't have rising medical costs. Wasn't there a movie with Michael York about a time when everyone over a certain age was eliminated? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maggie, I think the movie was called, "The Long Run," or something close to that (?). It's not so different from Miss Ann Thropy's take that AIDS is a blessing for its salubrious effects on population and the common (though certainly not universal) perspective among deep ecology types that humans are a "cancer" on the earth. If people are "workers," or "consumers" then the point is that they serve a social function. If they can no longer serve that function or if the costs of supporting them become greater than the value of the functions they serve, why keep them on? In the movie, BURN, Marlon Brando played the part of an agent of the British sugar companies fomenting revolution in a Portuguese colony. He argues the case against slavery (among a crowd of slaveowners) by making an analogy with marriage and a mistress: in marriage you are tied down forever, he says (perhaps more true in those days) and you are responsible for caring for a woman long after she has lost her beauty, charm and usefulness. A mistress, on the other hand, can be dismissed immediately should she become tiresome or less than satisfying. The revolution occurs, the slaves win their freedom, and we see that their conditions improve not a whit as wage slaves to the British companies. *Great* movie. On my soapbox again Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4215] Re: Fwd: a sleeping giant
At 10:55 PM 5/9/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Difficult as it may be to believe, the message which follows here was posted to FEMECON. Any comments, brothers? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JLSTMF) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-05-09 14:15:07 EDT A Sleeping Giant (To Arms My Brothers) There is a tremendous unrest just under this nation's thin skin; seething. Every man knows it and is helplessly listening, cautiously waiting. ... [more garbage snipped] ... I don't usually like the "bash them over the head with an unending series of facts" style of journalism in Susan Faludi's BACKLASH, but even though I already knew most of what she was saying I was impressed and frightened and struck over and over by that book. I highly recommend it to all, brothers and sisters alike. As for comments on the post: I wonder to what extent, if at all, the right-wing anti-corporate populism made known by Pat Buchanan's campaign is related to the fact that the large corporations have, notwithstanding Mitsubishi's rabid self-defense of the EEOC's sexual harrassment charges, largely adapted to the need to accommodate the entrance of women and people of color into their workforce. ?? Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4163] Re: Cuba libre
At 2:08 PM 5/6/96, C.N.Gomersall wrote: Does "Cuba libre", as the name of a drink, mean that Cuba is now free, i.e., free of Batista (sp?), or "may Cuba be free", as in Bay of Pigs? Hardly a burning question, but I've wondered about it since living in Brazil (1968-9). Someone on pen-l should know the answer. I guess warped minds think alike: I have wondered about that since the late 70s when I was introduced to the drink. I suppose the question would be answered by knowing where and when the drink was invented/named. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4148] May 5, 1818
Today is the 178th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. Marx was no saint but he believed in the ability and the right of working people to manage their own affairs, and he opposed the rampant theft we call capitalist profit. Happy birthday, everyone. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4152] Re: KM's b'day
Doug, thanks for the Enzensberger piece. Blair
