Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Harry Magdoff on market socialism
In that case, the argument is meaningless. We can only know if alternatives to markets can work if we try. Even then we can only know that that particular experiment did not work, not that no institutional arrangement can work. If the proposition is not general, it is merely an empirical hypothesis. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hayek had a deep insight, and, like many peop;le with such an insight, went overboard with it. We might take it for what it is worth, while correcting for its overstatement. However, his main point was not that _nothing_ could be planned, but that _not everything_ could be planned. He was in fact a lot less ferocious about markets than a lot of his followers, A big U of Chicago Law School libertarian, Richard Epstein, recently took him to task for that in a piece in the U Md. L. Rev. My poiint too is that planning cannot tiotally or largely displace markets, not that it cannot be used where experience shows it works. --jks -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: market socialism
Calm down Justin. Hayek's critique is not theoretically deep. It is simply an empirical claim. But he has done not one empirical study to back it up. It may be correct or it may not. Only experience will show. Pointing to past incidents of failure proves very little. As Michael and many others have pointed out it is easy to detail many occasions when markets have failed to work any where near their theoretical ideal. Shall we infer from that that markets never work? In fact, most of us are socialist because markets do such a miserable job at some very basic tasks. It is pointless to keep referring to the Soviet Union. I have at no time suggested, implied or meant that the Soviet Union should be a model for anything. And we would be poor socialists if that was the best we could dream up. All of my examples have been much more mundane and closer to home. I have admitted several times that you are right about incentives. But you have given no evidence (other than applying superlative adjectives to Hayek) for your claim that only markets can provide that incentive. When I give an example of a non market institution that works better than the market, you grant it. All right, now you say that non market institutions will work in individual industries, but not in all at once. Any critical percentage? A theoretically deep critique should have something to say about that. I propose that we design alternative institutions one good at time, and when we can't find something better than a market organization we will leave the market? On a practical level in the U.S. that would involve a vigourous protection of public education and the advocacy of a public health programme. In Canada, it would involve protection of those non market institutions and the creation of new ones in other areas. My favourites at the moment are housing, food and transportation. Until now I have tried to ignore your implications that disagreeing with you proves my stupidity. I will grant that without you having to shout it continually. Lets stick to the debate. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the argument is meaningless if it does not estabalish a priori that markets are better than any kind of planning anywhere? Rubbish. Nonsense. That is a fast way of not having to try to answer a very strong, empirically supported, theoretically deep critique of a nonmarket economy. To see this, consider the answer: you say, the only way to see if nonmarket alternatives will work is to try. But try what? You say, planning. I say, look at the USSR. You say, but our planning will be democratic! I say, that wpn't help (see what I have argued above). At this point you say, that's meaningless, because otherwise planning would never work. No, say I, and Hayek: the problem is that planning won't work outside a market framework, to give us the information we need. An starting to feel like a proken record. I really do appreciate Jim Divine's contribution, whicha t least comes to grips with real issues and offers real arguments. --jks In a message dated Mon, 17 Jul 2000 8:15:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In that case, the argument is meaningless. We can only know if alternatives to markets can work if we try. Even then we can only know that that particular experiment did not work, not that no institutional arrangement can work. If the proposition is not general, it is merely an empirical hypothesis. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hayek had a deep insight, and, like many peop;le with such an insight, went overboard with it. We might take it for what it is worth, while correcting for its overstatement. However, his main point was not that _nothing_ could be planned, but that _not everything_ could be planned. He was in fact a lot less ferocious about markets than a lot of his followers, A big U of Chicago Law School libertarian, Richard Epstein, recently took him to task for that in a piece in the U Md. L. Rev. My poiint too is that planning cannot tiotally or largely displace markets, not that it cannot be used where experience shows it works. --jks -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Market socialism -- summing up?
It appears Justin that you don't have time to read as well as to check your spelling. You claimed that Hayek had proven that only markets could provide incentives to obtain information. He hasn't proved anything of the kind, he claimed it. It was an empirical statement. An empirical statement requires proof. A theoretical statement requires a logical argument. If he was making a logical argument, then what was it. If he was making an empirical statement his prove is inadequate, and one sided. He was making claims about something that he could not know. Which you or I could not know. Perhaps it wasn't a theoretical statement or an empirical claim, but simply a article of faith. You provided a lot of bluster about the Soviet Union. I am talking about something much simpler and more in my limited grasp. Real existing non market institutions, that seem to work perfectly well. And it wasn't Rob. He has said very little on this. It was me. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Market socialism -- summing up?
Okay, Michael. I will, but a blatant misrepresentation of what I had said, added to several posts attacking my intelligence finally got to me. I'm calm, really I am. Real calm. Maybe a good game of basketball would help me. And my next softball game isn't until thursday. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: Calm down plase. Rod Hay wrote: You provided a lot of bluster about the Soviet Union. I am talking about something much simpler and more in my limited grasp. Real existing non market institutions, that seem to work perfectly well. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
[Fwd: New book about political economy (brief note)]
Charles Andrews wrote: From Capitalism to Equality: An Inquiry into the Laws of Economic Change by Charles Andrews The book begins with the facts showing that work and life have gotten worse since 1973 for 80% of the people in the United States. The problem is to explain this persistent decline. After an exposition of the labor theory of value, the book uses it to give a unified analysis of why there is an accumulation cycle, what actually happens to the rate of profit, and what the powers and limits of monopoly capital are. The decades-long decline of conditions for working people turns out to be a sign of the approaching demise of capitalism. The last two chapters suggest the basic features of a socialist economy that takes over from advanced capitalism. I believe this book makes a contribution to disucssions of relations and forces of production, like the one in June on PEN-L when you responded to Proyect. You can also recommend it when someone asks you to suggest a solid, accessible introduction to Marxist economics. Please see http://www.laborrepublic.org for the table of contents and more information. Regards, Charles Andrews -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Harry Magdoff on market socialism
If basic needs are supplied in a fair manner, I don't really care if the market exists or not. But, how does Hayek's great insight explain why health care can be planned and other goods can not. Why is there an incentive to get good information in this case and not in others? Surely the proposition was general. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely. In this debate, I have coined the slogan, Plan What You Can, Market What You Must. Experience shows that planned health care is superior on efficiency as well as ethical grounds to marketized health care. Health can be planned, and should be. There is no rational excuse for any sort of health care system that is not socialized. It does not follow that everything can be planned. --jks -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems A
Thanks Justin. This does clarify what you were talking about. I am not sure that I agree. It just extends the problem of designing incentives. And I will despite Carrol's protestations continue to talk about designing institutions. My political career such as it is has included, union organizing, worker's cooperatives. housing coops, consumer's coops, intellectual work, education. And in all of those areas, the designing and reform of institutions has been crucial. Matching incentives and goals is main problem of all political work. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course they are different. Part of the problem is INCENTIVES to obtain ACCURATE INFORMATION. And other part of the problem is INCENTIVES to _produce_ accurate accurate information. Theese are not the same thing, but we will not have accurate information without these sets of incentiveds. Maybe you are confusing incentives TO WORK HARD with incentives TO GET ACCURATE INFORMATION. Sometimes in these contexts people tend to assume that the only economically relevant incentives are to work hard. They forget the other thind is no less important. That was Hayek's great insight. --jjks -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems A
In addition to my previous comment -- I think you are also including the idea of the market as an institution for rationing scarce goods, as problem of information. Again I would submit that while the market does fulfill this function, it is not the only institutional arrangement that can accomplish this. In fact for basic needs it does it in an "inefficient" manner. I.e., it tends to distribute in an uneven and unfair manner. Over supplying to some and under supplying to others. If rationing is required, I think that we can design other institutions that do the job better than the market can. Hence my advocacy (and I think Jim's) of democratic control. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, we are not against democracy. But we have to recognize that not all its effects are wholly good in every context. In the context of planning, democarcy would make the calculation problem worse by amplifying the information distortions it involves. Democracy is not part of the solution to the calculation problem. That is not a reninciation of democracy. It is a criticism of a proposed solution to a problem with planning. Am I speaking Latin or something, why is this simple stuff so hard to understand? I thought you guys were economists. --jks -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: On Struggle
It is impossible to give a detailed picture of some future society. But every organizing effort has to have some goal. Every political party has a programme. One cannot simply put forward mantras and faith as the road to socialism. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: Doug has been asking about how to organize. You cannot organize masses of people now for socialism. For to many, socialism is an extension of the Russian gulag. My own LIMITED experience in organizing has taught me that you begin with small goals that can be reached. I recall in my Berkeley days, Michael Lerner standing on Sproul Hall day after day -- we are talking about behavior not ideas here -- rallying the troops to get arrested, then showing up next week for an entirely different issue with no mention whatsoever of the cost of the last operation. Continuity is essential. You have to get as many people involved as possible -- collecting information, setting up means of communication. You cannot be overly reliant on a single figure. It has to be collective. This collectivity would be key if somehow the reins of government were to fall into the hands of the people. You cannot tell how everything will progress. As a result, recipes are worse than useless. But you must learn from the experience of other places. Marx never touched on how socialism would be organized until the Paris Commune, which gave him the first clues about what could be -- although he was critical of what they did. So right now the important thing is not to determine how the ministry of nuts and bolts will be organized, but to develop the practice of working together, struggling together Jim Devine once told me that organizing anything on pen-l -- we were discussing the possibility of creating a textbook -- was like herding cats. I would love to prove him wrong. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: market alternativesernatives
The Second world war experience in Canada, the U.S. and Britain (probably other places as well). are valuable lessons. But let us compare something a little closer to most of our experience. Compare the health care system in Canada (or Britain) and the U.S. Does the market system provide better information, better allocation, etc. I won't deny that the Canadian system has problems, and detractors. But it is extremely popular with Canadian. Even the right wing lunatics don't dare attack it directly. (Although they are doing their best to undermine it). Is the service of the Seattle transit system less efficient than that of L.A.? Does it provide poorer information? Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems A
I think, although I may be wrong, that democratic control can be as or more effective than markets in providing information and a corrective to the mistakes of planning. You seem to assume a centralized bureaucratic planning a la the USSR. If adequate democratic controls are designed, managers who systematically guess wrong can be more easily removed. Providing proper incentives is a problem, but it is also a mistake to assume that the market provides a suitable set of incentives. Where are the incentives to provide adequate food, housing, medical care, or legal assistance to everyone who needs it. A good part of the reason that I am a socialist is that capitalism provides incentives that systematically violate my sense of values. I think socialism can do better, although it won't be easy. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Wallerstein
Ricardo Could you please criticize Wallerstein without the personal attacks. His arrogance is irrelevant. I have met him and had a reasonable and civil conversation with him. He did not react with hostility to criticism and disagreements that I put forward, and was quite willing to discuss his differences with Marx and explain the theoretical and political reasons for them. My main criticism was that he takes one aspect of capitalism and mistakes that for the whole. He admitted that, but put forward a third-worldist politics that requires a theoretical base which he is attempting to supply. For him the geographic contradictions of capitalism are primary, overriding all others. He proposed that the class conflict in the core countries is of no long term political significance. Hence his divergence from Marx. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems A
Not Latin but gobbly gook. You keep conflating different problems. Information, Incentives. Hayek was talking about information and calculation. I said managing information was not a problem, but designing proper incentives was. You keep jumping around as if they were the same thing. With all your proficiency in analytic philosophy, or the ability to use a dictionary, it should be clear that they are different. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, we are not against democracy. But we have to recognize that not all its effects are wholly good in every context. In the context of planning, democarcy would make the calculation problem worse by amplifying the information distortions it involves. Democracy is not part of the solution to the calculation problem. That is not a reninciation of democracy. It is a criticism of a proposed solution to a problem with planning. Am I speaking Latin or something, why is this simple stuff so hard to understand? I thought you guys were economists. --jks -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
I would agree with half of this post. The first half. But I don't see the intellectual value of Wright's work. Rod Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. I'll said it from the start, aside from the first two volumes of *The Modern World-System*, Wallerstein has written little that is of much value. He repeatedly mistakes describing for explaining. People like Amin, Sweezy, Frank, and Wallerstein have had the fortune of finding a mass of admiring readers and commentators despite the low quality of their scholarly work, just because they published one initial great work. This is not the case with Marxists like John Roemer, E.O. Wright and Gerry Cohen. The scholarly output of these three has been impressive from the start, and has never faltered. Just a few years ago Wright published *Class Matters*, which may very well be the best work yet on class by a Marxist, though not mentioned once in this list! - which brings me to the cited passage above. The "orthodox development model" does not dominate sociology of development literature. Wallerstein may want you to think that - as if the issue was still between WS theory and modernization theory! - but the truth is there is a whole array of contesting theories. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Actually I think the Hayek-Mises critique of planning is quite easy to answer. The problem is not information. The problem is designing institutions which provide the incentives for technological improvements. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/00 03:11PM Lou says that market socialism is finished. If so, so is socialism, since the Hayek-Mises critique of planning remains without a credible answer on the left. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Justin You will have to explain what you mean in more detail. What system provides incentives to respond to accurate information fast. In my way of seeing things, large corporations respond slowly and in an imperfect way to market signals. Those with more reserve resources can delay the respond for a longer period. The world of perfect competition does not and can not exist. But given the speed and capacity of modern computers there is no reason that a properly designed plan could not provide information on consumer demand. I don't know how to design the system of incentives. The market has few positive signals. Consumers can only react to decisions made by others. A socialist system could overcome that drawback. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/00 7:36:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually I think the Hayek-Mises critique of planning is quite easy to answer. The problem is not information. The problem is designing institutions which provide the incentives for technological improvements. That is one problem. Creating incentives to get and respond to accurate information fast is another. If you think you have an answer, tell me. I have been waiting, literally, for 20 years. I am not being sarcastic. I really want an answer. --jks -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Houston, we have a problem.
From a political perspective, there are other areas of NAFTA that I am much more concerned about. In so far as oil and gas are concerned, my only worry is an environmental one. I can't see it as politically advantageous to hoard natural resources on a national basis. It might get me a cheaper price on my heating oil, but even that is doubtful. I do think the government should extract as much rent as possible. Now, if Mel Watkins (my graduate supervisor) saw that I would be in for an evening of arguing. Rod Ken Hanly wrote: Thanks for the info. As I see it the fact that we are supplying now 13 percent of US natural gas and are predicted to supply up to 17 percent explains the run-down in reserves. This run down in reserves surely accounts for some of the price increases. Of course Canadian energy corporations do not care nor does the Canadian governmen until it gets into political hot water.. The Canadian government passed NAFTA with the support of oil producers Canadian and US owned, so how do I let them off the hook? You fail to remark on the pricing aspects of NAFTA or the national treatment requirement. Is that of no significance. Do you deny that we are unable to charge a higher price for export than within Canada. Is that of no significance? My understanding of NAFTA is that it allows other members the same claims on our oil and gas resources as Canadians. Is that wrong? Maybe Paul Phillips has something to say, or Rod Hay.I think I know your views on left nationalism:) Cheers, Ken Hanly Bill Burgess wrote: Ken H. asked about foreign ownership of oil in Canada. According to StatsCan, foreign control of 'energy' industries (I assume this covers oil, gas and hydro) in Canada was 19.8% by assets in 1997, down from 23.2% in 1989 when 'free' trade came into effect. (When measured by revenues foreign control is up slightly, from 32.4% to 33.7%.) The US accounts for about 70% of the foreign share. The most recent figures I have for the petroleum sector (upstream and downstream) are for 1988, when the foreign share of revenues was 59.6%; the foreign share of assets would be lower. In the 1970s foreign control of petroleum was over 90%. The government regulatory agency here in BC just approved an approximate 25% increase in gas rates on top of another recent large increase, blaming the rise in US prices. But I disagree with Ken H. that the gas hikes should be attributed to NAFTA as this lets Canadian corporations and governments and capitalism in general off the hook. Also, it is not quite true that 'Canada' can't say 'no' to the US - energy export volumes to the US can be reduced each year by up to a certain percentage of the current year's exports (I seem to remember 15%, but that may be wrong). Bill Burgess -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: De Long on NonZero
I think the effects of world war one are more complicated. It did shock people into a disbelief in natural progress. And some people into a sense that humans would have to take control of their own destiny. But if Arno Meyer is right, it marked the final destruction of the old feudal order in Europe. And in the course of the next century or so opened the possibilities which are still being explored. Social complexity. Technological improvement. Moral stagnation. So many ways to progress not all of them the same. Rod Brad De Long wrote: Nice writing, Brad! Thanks. *Blush* ... high water mark of belief in Progress. By and large the past two centuries have seen the reaction, and confidence in human Progress -- technological, political, humanistic, and moral -- fell out of intellectual favor. I suspect an awful lot of that happened as a consequence of WW1, doncha reckon? Yup... -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: class in the US
Or perhaps they are right. The working class is seen as and is a class in the middle between the capitalists and the underclass. Rod Carrol Cox wrote: Jim Devine wrote: (It reminds me of when Harry Braverman reports that polls indicate that most people consider themselves middle class -- and most people consider themselves working class, too.) Could this be interpreted that most people are both in touch with the reality of their lives (they are working class) but also have incorporated one of the core concepts of bourgeois ideology (the middle class) into their thinking. (This is not to deny that there is a demographically small but perhaps politically important class of petty producers, many of whom also consider themeselves both middle class and *workers*, if not "working class.") One source (or effect) of this omnipresent illusion of a "middle" class is the value judgments it sneaks in. There is an "upper" class and a "lower class" -- and "lower-class" is a not infrequent sneer word. Carrol -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: class in the US
It really doesn't matter what you call it. It is there and has had many names in the course of its history. And it is not racial or ethnically defined in the U.S. There have always been the hicks, hillbillies, white trash, etc. Rod Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Or perhaps they are right. The working class is seen as and is a class in the middle between the capitalists and the underclass. Rod What's the definition of the "underclass"? Poor people of color? ...with loose morals and a propensity towards crime. The Atlantic has Nicholas Lemann's classic article on the topic at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/poverty/origin2.htm. A concept not unrelated to "The 'dangerous class', the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue." Or, "the lumpen proletariat, which in all big towns forms a mass sharply differentiated from the industrial proletariat, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds living on the crumbs of society, people without a definite trade, vagabonds, gens sans et sans aveu [men without hearth or home], varying according to the degree of civilization of the nation to which they belong, but never renouncing their lazzaroni character" Doug I hope the term "underclass" will get dropped at least from leftist discourse, if not from _The Atlantic Monthly_. Luckily, not many people use the term "lumpen proletariat" any longer. Yoshie -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: = Nader
Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential candidates? And who are they? Rod Joel Blau wrote: Two points: 1) I agree--I don't think it would be wise to channel all political activity through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive prominence. From this persective, it is significant that in this election--unlike every other back to 1980 (Barry Commoner), someone who is anti-corporate is getting some media attention. In this setting, the American electoral system is both a barrier and facilitator. In a state where the vote is tight, a Nader vote would prompt much more hand-wringing. I live in New York, however, and if Gore doesn't win New York, Bush is a shoo-in any way. So for me, and for others in states with large Gore leads in the polls, it is a comparatively easy decision. 2) And yes, campaign reform is a much more profound structural issue than the Nader candidacy. The Nader candidacy will evaporate in four months, helping the Green party and maybe fostering some coalition building on the local level. But real campaign reform would have powerful long-term implications. I'd choose the second over the first in an instant. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote: Mark: Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large, nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and upon which they would act if he were not around. Joel Blau It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience in many countries. From east of the Atlantic it seems obvious that good people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore, (all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different candidates may be supported. Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity around one candidate. A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him, did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party. Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over the next decade is more questionable. The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of capital over public debate? Chris Burford London -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-SystemandNationalEmissions of](fwd)
Producing grain and livestock on the same farm will introduce some problems. There is land in the west that is suited to pasture but to no other agricultural use. If you require that grain growing and pasture be together you are taking this land out of agricultural use. Rod Carrol Cox wrote: Ken Hanly wrote: I don't get it. What would it be like not to separate livestock from grain? Have the livestock wandering through your grain fields? What system of agriculture ever suggested that. Maybe I am being flippant, but what you say makes absolutely no sense to me. Livestock are not separated from pasture usually except where there is no pasture. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some compelling reason to put livestock back in grain fields rather than feeding them hay, and grains grown in other fields and letting them pasture? Damn it, Ken, you are as bad as Lou and Doug in misreading or picking points out of context. Grain and livestock are united if they are produced on the same farm -- the livestock owner also growing the grain. Are you being funny or opaque in talking about cattle in the grain field? This debate is absolutely solipsistic on all sides. Lou makes no effort to outline a route from present conditions to ideally desirable locations, and this blank in his arguments allows him to leap back and forth depending on what kind of criticism he is responding to. This mistake or dull joke of yours will probably make possible some other diversion by Lou, which in turn will make possible another irrelevant sneer by Doug . . .and so it goes. In any case no serious discussion either of desirable agricultural methods *or* of how we get from here to there will result. Carrol -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Tautology
Yes Ken. I misread your post. Sorry. An inconvenient line break. And a too quick reading and provocation at your claim that my post was mostly wrong. Your example is in fact the same example that Carnap uses in his Introduction to Symbolic Logic. And yes, most tautologies cannot be recognised immediately. I used the simplest example of a tautology that I could think of. My point was that the statement that Charles made "all equations are tautologies" and Carrol's agreement and extension that all syllogism are tautologies, was confusing the truth value of a statement with the concept of a tautology. And except for the grammatical error that Charles pointed out, I don't see how what you wrote contradicts what I wrote. It merely extends it. Carnap: "Sentences which thus are true for all possible value-assignments of their constituent parts are said to be tautological sentences or tautologies. Ken Hanly wrote: My post does not claim that "It is raining" is a tautology. It claims that "It is raining or it is not raining" is a tautology. Of course "It is raining" is not a tautology but dependent for its truth upon weather conditions. Reread my post. A tautology cannot be false but the "cannot" is a logical cannot. There may be some things that cannot be false because of the facts. Perhaps the comment about capitalism's ultimate demise is arguably of that sort. The distinction we are discussing here though is the subject of some philosophical debate. Authors such as Quine question the distinction. Anything can be made tautologous he claims. I think some leftists are experts at starting theoretical discussions that seem to turn on the facts but soon it is clear that the doctrines are part of a core theoretical stance that is not going to accept any facts as refuting. WHat seems to be contrary to the theory will turn out to be from ministrieses of misinformation, running dogs of ministries of misinformation and so on,. Cheers, Ken Hanly Rod Hay wrote: Ken. This is the same mistake that Carrol made in the first place. "It is raining" is not be a tautology. It can be true. Or it can be false. A tautology cannot be false. If you have another definition of a tautology, please give me a reference. Rod Ken Hanly wrote: This is all mixed up, mostly incorrect. Some types of tautology are true because of definitions. The types of tautologies recognised by philosophers such as Kant. "All bachelors are unmarried" As Kant puts it the predicate "unmarried" is included in the definition of "bachelor". One could say that these sorts of statements are in a sense true by definition. However a tautology such as "It is raining or it is not raining" is not true by definition in any straightforward way. It is true because of the manner in which the truth functional operators "not" and "or " work to form compound propositions. The fact that something you write down is a tautology (or a contradiction) does not relieve one of any burden of proof. Writing down "It is raining or it is not raining" does not prove it is a tautology and the fact that something is true does not show that it is a tautology. One has to prove that it is a tautology. For example by constructing a truth table. A tautuology is not simply true. It is necessarily true or true for formal reasons not because of empirical facts. Cheers, Ken Hanly Rod Hay wrote: Yes, of course, Charles. Rod Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/30/00 01:25PM After thinking better of my sarcastic tone to Carrol's message. Let me explain. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition. That is, it is always true. A = A is a tautology. A = B is not a tautology. That is, it might be false. Similarly all true statements are not tautologies. I.e., A = B might be true. __ CB: Sorry, couldn't help saying this since we are in a logical vein. You mean "not all true statements are tautologies" , I believe. I agree with your post, though. _ If all statements were tautologies, math and logic would be very easy. Anything you write down would be true. No need to prove anything. -- -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1
Re: Re: Game theory
Relying on my admitted poor memory, game theory was considered something a novelty until about 1980, when interest started to grow. It became somewhat standard in graduate courses about 1990, and is now routinely taught at the undergraduate level. The reasons probably are both internal to game theory and external. I.e., some break through in the theory combined with the failure of the alternatives. But I don't know the details well enough to speculate. Did Mirowksi have anything to say on the break out from RAND? Rod Michael Perelman wrote: I just attended a talk by Phil Mirowski. He says that game theory did not exist except at RAND, where von Neuman convinced the boys that it would be useful for military strategies. Chris Burford wrote: Scanning the debate on game theory last month, I was not sure how much a historical materialist perspective came through. I mean by this, locating game theory in the current stage of development of the means of production. It seems to me that game theory is one of a number of theories which start from an individualist premise, and then lead inexorably to an examination of the overall social pattern produced by the interconnections between individuals. In the hands of more thoughtful people, it leads back to systems analysis and a questioning of its own reductionist assumptions. This mirrors the state of a global economy in which the circulation of individual commodities has never been more intense, but which is in urgent need of overall management and social foresight. Chris Burford London -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
re: Neo-classical gas
Since it was me who wrote this I will respond. Max is right that in a partial equilibrium model, the welfare of others can be included as a variable in a utility function. But if it is done in a general equilibrium model, the number of variables exceeds the number of equations and there is no unique equilibrium. So we were talking about different things. Rod Max wrote Then there's the poop about micro theory not being capable of modelling altruistic behavior, something any putz -- including me -- who had cracked a public finance text would know is wrong. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Tautologies, trivial non-trivial, was Re:[Fwd: Position
Carrol: Go to the library get out an elementary algebra or logic text. Read the
definition of a tautology.
Rod
Carrol Cox wrote:
Charles is of course correct. I guess what I thought was a
truism ("Everyone knows that there exist both trivial and
non-trivial tautologies") is in fact false. If you check, you will
find that careful writers very frequently specify whether a
tautology they refer to is trivial or non-trivial. Roughly, a
tautology is non-trivial if it brings out relationships which
would otherwise go unnoted. The following tautology is
anything but trivial:
a+b=b+a
Or
IF a+b=b+a, THEN 1+2=2+1
The tautology "Capitalism will collapse" is another way of
saying "All sublunary existence is mutable." I forget the exact
words of the cliche, but it is an old one. The problem with
trivial tautologies is the illusion they create of profundity.
And usually, unlike non-trivial tautologies, trivial tautologies
conceal rather than emphasize their tautological nature. This
can lead to real confusion (as it did in the present case)
when someone tries to doubt the tautology (as in Doug sneering
at the supposed originality of "Capitalism will collapse") Doug
must have assumed that the tautology, "Capitalism will collapse"
affirmed the non-tautology: "Socialism will triumph."
Note that all syllogisms are tautological -- the conclusion merely
restates what was already present in the premises.
Carrol
Carrol
Charles Brown wrote:
If you are implying that there are no non-trivial tautologies, isn't mathematics
all about non-trivial tautologies ? All equations are tautologies, no ?
CB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/00 07:02PM
Is this in contrast to non-trivial tautologies?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Carrol Cox wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
M A Jones wrote:
But capitalism will collapse anyway.
Right. Where have I heard that one before?
Actually the prediction was made by many old guys millenia ago
before capitalism was ever heard of. You know, the old stuff about
the rise and fall of this or that. ONe doesn't have to be even remotely
a marxist to know this. Now *dating* it -- that's something else.
And of course it is also another quesion whether the collapse will
be followed by socialism or barbarianism. But who can seriously
object to the abstract proposition that "Capitalism will collapse."
It seems a rather trivial tautology.
Carrol
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
re: Tautology
After thinking better of my sarcastic tone to Carrol's message. Let me explain. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition. That is, it is always true. A = A is a tautology. A = B is not a tautology. That is, it might be false. Similarly all true statements are not tautologies. I.e., A = B might be true. If all statements were tautologies, math and logic would be very easy. Anything you write down would be true. No need to prove anything. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: re: Tautology
Yes, of course, Charles. Rod Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/30/00 01:25PM After thinking better of my sarcastic tone to Carrol's message. Let me explain. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition. That is, it is always true. A = A is a tautology. A = B is not a tautology. That is, it might be false. Similarly all true statements are not tautologies. I.e., A = B might be true. __ CB: Sorry, couldn't help saying this since we are in a logical vein. You mean "not all true statements are tautologies" , I believe. I agree with your post, though. _ If all statements were tautologies, math and logic would be very easy. Anything you write down would be true. No need to prove anything. -- -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: water water everywhere
Now here I admit is a problem. Not so much in the quantity of water, but the difficulties of transporting it. The distribution of population in the world does not match the distribution of the fresh water. And or course moving the people to Northern Canada will just exacerbate the energy situation. It gets cold up there. Ask Ken, and he is not all the way up there. In Ontario while there is lots of water, there is a problem keeping it clean. A recent outbreak of E. coli bacteria, near me, is suspected to have begun when heavy runoff from farmers' fields infected the town's water system. If weather patterns are changing. It would require an immense adjustment to accommodate. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: One of the problems with this debate is the certainty being bandied about. I admit that I have not been able to read all the posts. Let me suggest that I suspect that the crisis in water will hit before the energy crisis. For many, it already has. My daughter tells me that even soggy Portland is worried about enough water. The water crisis may be even more intractable than the energy crisis -- I don't know. The first step would be to develop forms of communication, which come before organizing. Yelling at each other is exactly what not to do. Tell me how I can talk to my father or my neighbor about such things in a way that they can understand. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
Eliminating the distinction between town and country side is a very abstract though admirable goal. But what does it mean concretely. Better planning of new housing space? More green space in the city? Better and more efficient transportation systems? Or is there something more drastic in mind? Dwelling solely in the world of the abstract is dangerous. Soon all that remains is the eternal dance of the categories or meaningless slogans. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNational Emissions of]
Actually Lou. Although I have a good friend who works for Starbucks, I don't drink coffee, and have never been in a Starbucks. I know the history. I know the economic cost. But what is the programme. What are the concrete steps that you propose? Move the cows back into Central Park? There are any number of struggles going on the world concerning the split between the town and the country, which ones are worth getting involved in? which ones are not? Some of us do have political lives, that consist of more than meaningless harangues. It is all fine and good to say that you don't want to provide blueprints but political struggles are taking place every day in every city in the world about what direction to take with respect to new buildings, new roads, new parks. I like taking part in those discussion, because that is what my neighbours and friends are interested in. All I hear from the Leninists -- Join some Party of idiots who can't even talk to their neighbours. By the way. What is the CM demand? Rod Louis Proyect wrote: Rod wrote: Eliminating the distinction between town and country side is a very abstract though admirable goal. But what does it mean concretely. Better planning of new housing space? More green space in the city? Better and more efficient transportation systems? Or is there something more drastic in mind? You and Doug approach this as if we were talking about life-style. I can understand this. This is generally how people first react to the CM demand, as if they were being asked to give up Starbucks or something. It is not about this primarily. It is about addressing a fundamental problem in agriculture and ecology. The rise of the modern city was facilitated by the removal of the agrarian population. Then, the livestock was separated from the farm where crops were grown. This was made possible by modern transportation systems, sophisticated financing schemes, chemical fertilizer, mechanized plowing and reaping, etc. In the meantime, all of these 'advances' were made possible by the creation of modern urban industrial centers. With every "success" of the capitalist system, there was an environmental penalty. Marx wrote about this, as did Bebel, Bukharin, Kautsky and many other lesser known Marxists. Our problem is that most of the research into these questions is being done by by mainstream greens like Lester Brown's Worldwatch, while the militant opposition comes from fuzzy-minded anarchists or deep ecologists. And where are the self-declared Marxists? Mostly standing around with their thumbs up their asses worrying about whether they'll still be able to enjoy their morning Starbucks. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
entropy
The word/concept entropy is often used by the environmental movement but seldom understood. In physics it is used as measurement of the degradation or dispersement of energy in a closed system. In every day speech it usually refers to thermal energy, and measures the dissipation of energy that is not available for conversion to human uses. The closed system we are talking about is the solar system. There are three sources of energy available to us. Solar, nuclear and geo-thermal. Fossil fuel's are solar energy that has been stored in hydrocarbon molecules. So the vast majority of the energy we use is solar in origin. For practical human purposes the amount existing of all three is infinite. And the estimated time of dissipation of solar energy is in the billions of years. No one, I hope, is expecting the imminent death of the sun. The question then becomes on of the ability of humans to capture, store and use that energy as it dissipates. It is purely a technical question. And it is here that the question of socialism, capitalism or some other ism enters the picture. What set of property relations provides the most incentive for human scientist and engineers to develop new ways of capturing that energy. Mark seems to be saying that it doesn't matter what system we have in place, it simply is not technically possible. I disagree, so I will continue to talk about incentives, market, political, etc. which I think will improve the situation, and leave the hysterics to others. Since the scientist, engineers, etc. disagree on the possibilities, I don't see how we can resolve the issue. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: We used 10 times as much energy in the 20thcentury as in the 1,000
London (1830) Economic pundit X: If the economy continues to grow at its present rate, in fifty years we will all be buried in ten feet of horse shit. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: We used 10 times as much energy in the20thcentury as in the 1,000
Charles. The shortage will arise in one million years by which time there will be no human species as we know it. I say let them fend for themselves. Rod Charles Brown wrote: Rod had said: There is no shortage of energy! )) CB: Right now. But surely not all energies are infinite. How long will there be no shortage ? Don't we have responsibility to think long term for our species ? If the shortage will only arise in 100 or 200 years should we be indifferent to that ? ___ Nor of any other resource. The environmental problem we have to solve is how to get rid of our garbage without fouling our environment to such an extent that it is inhospitable for human life. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 06:31PM I agree that waste management is an urgent problem, but the reason why there is "no shortage of energy nor of any other resources" is that the market rations their use. Econ 101 says that any shortage can be cured by an appropriately higher price, so it seems there is no point in celebrating an absence of shortage. The poor in poor countries have no access to electricity, clean water, reliable transportation, household appliances, and other goods that consume oil and other resources in their production, because they can't afford them. If everyone in the world were to live according to the standards set by rich nations, wouldn't there be a problem (though capitalism does prevent this particular problem from ever arising, since the majority are doomed to poverty)? Yoshie -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: My looniness (fwd)
Oh Carrol get with the programme. You are to organize all the True Believers and take them off to Jonestown -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Ken In addition, it might be useful to ban auto traffic in high density areas. It would be difficult, but worth a debate in our major cities. My local paper this morning predicts 60 to 70 extra deaths this summer (in a city of about half a million) due to air pollution. Properly handled this should at least generate some public discussion. Rod Ken Hanly wrote: If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see why rationing would not work. While I agree that public transportation should be supported, as long as the rich don't use it they will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts to subsidize a system they do not use. You are right of course about the growth of grey markets and black markets that still afford the well off superior treatment under rationing. THe same thing happens with our medicare system where doctors, and politicians jump queues or travel to the US but the system nevertheless works reasonably well--and would work much better if properly funded. If the rich are part of the rationing system then they have a stake in it and will be interested in seeing to it that it works. At least you show concern for the relative impact of policies on different income groups. Mark Jones apparently thinks this is fiddling while Rome burns. Jim Devine wrote: At 09:41 PM 06/27/2000 -0500, you wrote: Although I appreciate Jim Devine's argument for higher gas prices there is a definite income bias involved. The relatively well off can continue to drive their SUV's etc. while the lower middle classes will be priced right out of the automobile market. This saves oil but in a totally unfair way. THe large group of drivers who now enjoy relatively cheap gas can hardly be blamed for opposing a more progressive energy pricing policy if it threatens to end or curtail their enjoyment of automobiles while those well off continue as before. Why not ration gasoline as was done in wartime? Rationing by the market is rationing for the rich. Rationing is only a defensive maneuver, one that eventually gets weak as the rich use their political connections and their ability to afford high illegal-market prices. Though it worked during WW 2 in the US, how long could it have lasted? Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
energy
Charles It is not a matter of faith. It is a simple calculation. Amount of energy available minus amount used by humans in the course of their history. The result if a very large positive number. We are not going to run out of energy. Alternatives to internal combustion engines are technological infants, but they are available and will soon be economic. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
re: energy
Let's stop this thread. All we get from Jones is invective. Not one thread of evidence, except some stupid post that shows what every high school math student knows -- exponential functions get large very quickly. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
re: energy
Okay, Mark, please explain why no other energy technology is feasible. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
re: dialectical method
Jim and Justin have been going back and forth on this. Jim has outlined his conception of the dialectic method. And Justin has responded to what he considers the vagueness of that method and prefers a more explicit exposition and examination of propositions. Part of the problem in my opinion, and the root of the disagreement, stems from the fact that Jim has consistently left out one of the most important components of a dialectical method. One must move constantly from the abstract to the concrete. Jim has focussed on the abstract, but the method becomes simply words unless one is constantly dealing with the concrete as well. For instance, Lou gave a quote from Marx last week which summed up Marx's theory of historical change, and rightly pointed out that Cohen interpretation of that quote dealt only with the abstract aspects. (Cohen is not alone in this fault. It is common amongst many readers of Marx. Others focus only on the concrete. Taking their clue from the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach. Or on Marx's writings which emphasis class struggle.) Focussing on only the abstract can soon lead one into absurd interpretations and esoteric language which quickly becomes meaningless. "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or what is but a legal expression for the same thing -- with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto." Technological determinists interpretations of this quote (and others) from Marx suffer from that fault. How do something so abstract as "material productive forces of society" and "existing relations of production" come into conflict? Only in the mind of an intellectual who reifies that two abstractions. The conflict plays itself out on the concrete level. When technology and property relations are in conflict, people who have an interest in either the existing structure of property rights fight it out with those who have an interest in the new technology, and a new system of property rights is the result. In my reading, Marx is proposing that in this particular dialectic the material productive forces will be the strong moment. To use Marx's theory productively however, I will reiterate my initial point. To separate the abstract from the concrete (or vice versa) one is soon lead to take absurd positions. All this is poorly expressed, but I have my main point comes through. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: RE: RE:We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears (fwd)
Assumptions? Exponential growth? On population. For most of human history populations have fairly stable. There have been two periods of very rapid growth. The neolithic revolution and the industrial revolution. In the rich industrial countries, population growth has stabilized. Why should it not in other areas of the world. On energy. Why do we have to assume a static energy technology? For practical purposes, the amount of energy available is infinite. The real ecological problem is what to do with our wastes. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is population growth a non-issue? Exponential population growth is no more sustainable than exponential energy consumption if only because, in the long run, exponential population growth means exponential energy consumption. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Population-growth is a red-herring issue; Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2000 22:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20716] RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd) -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
We used 10 times as muchenergy in the 20th century as in the 1,000
Why is it that when ever the price of gasoline goes up a few cents, we hear Chicken Little screaming "Energy Crisis"? Gasoline is still the cheapest liquid you can buy. What is it in the US, about $2.00 a gallon? Try to buy any other liquid for the same price. There is no shortage of energy! Nor of any other resource. The environmental problem we have to solve is how to get rid of our garbage without fouling our environment to such an extent that it is inhospitable for human life. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: RE: We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previous years
still the corn to get ethanol. So it turns out that in the conventional production of ethanol, the finished gallon of ethanol contains less energy than was used to produce it ! It's an energy loser! The net energy of this "energy source" is negative! 5) The Clinton administration, in a "Draft Comprehensive National Energy Strategy" (February 1998) talks about America's oil as being "abundant," (pg. 4) and it advocates "promoting increased domestic oil ... production" (pg. 2) to reverse this downward trend in U.S. oil production. The peak of the Hubbert Curve of oil production in the U.S. was reached in 1970 and we are now well down the right side of the Curve. The Draft Strategy calls for "stabilization of domestic oil production" (pg. 12) which is explained in "Strategy 1" (pg. 12) "By 2005, first stop and then reverse the decline in domestic oil production." The Hubbert Curve rises and falls in a manner like that of a Gaussian Error Curve, and once one is over the peak, one can put bumps on the downhill side, but except for such "noise," the trend after the peak is always downhill. A large national effort might reverse the decline in U.S. oil production for a year or two, but it hardly plausible to propose to "stabilize" domestic oil production for any extended period of time. It almost seems as though the U.S. Department of Energy has not studied the works of Hubbert, Campbell Laherrere, Ivanhoe, Edwards, Masters and other prominent petroleum geologists. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Stages
The status of stages theory in Marx's writing is ambiguous. Passages from different writings lead to different conclusions. But I think the general trend of his writings was against a theory of mechanistic or organic progression through a predetermined series of stages. And there does seem to be development in his thinking on the issue. Remember that he was quite young when the Communist Manifesto was written and he spent a lot of time reading and thinking after that. His later writings do not contain a teleological or fatalistic theory of history. If the term stage is applied to his later writings it has a descriptive character. It is not a theory of stages but a periodization of history or a convenient abstraction. The stage does not determine the relations of social production, but the social relations and the relations of labour to nature determine or give definition to the stage. There is then no necessity that one stage follow another, and no necessity that each area of the world go through the same series of stages. That said, it is still necessary that there be a rough compatibility between the development of the material forces of society and the relations of production. -- or more concretely between technology and property rights. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Stages fetters was Re: GA Cohen
Making a distinction between transition from one stage to another and transitions within a mode of production, is to make a distinction that cannot be maintained, at least in the historical record. There is no sharp distinction between modes of production. Both the relations of production and the means of production evolve at an uneven rate, and interact with each other. It is only in retrospect that we can describe a particular set of arrangements a definite mode of production. And it is a definition made for convenience and has no theoretical value. A mode of production is not a thing, it is a convenient abstraction made by historians to describe a particular society. To consider it a think is to engage in reification. There is no transformation between modes of production in the historical record, except where there was a catastrophic collapse of a society (and here the result was usually not progressive). There are transformations only within modes of production. When a sufficient number of these transformations occur we can look back and say that that mode of production was different than some other. Rod Timework Web wrote: I haven't read Cohen's work but I want to comment on Louis's quote from Marx. By itself, I agree that the passage is abstract, but it sums up an argument that Marx makes time and again and develops more fully elsewhere. That is, Marx *does* have a stage theory, but it can't be deduced from the famous passage. Nor should it be over-extended by analogy. As far as the transition from feudalism to capitalism or capitalism to socialism goes, Marx's theory is highly speculative. But it is *within* capitalism, namely between the factory system and modern industry, that Marx most explicitly develops a stage theory. The distinction between the two epochs rests, ultimately, in the difference between the formal and the real subsumption of labour under capital. Extending the stages by analogy runs the risk of economic determinism. If we allow that there is a *logic of capital*, it can only be manifest in a social system in which capital dominates. The transitions from feudalism to capitalism and from capitalism to socialism could thus not express such a logic and could consequently only be made by contingent human actions that aren't constrained by a logic of capital. Also, not everything that happens within a society dominated by capital obeys the logic of capital. In summary, the question of stage theories can't be resolved by the answer to the question of whether such is proper to Marx and Engels. My own view is that Marx tentatively projected a finite 'end of capital', which is to say, yes, Marx's analysis of Capital was apocalytic. To say that Marx's analysis was apocalyptic, however, is like saying he wrote prose. "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of their development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of their material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or -- what is but a legal expression for the same thing -- with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundations the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed." tom Walker -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gary Graham
On the death penalty. Is it true that in the U.S. prospective jurors can be excluded from juries because they oppose the death penalty in principle, thereby stacking juries in favour of this penalty? Rod Chris Burford wrote: At 13:22 23/06/00 -0400, you wrote: Day when people are no longer condemned to death on basis of race class will be day when no one is condemned to death at all. Michael Hoover I feel Michael Hoover, who repeatedly wins the prize for content to volume ratio in his postings, touches here on the philsophical basis for opposition to the death penalty. People die for all sorts of reasons, some of them preventable, some of them accelerated by society. I doubt I could say in all circumstances that killing another human is wrong. In strict marxist terms I do not think one could support a purely moral opposition to the death penalty on purely idealistic moral grounds alone. But the idea that the murder rate in a society can be dealt with in such a mechanical way as the killing of the perpetrator is so crude as to infect the whole of civil society. It is the other side of the coin to the atomised bourgeois idea of human rights which in a class ridden society cannot but deliver class justice. At least the ritual argument for execution has some sort of socially complex argument to it. It is hard to make the connection between the death penalty and a internet list on political economy, but perhaps this extract helps from an article in today's copy of the UK paper, the Independent, entitled "Why do so many American support the death penalty?" It is by David Aaronovitch, son of the late marxist economist Sam Aaronovitch - "An American friend suggested that what was going on was a negative self-identification: that in the death-row inmates American could recognise an alter ego, whose restless competitive striving had developed a dark form they wished to be obliterated." What better vehicle for this psychotic projection of capitalist competition, than a black man? Chris Burford London -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
Not my assessment, but Marx's. And he was referring to the Principles of Political Economy, not to the works you list. I happen to like J.S. Mill although I have an aversion to his father. Rod Brad De Long wrote: Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... Brad DeLong -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition ofPolitical Economy (fwd)
In one of his prefaces J.S. Mill thanks Harriet Taylor profusely and says that because he discussed the material with her so thoroughly, she should be considered a co-author. This has been taken by some and transferred into statements similar to those that Jim repeated. Rod Jim Devine wrote: I wrote: and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name. Brad queries: I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the morning re-reading it... unfortunately, this is something I picked up in a philosophy class taken many years ago, while the prof. didn't mention the source. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Mine's just so smart!
Don't be too hard on Mine. We all remember when we were in graduate school and knew everything before we had read it. I just wish that the internet was around when I was there. I could have gone on and bashed professors without any fear of reprisals. Unfortunately I had to do it in the Graduate Student Union, and worry about some rat fink carrying the word back to the department. yours in jerkdom Rod Stephen E Philion wrote: Once again, all I can say before I get on a 20 some hour flight with long connections just to catch some jass in Montreal is, wow Mine, you're so smart you can talk to Justin Schwartz like he's so dumb...wish I were that smart... Mine wrote: I don't have time because I have sepent with this list more hours than I expected nowadays. why don't you "hit" the books dear Justin? -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Altruism
Strict neo-classical models can not handle "concern for others". If it is included, (i.e., if utility functions are not independent) then there is no unique equilibrium position. Not enough independent equations for the number of variables. Rod Sam Pawlett wrote: Altruism can be, and presumably is, used in rat choice theory because you just have to enter "concern for others" into a utility function. It would seem hard to build a comprehensive economic model with altruism though. I guess you could argue that altruism is a preference, a preferred outcome that would influence someone's choice. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: GT
At the risk of sounding somewhat Hegelian. The problem can be looked at like this. Both the individual and the group exist with equal ontological status. Methodological individual gives priority to the individual, while some forms of sociology (including some varieties of of Marxism) give priority to the group. Understanding the outcome of individual situation requires a careful empirical analysis of the interaction. There is no a priori principle that can be applied. The dominant moment of the interaction will change depending upon the situation. Sometimes the group (social forces) will dominate. Other times the individual will. The longer the time period under analysis, the more likely the group will be the stronger moment. Rod Rob Schaap wrote: So I think Yoshie's onto something big, but still feel the thread is some way off neatly articulating the ontological solution to the confontation of the individual with the collective. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Mill was indeed a classic Benthamite utilitarian, and a very close friend of Bentham's to boot. You are mistaken, though, if you think that John Stuart Mill, the son of James, was opposed to making pleasure the sole good. He just had a more nuanced conception of pleasure, or to use his word, happiness. Of course James M and Bentham extended the principle of utility to politics, education, economics, law, and education, not just individual conduct (which did not much interest them); not for nothing were they called the Philosophical Radicals. There was no debate bewteen James M and Marx, since James M was dead before Marx was up and running, but Marx's attack on James M is hardly what I would call approving. He was likewise dubiousabout son JS, the preeminant political economist of his age. (And later a market socialist, as we would say). --jks In a message dated 6/21/00 4:19:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism, sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James, if not very supportively. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GT (fwd)
Marx in volume II shows that capitalist equilibrium with growth is possible, but that it is unlikely because of the co-ordination problems between the sectors of the economy. Arrow and Debreu using neo-classical modeling techniques show something similar. That static equilibrium is possible. But that the conditions are so onerous as to be unlikely. Leontiev was correct to connect his research with Marx. There is a continuous development of the input-output model from Quesnay to Marx to Leontiev, although each of them put it to a different use than the others. Leontiev was familiar with the efforts in the Soviet Union during the 1920s to develop a model of the economy that could be used for planning purposes, and those planners drew their inspiration from Marx. Rational choice models has a long pre-history, they go back possibly to John Duns Scottus and certainly to Marcellus of Padua. The Bernoulli's were involved and Condilliac should also be consulted. Smith's contribution was actually quite small on this particular question. Rod Jim Devine wrote: I think that a market environment encourages individualism, but the application of rat choice came first with Smith, not Marx. And Marx, unlike the rat choice types, saw "preferences" as endogenous. He also clearly rejected methodological individualism, though he saw that something like it was the ordinary consciousness of many people within the system, shaped, constrained, and mystified by commodity fetishism and the illusions created by competition. Leontief was wrong to credit Marx with this. Marx's volume II is a non-equilibrium system, while the equilibrium interpretation has hobbled Marxian political economy (showing up in absurd ways in the "transformation problem" lit, seen for example in Sweezy's THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT). Marx did present "equilibrium conditions" for the proportional relationship between sectors, but he did not think equilibrium could be achieved easily. To the extent that equilibrium was achieved, it was the result of crisis, which involved _forcible_ equilibration, which was often quite destructive (small businesses going broke, working people losing their livelihood, etc.) Instead of seeing the results of his reproduction schemes as continually met -- as in input-output analysis -- Marx saw them as regularly being broken and then violently reestablished. An extreme crisis --- like the Great Depression -- might require an extreme solution -- like World War II, though of course the solution's rise is not predetermined. I'm afraid that Leontief wanted to link Marx to his own research, which helped create IO theory. Back then, being associated with Marx was prestigious, at least in some circles. I think we should eschew them because they weren't Marx's accomplishments. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Matt Rabin
And Veblen knew it and said it 100 years ago. Check the Preconceptions of Economic Science. Conveniently available at my web site. http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/index.html Rod Jim Devine wrote: In an earlier incarnation, if I remember correctly, Herb Gintis showed that endogenous tastes undermines all of NC welfare economics. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Matt Rabin
The value of game theory as with any other formal system of logic is that it imposes a discipline on thinking. If one is competent, using the system assures that the conclusions follow from the premises. The system it self has no content. Granted, there are those who practice what Schumpeter called the Ricardian vice--a confusion of the model and reality. I have seen many a piece of 'demotic prose' that was severely logically flawed and no one seemed to notice. (Pick your favourite fashionable French philosopher). Using the language of game theory also has a secondary benefit. It has a rhetorical aspect. Economists will read it. Whereas, the so-called criticism of the discipline has no rhetorical value 'outside a small circle of friends.' Rod Doug Henwood wrote: For this you need game theory and a formal model? Is there anything here that couldn't be conveyed in three or four sentences of demotic prose? Doug -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Dawkins and anthropolgy
I tend to agree with Michael H. on this one. I have never found much of use in Dawkins. Even the strictly scientific stuff is shallow and wrong. On the other hand, Rob has a point if he refers to genetics, rather than to Dawkins. Genetics is part of what we are. So long as we remember that we share 97 per cent of our genes with chimpanzees. And the maximum human variation amounts to 0.1 per cent. Again I will tout Deacon's book -- The Symbolic Species. Rod Michael Hoover wrote: Will Dawkins move on to physics in response to his critics? Maybe he could develop the concept of econe energy, the physical form of possessive individualism. Didn't Dawkins develop the concept of the "meme," a unit of culture analogous to a gene? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine In late 19th century, Spencer adopted Darwin's theory. According to his social darwinism, Carnegies and Rockefellers were simply fittest survivors in world of ruthless competition over scarce resources. Dawkins is simply update, nothing more, nothing less, he gets sympathetic hearing because of current triumphalism of free-market economics. Nature will back you up if you want its authority, blah, blah, blah...Michael Hoover -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
name calling
Jim is now the third person that has been called a racist, by our new champion name caller. Mine wrote: you are being *disgustingly racist*, -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: name calling (fwd)
Oh Mine, give it a break. This joke is growing stale quickly. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *You* *definetly* ARE with your energetic support for socio-biology and praising people like Wilson who called Ruandan people barbaric creatures and genetically ill people! Mine Jim is now the third person that has been called a racist, by our new champion name caller. Mine wrote: you are being *disgustingly racist*, -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical technique--a tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has the weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two people, but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn. Rod Jim Devine wrote: Brad De Long wrote: He's [Matt Rabin is] brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed... Doug writes: To what end? What's the point of game theory? What does it explain that things other than game theory don't? I hope that Rabin is leading the fight against cooperative game theory. But I'd like to hear what Rabin's contributions to this field have been. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: GT [was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: McArthur grantee
I agree Jim. The evil is in the economist not in the technique. Rod Jim Devine wrote: At 03:11 PM 06/17/2000 -0400, you wrote: I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical technique--a tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has the weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two people, but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn. I'm not antagonistic toward game theory, _per se_. I even studied it in High School (back in 1967 or 1968) and thought it was pretty cool. The problem, as with all theory, is how it's used and whether the theory is reified or not. I've been convinced (partly by previous discussions on pen-l) that there's nothing inherent in game theory that says that John von Neumann would automatically apply it to call for a preemptive unilateral nuclear attack on the USSR. There's nothing inherent in game theory that says that up-and-coming young economists have to prove their cojones by using fancy techniques like game theory (GT). What I reject is the _reduction_ of economics to such formalisms as game theory (so that empirical research, a historical perspective, non-game theories, philosophy, etc. aren't necessary). Even worse is _cooperative_ game theory, which not only gets rid of the more interesting conclusions of the theory but represents a Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" approach. But we should also remember that other theories have been misused, including Marxian theory. Mine quotes Ronald Chilcote: Game theory and formal modeling have generated mathemetical explanations of strategies, especially for marketing and advertising in business firms. Game theory has had an impact on economics and it has been widely used in political science analyses of international confrontations and electoral strategies. In fact, game theory has been extensively used by political scientists in the testing and implementation of rational choice theory, which assumes that THE STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THAT INDIVIDUALS TEND TO CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT BRING THEM THE BEST RESULTS. I presume that the use of ALL CAPS indicates that you don't approve of these aspects of the theory. But the idea that people choose actions that bring them the best results is tautological and therefore unobjectionable as long as it's not reified. The idea that people actually choose -- i.e. are not necessarily determined by the structural constraints of society -- is pretty obvious. People choose to post stuff on pen-l. They're not totally determined by their societal environments. In any event, no-one has developed a theory of society that's so good that it can predict individual behavior 100% of the time. Even if such a theory could be developed, it would be a _behaviorist_ theory (like that of BF Skinner). That's a road that leads "beyond freedom and dignity" into the realm of authoritarianism. I prefer Marx's view, i.e., that individuals create society (though hardly ever as intended) _and_ the society limits and shapes individual choices, personalities, and the results of their actions, as a unified and dynamic (dialectical) process. Game theory is only about how the results of individual actions are limited by the structure of (a very simple) society (and how individuals make choices within that structure). It ignores the rest of the picture, and thus presents a very one-sided vision (or less than one-sided vision) of the world. For example, basic GT discusses the "prisoners' dilemma" without discussing how the cops have the power to create such a dilemma (creating the rules of the "game"). Similarly, it ignores other police tactics, such as the "tough cop/nice cop" routine that does the mindf*ck to the prisoner. Cooperative and competitive relations in one's bargaining with allies and opponents are emphasized by the social scientists in a fashion modeled after the economist's attention to exchange, especially through competitive market system well, the real world has both cooperative and competitive situations, so that GT isn't irrelevant. In focusing on systemic forecasting, Jantsch (1972) identified a number of tendencies in other social sciences. For sociology, he alluded to ways of " guiding human thinking in systemic fashion" and he mentioned scenario writing, gaming, historical analogy, and other techniques. For the policy sciences, he referred to the "outcome-orinted framework for strategic planning" known as the PLANNING-PROGRAMMING- BUDGETING SYSTEM, WHICH IS USED BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL" are you saying that if the government uses something, it's bad? so if President Clinton breathes oxygen, we should avoid it? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
Re: GT
especially for marketing and advertising in business firms. Game theory has had an impact on economics and it has been widely used in political science analyses of international confrontations and electoral strategies. In fact, game theory has been extensively used by political scientists in the testing and implementation of rational choice theory, which assumes that THE STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THAT INDIVIDUALS TEND TO CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT BRING THEM THE BEST RESULTS. I presume that the use of ALL CAPS indicates that you don't approve of these aspects of the theory. But the idea that people choose actions that bring them the best results is tautological and therefore unobjectionable as long as it's not reified. The idea that people actually choose -- i.e. are not necessarily determined by the structural constraints of society -- is pretty obvious. People choose to post stuff on pen-l. They're not totally determined by their societal environments. In any event, no-one has developed a theory of society that's so good that it can predict individual behavior 100% of the time. Even if such a theory could be developed, it would be a _behaviorist_ theory (like that of BF Skinner). That's a road that leads "beyond freedom and dignity" into the realm of authoritarianism. I prefer Marx's view, i.e., that individuals create society (though hardly ever as intended) _and_ the society limits and shapes individual choices, personalities, and the results of their actions, as a unified and dynamic (dialectical) process. Game theory is only about how the results of individual actions are limited by the structure of (a very simple) society (and how individuals make choices within that structure). It ignores the rest of the picture, and thus presents a very one-sided vision (or less than one-sided vision) of the world. For example, basic GT discusses the "prisoners' dilemma" without discussing how the cops have the power to create such a dilemma (creating the rules of the "game"). Similarly, it ignores other police tactics, such as the "tough cop/nice cop" routine that does the mindf*ck to the prisoner. Cooperative and competitive relations in one's bargaining with allies and opponents are emphasized by the social scientists in a fashion modeled after the economist's attention to exchange, especially through competitive market system well, the real world has both cooperative and competitive situations, so that GT isn't irrelevant. In focusing on systemic forecasting, Jantsch (1972) identified a number of tendencies in other social sciences. For sociology, he alluded to ways of " guiding human thinking in systemic fashion" and he mentioned scenario writing, gaming, historical analogy, and other techniques. For the policy sciences, he referred to the "outcome-orinted framework for strategic planning" known as the PLANNING-PROGRAMMING- BUDGETING SYSTEM, WHICH IS USED BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL" are you saying that if the government uses something, it's bad? so if President Clinton breathes oxygen, we should avoid it? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take on Competition
No necessity to talk about the factory floor. The product of intellectual labour (i.e., intellectual property) does have value. But it is the intellectual labour which creates value not the intellectual property. Changes in intellectual property enforcement change the incentives of the intellectual labourers, and the intellectual labourer may become more productive. So as in the case of the waterfall, there is both an increase in output and a redistribution of surplus. (This result is no different in a neoclassical analysis) When one talks about value it is instructive to distinguish between what is given value in a capitalist system, and what has value according to a socialist system of value. My objection to the argument so far is that no one has made that distinction. Because the capitalist system values something, it does not necessarily follow that it is good in some other system of values. The huge expenditures on advertising may be socially necessary under the current state of affairs. It also does not mean that the thing valued is technically necessary. Whether or not, surplus value is subject to "some kind of conservation law" depends upon the type of analysis we are doing. In a static economy, it is a requirement of reproduction, not a law. In a dynamic system it is not necessary, and in fact not likely unless growth is perfectly balanced, and we have constant returns to scale in all industries. The morale: Brad is partially right but for the wrong reason. Rod Brad De Long wrote: Brad, I am too dense to know when you are serious. I don't even know who Will Robinson is. A pop culture reference to "Lost in Space": think of it as the modern-day equivalent of a gratuitous: "hic rhodus, hic salta!" I assume that you know that most people here know that "average market prices are *not* labor values" and that that fact does not invalidate what most people mean by the LTV. The argument being made was as follows: "Because changes in the regime of intellectual property enforcement do not affect what happens on the factory floor, they cannot affect the rate of exploitation. Hence changes in IP do not increase surplus value. Hence changes in IP *redistribute* profits, but do not change the economy-wide profit rate." If the LTV is true--if surplus-value is a kind of *stuff* that, once created, is subject to some kind of conservation law, and bears some relationship to profits--then this is a cogent, coherent, and correct argument. But it ain't: changes in IP can and do change the economy-wide profit rate (and wage rate as well). My point--that thinking in LTV terms gets you so tangled up in knots that you cannot think straight--is not a new one... -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: waterfalls and value
Both labour and nature can produce things of value. But it is society that gives a value to things. It assigns a value to things appropriated from nature and to transformations made to those things by labour. Marx claims that the value of a thing will be proportional to the labour socially necessary for this appropriation and transformation. Presumably, in the case of the waterfall, things are produced with less labour than is socially necessary on average. The sellers of the things produced can thus sell them for more than the labour cost of producing them. Thus the rate of surplus value will be greater than the average. Surplus value has been transferred to the sellers from the rest of the society. So there has been a redistribution of the surplus. At the same time, appropriating the energy of the waterfall, allows a given quantity of total social labour to produce more things than before. And so long as the waterfall users are in a unique position, the value of the things produced will not change. (i.e., the socially necessary labour time will not change). But the total value of output of the society will increase. And the total surplus value will increase. So both sides in the debate are correct. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I am out of my depth in this. Five or six years ago I thought I had thought through a lot of this stuff (and maybe I had), and even published a bit on it, but I am running on hazy memories; it's not quite as bad as when I got down my old books on quantum theory and statistical mechanics and discovered I could not even understand the equations anymore--does anyone know Borges' poem on having learned and forgotten Latin, which I also have done?--but I definitely do not have enough of a grip on this stuff at the present to argue in a way that would make my participation worthwhile here. I need to go back and look over the material some more. maybe Iw ill start up again later whern I have done. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: My Take on Competition
These is a dialectical relation, but there was something else going on in the last thirty years. For instance, in the auto industry. The big three had a oligopolistic situation in North America. The entrance of the Japanese firms in the 1970s increased the competition. But now in the world auto industry a new oligopolistic structure is emerging, because of a new round of mergers and joint projects. Once the economy is truly global that dynamic will stop. The entry costs are too high to establish new competition. The only way the industry will experience a new round of competition is if some new method of transportation is developed, in which new firms would have the opportunity to enter. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: For the first of all, I want to thank Tom and Gene for starting this thread. It's been a long time since we had any conversations about the economy here. I was getting fairly frustrated with the content of this list. The forces tending to increase competition in the United States were deregulation, as Jim mentioned, and the pressure from imports. The forces tending to diminish competition were intellectual property, mergers, and possibly government contracting. In fact, as Jim seemed to suggest -- if he didn't, he should have -- the pressures from deregulation and imports have encouraged more mergers and acquisitions. Anthony specifically pointed to this dialectical relationship. I also believe that the degree of macroeconomic activity is a major determinant of the level of competition. When the economy is booming, there is relatively little competitive pressure. When the economy falls into a recession or depression, competitive pressures intensify. Jim also mentioned that wages are falling relative to labor productivity. I associate this trend with intellectual property as well. Labor productivity increases with the ability to mark goods up -- Nike shoes are an excellent example, but the same holds for Microsoft software. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Rushdie on Fiji
atanic Verses and ``The Ground Beneath Her Feet.'' -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
are commendable. Of course, this does not quite distinguish him from other opponents like Pat Buchanan, whose rhetoric on these questions matches Nader's. Perhaps this affinity has led Reform Party leader Jim Mangia to open up discussions with the Nader camp about a possible bid on the Reform ticket. The May 26th NY Times reports: "Jim Mangia, the Reform Party's national secretary, has been talking to Green Party leaders about Mr. Nader's interest in running as the Reform candidate. Despite Mr. Nader's leftward leanings, his politics are not so different from the Reform platform on issues like campaign finance reform and permanent trading status for China." In a nutshell, Nader is attempting to connect the dotted lines between the social movements and trade unions of today with the anti-monopoly and populist traditions of the pre-1917 left. This is the left of small shopkeepers, farmers and "citizens" who need to restore the vision of Jeffersonian democracy. In his Concord Principles found at votenader.com, he states: "Control of our social institutions, our government, and our political system is presently in the hands of a self-serving, powerful few, known as an oligarchy, which too often has excluded citizens from the process. "Our political system has degenerated into a government of the power brokers, by the power brokers, and for the power brokers, and is far beyond the control or accountability of the citizens. It is an arrogant and distant caricature of Jeffersonian democracy." I personally am somewhat suspicious of appeals to "Jeffersonian democracy", particularly in light of his treatment of the American Indian. "...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend the parts dealt to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms and families... As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them..." (Classified Letter of President Thomas Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803) Turning to more recent history, it is also disconcerting to note--based on an exhaustive search of Lexis-Nexis--that prior to his 1996 Presidential bid on the Green ticket, Nader has never spoken out publicly on the cutting edge issues of the day: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action, etc. One can only suppose that taking a stand on crash-resistant auto bumpers might be less risky. Sanford actually explores this "tunnel vision" approach to changing society in the final chapter of his "Ralph and Me." After a visit to Ghana, Nader aide James Fellows began to have doubts whether Nader's approach mattered much when people in Africa were suffering famine, epidemics and warfare. Nader reassured him that these problems were insuperable; there's nothing that can be done. On the other hand, Fellows told Sanford that in Nader's view, "[C]ar safety or something like that, there's a marginal improvement that he can make." In my final post, I will make the case that despite all this the Nader campaign might be a positive development. Prior to that, I will supply some background on the Green Party, the topic of my next post. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
The political criticism of Nadar is valid, but the personal attack on him is misguided and fundamentally irrelevant. Rod Louis Proyect wrote: Yes, but not that much further. My parents, who lived on my dad's middle class income of about $25,000 a year back in those days, bought a $100,000 house in the NVA suburbs at the same time--it wasn't shabby, but it wasn't a mansion. You probbaly could have done better in the city in those days of white flight and before the city became fashoonable again. The main point is that it wasn't an $85 per month furnished room. be bought. If he stayed silent on no-fault, it was not because he was bribed, but because there are serious consumerist arguments against it. There are, The problem with Naderism is that we have to accept the honest motives of the leader pretty much as a given. It is in the nature of nonprofits, especially inside-the-beltway types like Public Citizen, to make decisions ON BEHALF of the public. It is inherently undemocratic. Even in the nickle-and-dime nonprofit I was president of the board of, there were constant complaints about the Executive Director making unilateral decisions--like starting a program in Africa, spending money on an ambitious direct mail program, etc. He once told me in private (I was the only person he ever really confided in) that he modeled the organization on the small businesses he ran in Utah, where he 'made everything go', even when it took big risks. We fired him in 1990 after he went totally overboard on certain financial matters. But with Nader you won't even get a board that has the gumption to challenge him. He is just too powerful for that. This, IMHO, sends the wrong kinds of signals to the left when the Greens nominate a guy like him. After accepting the nomination in 1996, he made a unilateral decision to lowkey the campaign. And today he is considering unilaterally whether to run as a Reform candidate, I'll betcha. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dialectical materialism and ecology
Perhaps it is the translator's fault, but I have always found Engels' piece inpenetrable. Perhaps "interpenetration of opposites" does subsume "mutual determination." Rod "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Rod, I would interpret "interpenetration of opposites" as subsuming "mutual determination." So, yes. Barkley Rosser - -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Socialiam
http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/work/q_socialism.html -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
[Fwd: 4th Int'l Conf. on May Day, Havana Cuba, April 20]
"Seth M. Wigderson" wrote: -- FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MAY DAY The Cuban Workers Confederation (CTC) and the Instituto de Historia de Cuba are pleased to invite researchers, scholars, journalists, trade unionists, information specialists, institutions, and organizations to participate at the Fourth International Scholar Conference on May Day, to be held in La Habana, on April 25, 26 and 27, 2001. The purpose of the conference will be to provide analyses and debates on workers' role, their past and challenges at present in this early century, full of enormous challenges and difficulties to overcome. This new conference will take place on the occasion of the 130 Anniversary of the proclamation of the Commune of Paris. During 72 days, the French proletariat was the protagonist of events of heroism. This fact was the inspiration for workers' struggles worldwide. The remembrance and analysis of the happening in different countries on this event, therefore, will be a matter of attention at the present conference. Themes * Workers and changes in economic, political and social processes, and domestic events as well, which influenced in the dynamics of its formation, organization, and development. * International and domestic organizations and movements (trade union, political, recreation, sport, cultural, solidarity, and other sort) created by workers. * Struggles to remove discriminatory treatment against women, immigrants and child labor. * The role of labour class as historic subject of social changes; its structure and section distribution; evaluation of its living conditions; its psychology; its job; and its leisure time. * Echo of international events in internal affairs of countries, concerning political, ideological, and economic matters of workers. * Neoliberal globalization and its echo in the labour movement, in the whole labour world. And its effects on unemployment, wages, working conditions, social welfare, night employment, lack of professional qualification, and others. Paper Presentations Participants should deliver their papers not later than late January 2001. Papers should be typed at double space. If any audio-visual aid is required, please specify this. Papers should be no longer than fifteen pages. Presentations should last not more than fifteen minutes, plus ten minutes for debate. The abstract should be no longer than 200 words, with the following structure: title, author full name, and institution of employment, business address, and brief curriculum vitae. The conference will be structured on the basis of panels, papers, conferences, communications, and posters. The Organizing Committee will determine the structure of conferences and panels. This Committee will also analyse proposals of the participants in advance. The Organizing Committee will feel grateful extremely grateful to any person, institution or mass media that discloses this call. REGISTRATION AND SUBSCRIPTION FEE The subscription fee will be $40.00 USD for visitors and $30.00 Cuban pesos for home participants. This fee should be endorsed to the Organizing Committee. Payment includes participation at work sessions, documentation, attendance certificate, and credentials. Official languages will be English and Spanish. The Organizing Committee suggests lodging at: Inglaterra Hotel * Fax (537) 33-8254 Deauville Hotel * Fax (537) 33-8148 CTC Hotel * Tel: 62-3030 These hotels are near the Instituto de Historia de Cuba, the venue of the conference. It is also suggested to contact the nearest local travel agency. Co-Sponsors: Centro de Estudios Filosoficos, Politicos y Sociales "Vicente Lombardo Toledano" (Mexico) Centro de Investigaciones de Ciencias Sociales (Argentina) Programa de Investigacion sobre el movimiento de la sociedad argentina (Argentina) Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias Sociales (Argentina) Instituto de Filosofia (Cuba) Escuela Nacional de Cuadros "Lazaro Pen~a" (Cuba) Museo Nacional de las Luchas Obreras (Cuba) Contact Information: Dr. Luis H. Serrano Perez Instituto de Historia de Cuba Palacio de Aldama Amistad No 510 e/Reina y Estrella Cuidad de La Habana, Cuba Fax: (537) 635019 y 613545 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lic. Agustin Lopez Central de Trabajadores de Cuba San Carlos y Pen~alver Telefono: 70-3506 Fax: (537) 335408 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Marx's life and theory (fwd)
There are different meanings to the word "materialism" Please clearify what you mean. Rod Louis Proyect wrote: Carrol Cox: with any precision in *Poverty of Philosophy*; and (b) most of what I would think of as historical materialism can be defended independently of any particular view (pro or con or neutral) of the "dialectics of nature." Actually Marx was fully involved with the editing of Engels' "Dialectics of Nature" and wrote a chapter himself, according to John Bellamy Foster in "Marx's Ecology". One of the things that this book will do is open up a discussion about the role of materialism in Marx's thought. In the introduction John explains that Lukacs played a major role in delinking the scientific investigations from the rest of Marx's thought in order to privilege the notion of a purely social based materialism keyed to praxis. The Frankfurt School developed this notion in a more extreme fashion. Not only did they drop the materialism, they dispensed with the praxis as well. The concern with ecological questions has sort of forced a re-examination of the role of materialism, with people like John and Paul Burkett making an effort to place it back into its proper context. Then you have people, many of whom contribute to CNS, who see things in a Lukacs or Frankfurt context. For example, only 4 years ago Joel Kovel wrote a lengthy piece in CNS that argued that Marxism is weak on ecological questions because it lacks a spiritual dimension. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Withering away of the state
Jim: I agree that circumstances both internal and external had a great deal to do with what happened in Russia. I don't blame it all on Lenin. Socialism in a poor country is an extremely difficult proposition. But my point is that whatever the reason, Russia did not socialise the means of production, and should not be called socialist. Rod Jim Devine wrote: At 06:54 AM 05/23/2000 +1000, you wrote: Nice post, Rod! And I tend to side with Barkley on the SR Constituent Assembly, too - which seems to me to have been a more promising midwife for the sort of transformations you discuss (especially in light of the resolutions they were passing in their last days) than the dictatorship of a vanguard - substitutionalist elite. I'm not sure that the Constituent Assembly would have dealt well with the issue of ending WW I the way Lenin did for Russia -- or with continuing to fight the war, the way Karensky wanted to do. Would it have dealt well with violent opposition or civil war or imperialist invasion? or the extreme poverty of Russia at the time? the division between the peasants and the workers -- and the difficulty of keeping peasants united once they've grabbed land for themselves? This is not to apologize for Lenin (since I'm no Leninist). But I think that the objective conditions of 1917-18 in Russia were such that nice social democrats were unlikely to take power (or stay there, if you consider Karensky to be a social democrat). I think that these conditions bred substitutionism more than it leapt full-grown from Lenin's head. (Many of the SR's were more substitutionist in that many believed in the "propaganda of the deed." Lenin was a moderate compared to the bomb-throwers among the anarchists, who were strong substitutionists.) Substitutionism takes hold when the working class is poorly organized and less than class conscious. (It can be seen in the form of various lobbyists and lawyers who are substituting for the US working class in most struggles these days.) It's important to notice how Lenin's ideas change with circumstances in Russia. After he initially flirted with Kautsky's top-down "workers can never be socialist" perspective in WHAT IS TO BE DONE?,[*] he became less "vanguardist" and less "substitutionist" as the Russian workers movement grew in number and depth. Then, after October 1917, once the popular revolution begins to fade, the grass roots being torn apart by civil war, urban/rural conflict, etc., his ideas veer toward top-downism. I guess my conclusion is the opposite of Leninism, in that I see Lenin as more of a dependent variable than an independent one. He, like Woodrow Wilson, may have seen history as being on his side (as Brad asserts), but he was wrong. Wilson maybe was right, since his flavor of hypocrisy seems to rule these days (bombing Serbia to "make the world safe for democracy"). [*] Hal Draper's article reprinted in the recent HISTORICAL MATERIALISM makes a convincing case that it was Kautsky who developed the top-down (vanguardist) conception of the party, while Lenin never went all the way (contrary to the strange consensus among Stalinists and Cold Warriors, who all agreed that Lenin = Stalin). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Withering away of the state
Then we are at an impasse. I think it is worth while to rescue the language of socialism and Marxism from the Leninist distortions, but perhaps it is not. Perhaps we have to invent a new political language. Rod "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Rod, I would prefer the kind of socialism that you describe. But, like it or not, I would still maintain that what we saw in the USSR was a form of socialism. Barkley Rosser -Original Message----- From: Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 4:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19425] Re: Withering away of the state First, let's start with the word socialism and what it means. To me the minimum would be some socialisation of the means of production (I distinquish this from nationalisation). This entails the establishment of democratic institutions capable of managing that control. I take this to be what Marx meant by the withering away of the state. The state as a institution of a divided society would be replaced, as those divisions were resolved, by alternative democratic institutions (the division between the public and private sphere being one of the most important divisions, would thus be overcome). The Soviet Union did not attempt to construct these institution, (in fact, after the initial period of the soviets, they did everything in their power to destroy alternative centres of power.) Yugoslavia and Cuba did more in this and have a greater claim to being socialist. The Soviet Union was a society in which the division between capital and labour was still strong. Capital, was for the main part, controlled by the bureaucracy, but it still existed as an opposition to labour. Little was being done to overcome this division. The Soviet Union was one of the world's most developed welfare states but it was not socialist, it was most definitely a society in which capital still ruled. Rod "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Rod, In what way was it not? The USSR followed most of the "planks" in the platform at the end of the Communist Manifesto. It even, under Khrushchev, attempted to maintain greenbelts and carried out other policies motivated by the essentially utopian goal of eliminating the distinction between the city and the country. What it was not was communist. And neither it nor any other socialist state (that I am aware of, maybe Pol Pot made such claims) ever claimed so to be. The official line in the old USSR was that they were a socialist state "in transition" to a communist future that never arrived. BTW, to those who are getting upset that I have made some critical remarks about Marx, I say that I am a great admirer of Marx and fully agree that he was very perspicuitous about many matters, arguably the most brilliant economist of the nineteenth century, certainly one of the most. But, he was not a god or a messiah or a prophet. He was a human being subject to errors, no matter how brilliant or wise he was. Even if one wishes to designate him as "error-free," clearly his writings are open to many interpretations in many places, as we all well know. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 7:49 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19253] : withering away of the state Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until we have a socialists society, in order to find out. The Soviet Union called itself socialist but it wasn't. "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Jim, I did not mean that the vision was pathetic. I meant that the actual outcome in light of the vision/ (forecast) was pathetic. Barkley Rosser -- -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Withering away of the state
First, let's start with the word socialism and what it means. To me the minimum would be some socialisation of the means of production (I distinquish this from nationalisation). This entails the establishment of democratic institutions capable of managing that control. I take this to be what Marx meant by the withering away of the state. The state as a institution of a divided society would be replaced, as those divisions were resolved, by alternative democratic institutions (the division between the public and private sphere being one of the most important divisions, would thus be overcome). The Soviet Union did not attempt to construct these institution, (in fact, after the initial period of the soviets, they did everything in their power to destroy alternative centres of power.) Yugoslavia and Cuba did more in this and have a greater claim to being socialist. The Soviet Union was a society in which the division between capital and labour was still strong. Capital, was for the main part, controlled by the bureaucracy, but it still existed as an opposition to labour. Little was being done to overcome this division. The Soviet Union was one of the world's most developed welfare states but it was not socialist, it was most definitely a society in which capital still ruled. Rod "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Rod, In what way was it not? The USSR followed most of the "planks" in the platform at the end of the Communist Manifesto. It even, under Khrushchev, attempted to maintain greenbelts and carried out other policies motivated by the essentially utopian goal of eliminating the distinction between the city and the country. What it was not was communist. And neither it nor any other socialist state (that I am aware of, maybe Pol Pot made such claims) ever claimed so to be. The official line in the old USSR was that they were a socialist state "in transition" to a communist future that never arrived. BTW, to those who are getting upset that I have made some critical remarks about Marx, I say that I am a great admirer of Marx and fully agree that he was very perspicuitous about many matters, arguably the most brilliant economist of the nineteenth century, certainly one of the most. But, he was not a god or a messiah or a prophet. He was a human being subject to errors, no matter how brilliant or wise he was. Even if one wishes to designate him as "error-free," clearly his writings are open to many interpretations in many places, as we all well know. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 7:49 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19253] : withering away of the state Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until we have a socialists society, in order to find out. The Soviet Union called itself socialist but it wasn't. "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Jim, I did not mean that the vision was pathetic. I meant that the actual outcome in light of the vision/ (forecast) was pathetic. Barkley Rosser -- -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: : withering away of the state (fwd)
I have read everything. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What did you read about Soviet socialism? Mine Interesting musings Carrol, but words have meanings, and what most people mean by the word socialism is not what was seen in the USSR. You can call it what you want, but I don't call it socialism. Rod Carrol Cox wrote: Rod Hay wrote: Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until we have a socialists society, in order to find out. The Soviet Union called itself socialist but it wasn't. This I think is utopian. Socialism is a movement, not a platonic form against which you can measure any state and say it is or isn't "socialist." It would seem to me wrong to assume that there will not be many more episodes in the socialist movement which will go greatly astray in one way or another, many more defeats. THe struggles of 6 billion people and their descendants to find their way out of capitalism will almost certainly contain episodes at least as unpleasant as the USSR at its worst. The struggle for socialism has to be essentially g self-justifying at each step, regardless of the (temporary) final outcomes of each struggle. If the only or even the chief reason to fight for socialism is the achievement of the socialism for our great-grandchildren, then socialism is a bust. This is *not* to disagree with Rosa Luxemburg that the final goal is everything, the struggle is nothing. The role of that final goal is the understanding we achieve through it of the present. Hence the struggle depends on the final goal *independently* of whether or not we ever achieve that final goal. Marx, as I understand him, did not propose the classless society and the withering away of the state as a prize to reward us at the end. He saw that just as feudalism could be understood from the perspective of capitalism, so capitalism could only be understood from the perspective of communism. We can only understand the capitalist state (and therefore organize our struggle against it) by seeing it from the perspective of the society in which the state has withered away. [I really think it would help if a larger proportion of marxists suffered from depression. That would help dampen the galloping optimism that blithely says the USSR was not socialist -- for the implication of that evaluation is that socialism of just the sort we want will be easily attainable if we just have the right ideas. Horse Feathers!] The evil at the heart of capitalism (or of any social order of which the market is the central institution) is that Reality becomes the Future, while the past and present become mere appearance. I began to see this by reading and re-reading Plato's *Republic* and attempting to explain it to undergraduates. In Plato's timarchy (in effect a landed aristocracy of some sort) the Past is the Real. The present is merely a recapitulation of the past and is emptied of reality. In what he called an oligarchy (a state ruled by those whose motive was the accumulation of wealth [=money?], the past was non-existent, and the present only the shadow of the future. Action becomes meaningless in itself, since it cannot exhibit ambition (which is the struggle to maintain what the past has given us) nor can it be its own end. Since anything resembling capitalism was still nearly 2000 years away, it was remarkable that even in the piddling financial manipulations of his day Plato could see this. The core capitalist metaphor, that of *investment* catches up this trivialization of the present by the future. The *demos* Plato discarded with contempt: they *chose* (he implies) to live only in the present, their lives dominated by a lowly lust for immediate satisfaction. (One of the many modern equivalents of this is the accusation that unwed mothers have babies in order to make money off of public aid.) There would have been no way to theorize this in Plato's world, for that depended on the development of wage labor under capitalism and its theorization in Marx's conceptions of surplus value and alienation. The working class, by definition, is that class which *must* live in the present (that being the main thrust of the assumption that labor power is purchased at is value). And it is this (unavoidable) attachment of the working to the present (which implicitly is also a valuation of the past such as the investor dare not allow him/herself) which makes the working class a *potentially* revolutionary class. Its revolutionary task is to free humanity from the tyranny of the future. Carrol -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Ar
Re: Re: Marx Engels, was Re: Marx and Malleability
The problem with the "Dialectics of Nature" is that Engels tries to turn dialectics into a formal system, and thus destroys the meaning of the word. This synthesis-antithesis-synthesis crap does not appear in Hegel or in Marx. Rod Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Charles, You say "Materialist dialectics was Engels' , and not Marx's." I rteckon we have to be very explicit and specific here. I thought, for instance, that you and I had come to agree that materialism is not the same as physicalism? Social *relations* are material for Marx, and, indeed, the basis of what he called his materialist conception of history. Freddy's *Anti-Duhring* has some beaut bits in it, but, as I've tried to show you elsewhere, is difficult to nail on exactly what is meant by 'dialectic'. Stalin ended up with a view that finds support in Anti-Duhring, but so does, say, Fromm - and those two chaps would've agreed on bugger-all. Cheers, Rob. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : withering away of the state (fwd)
No Barkeley just a silly answer to a silly question. But I have read enough, that anything radically new would surprise me. Rod "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Rod, "Everything"? Really? Ponomaesh Russki yazik? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:11 AM Subject: [PEN-L:19273] Re: Re: Re: : withering away of the state (fwd) I have read everything. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What did you read about Soviet socialism? Mine Interesting musings Carrol, but words have meanings, and what most people mean by the word socialism is not what was seen in the USSR. You can call it what you want, but I don't call it socialism. Rod Carrol Cox wrote: Rod Hay wrote: Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until we have a socialists society, in order to find out. The Soviet Union called itself socialist but it wasn't. This I think is utopian. Socialism is a movement, not a platonic form against which you can measure any state and say it is or isn't "socialist." It would seem to me wrong to assume that there will not be many more episodes in the socialist movement which will go greatly astray in one way or another, many more defeats. THe struggles of 6 billion people and their descendants to find their way out of capitalism will almost certainly contain episodes at least as unpleasant as the USSR at its worst. The struggle for socialism has to be essentially g self-justifying at each step, regardless of the (temporary) final outcomes of each struggle. If the only or even the chief reason to fight for socialism is the achievement of the socialism for our great-grandchildren, then socialism is a bust. This is *not* to disagree with Rosa Luxemburg that the final goal is everything, the struggle is nothing. The role of that final goal is the understanding we achieve through it of the present. Hence the struggle depends on the final goal *independently* of whether or not we ever achieve that final goal. Marx, as I understand him, did not propose the classless society and the withering away of the state as a prize to reward us at the end. He saw that just as feudalism could be understood from the perspective of capitalism, so capitalism could only be understood from the perspective of communism. We can only understand the capitalist state (and therefore organize our struggle against it) by seeing it from the perspective of the society in which the state has withered away. [I really think it would help if a larger proportion of marxists suffered from depression. That would help dampen the galloping optimism that blithely says the USSR was not socialist -- for the implication of that evaluation is that socialism of just the sort we want will be easily attainable if we just have the right ideas. Horse Feathers!] The evil at the heart of capitalism (or of any social order of which the market is the central institution) is that Reality becomes the Future, while the past and present become mere appearance. I began to see this by reading and re-reading Plato's *Republic* and attempting to explain it to undergraduates. In Plato's timarchy (in effect a landed aristocracy of some sort) the Past is the Real. The present is merely a recapitulation of the past and is emptied of reality. In what he called an oligarchy (a state ruled by those whose motive was the accumulation of wealth [=money?], the past was non-existent, and the present only the shadow of the future. Action becomes meaningless in itself, since it cannot exhibit ambition (which is the struggle to maintain what the past has given us) nor can it be its own end. Since anything resembling capitalism was still nearly 2000 years away, it was remarkable that even in the piddling financial manipulations of his day Plato could see this. The core capitalist metaphor, that of *investment* catches up this trivialization of the present by the future. The *demos* Plato discarded with contempt: they *chose* (he implies) to live only in the present, their lives dominated by a lowly lust for immediate satisfaction. (One of the many modern equivalents of this is the accusation that unwed mothers have babies in order to make money off of public aid.) There would have been no way to theorize this in Plato's world, for that depended on the development of wage labor under capitalism and its theorization in Marx's conceptions of surplus value and alienation. The working class, by definition, is that class which *must* live in the present (that being the main thrust of the assumption that labor power is purchased at is value). And it is this (unavoidable) attachment of the wo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
I met her several times in the 1960s. Detroit being not so far from here. (I used to visit Fredy Perlman as well, another Detroit character). She was a wonderful woman, but totally obsessive on Hegel. She liked Lenin, but primarily the Philosophical Notebooks. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: Not only that, but she came to Chico to visit Ivan Svitak. A lot happens up here in the big city. Charles Brown wrote: Yes, indeedy. Raya D. lived in Detroit for a while, and there is a Marxist-Humanist chapter here. I attended a number of their meetings a few years ago, and read a number of her books. Alas, I soon observed what you said. Anti-Engelism is a key component of her theory. Lenin fairs a little better. She says Lenin stopped one paragraph short in Hegel, but otherwise he did pretty good. Nonetheless, I try to learn about Hegel from the Marxist-Humanists. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
: withering away of the state
Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until we have a socialists society, in order to find out. The Soviet Union called itself socialist but it wasn't. "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Jim, I did not mean that the vision was pathetic. I meant that the actual outcome in light of the vision/ (forecast) was pathetic. Barkley Rosser -- -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: : withering away of the state
Interesting musings Carrol, but words have meanings, and what most people mean by the word socialism is not what was seen in the USSR. You can call it what you want, but I don't call it socialism. Rod Carrol Cox wrote: Rod Hay wrote: Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until we have a socialists society, in order to find out. The Soviet Union called itself socialist but it wasn't. This I think is utopian. Socialism is a movement, not a platonic form against which you can measure any state and say it is or isn't "socialist." It would seem to me wrong to assume that there will not be many more episodes in the socialist movement which will go greatly astray in one way or another, many more defeats. THe struggles of 6 billion people and their descendants to find their way out of capitalism will almost certainly contain episodes at least as unpleasant as the USSR at its worst. The struggle for socialism has to be essentially g self-justifying at each step, regardless of the (temporary) final outcomes of each struggle. If the only or even the chief reason to fight for socialism is the achievement of the socialism for our great-grandchildren, then socialism is a bust. This is *not* to disagree with Rosa Luxemburg that the final goal is everything, the struggle is nothing. The role of that final goal is the understanding we achieve through it of the present. Hence the struggle depends on the final goal *independently* of whether or not we ever achieve that final goal. Marx, as I understand him, did not propose the classless society and the withering away of the state as a prize to reward us at the end. He saw that just as feudalism could be understood from the perspective of capitalism, so capitalism could only be understood from the perspective of communism. We can only understand the capitalist state (and therefore organize our struggle against it) by seeing it from the perspective of the society in which the state has withered away. [I really think it would help if a larger proportion of marxists suffered from depression. That would help dampen the galloping optimism that blithely says the USSR was not socialist -- for the implication of that evaluation is that socialism of just the sort we want will be easily attainable if we just have the right ideas. Horse Feathers!] The evil at the heart of capitalism (or of any social order of which the market is the central institution) is that Reality becomes the Future, while the past and present become mere appearance. I began to see this by reading and re-reading Plato's *Republic* and attempting to explain it to undergraduates. In Plato's timarchy (in effect a landed aristocracy of some sort) the Past is the Real. The present is merely a recapitulation of the past and is emptied of reality. In what he called an oligarchy (a state ruled by those whose motive was the accumulation of wealth [=money?], the past was non-existent, and the present only the shadow of the future. Action becomes meaningless in itself, since it cannot exhibit ambition (which is the struggle to maintain what the past has given us) nor can it be its own end. Since anything resembling capitalism was still nearly 2000 years away, it was remarkable that even in the piddling financial manipulations of his day Plato could see this. The core capitalist metaphor, that of *investment* catches up this trivialization of the present by the future. The *demos* Plato discarded with contempt: they *chose* (he implies) to live only in the present, their lives dominated by a lowly lust for immediate satisfaction. (One of the many modern equivalents of this is the accusation that unwed mothers have babies in order to make money off of public aid.) There would have been no way to theorize this in Plato's world, for that depended on the development of wage labor under capitalism and its theorization in Marx's conceptions of surplus value and alienation. The working class, by definition, is that class which *must* live in the present (that being the main thrust of the assumption that labor power is purchased at is value). And it is this (unavoidable) attachment of the working to the present (which implicitly is also a valuation of the past such as the investor dare not allow him/herself) which makes the working class a *potentially* revolutionary class. Its revolutionary task is to free humanity from the tyranny of the future. Carrol -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Genderization
Ricardo can you document any of this with citations from Marx, or is this more undergraduate sociology. Rod Ricardo Duchesne wrote: On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote: How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity? Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in his hands into a practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations, and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che called this reconstructed self the "new man". But if Hegel was right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a democratic setting). -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
essentialism
Carroll, Doug and Mine have all used the word "essentialism" in a sense that I do not understand. At first, I thought it might be ignorance on my part, so I checked the philosophical dictionaries that I have at hand. And, found that although I had forgotten the subtleties, my definition more or less matched with those. I take it from the context that it is meant as a dismissive word. Someone who is an "essentialist" is not worth further consideration, but I cannot deduce the meaning intended. Please enlighten Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Marx and Malleability
Ricardo wrote:
He {i.e, Marx] also thought that humans are constructed by a determinate set of
social relations, and that humans can be re-constructed,
To which Justin responded., so this protest is unfounded.
Rod
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
On 17 May 00, at 10:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am surprised to find the canard popping up on thsi list that Marx thought people
utterly malleable
and therefore (!) supported undemocratic "re-education" to make them they way theu
should be.
I know I am the only one here under the strict surveillance of
Michael lest I say anything that comes even half way what Mr JK,
(or GQ, who knows) says here. All I can say to this is that I did not
say that Marx said this; I said that some of his followers
understood Marx to have said this, and even his followers have
never really said "utterly malleable". But, of course, this is the kind
of 'either or' language that simple radicals have always operated
under.
This is an old right-wing misunderstanding, but it has no basis in Marx's own
writing.
First, Marx did not think people were utterly malleable. His theory of alienation
and free labor depends on the idea that it is human nature to want to exercise your
creative powers in a productive way, and that you will be frustrated and unhappy in
any society that denies that need.
Second, the claim that forcing people to be free is OK does not follow from
malleability, if if Marx held the malleability thesis.
Third, the one dominant theme in Marx's ethics is freedom. In the Manifesto, the
free develpment of each is the condition for the free development of all. In Capital,
the transcendence of necesasry labor is the enrtryway to the realm of freedom. Nor
does Marx hold a Rousseauan view about
freedom being attained by "totalitarian" means (if R holds such a view,w hich I do
not say). In the Manifesto, the first task of the proletarit is to win the battle of
democracy. In the Rules of the First International, the fundamental prewmise is that
the emancipation of the working class can
only be accomplished by thew orking classes themselves. In the Civil War in France,
Marx approves the Commune's removing a political functions from the police. Etc.
So, I hope this silliness does not come back. It has not merit.
Carroll, is that red enough for you?
--jks
In a message dated Wed, 17 May 2000 9:49:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ricardo
Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote:
How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects
of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full
self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity?
Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that
dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The
Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in
his hands into a practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that
humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations,
and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean
by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone
else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che
called this reconstructed self the "new man". But if Hegel was
right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions
except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a
democratic setting).
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!!
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
Re: Re: Genderization
Although Marx certainly emphasized "techne" I doubt if there is any passage where he rejects the other aspects. And again with class consciousness, it is emphasized, because it is one of the main fault lines in the capitalism system, but I have never seen any indication that Marx thought that it was the totality of critical refection. Habermas and the rest of the critical theorists are simply wrong. Rod Ricardo Duchesne wrote: On 17 May 00, at 14:05, Ted Winslow wrote: Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as self-determination from Kant and Hegel. in the process transforming its meaning and, as Habermas would say, reducing it to "techne", and though there is a critical reflective aspect to Marx, it is still strictly in terms of class consciousness. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class divisions, might decide things that he could not imagine. Rod Brad De Long wrote: I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I suspect it was his refusal to imagine his version of socialism that has made the currents of thought that flowed from him in many cases positively hostile to forms of free development that they do not like... Brad DeLong -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: RE: Genderization
Yes, Eric. It is a difficult question. How much is behaviour controlled by chemicals, genes, etc. and how much is it learned behaviour? I don't know the answer. But there are many who do claim to know. The biological determinist are one group and the cultural determinists are another. I am fairly sure that both of them are wrong. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. As Carroll pointed out--it is imprudent to place too much weight on one study. The process of getting at the truth is a long and painful one with many set backs. But there have been a number of studies recently that suggest that exposure to elevated hormone levels in the womb can influence (not determine) a person's sexuality. Rod Eric Nilsson wrote: RE Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents. Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Name: winmail.dat winmail.datType: DAT File (application/x-unknown-content-type-DAT_auto_file) Encoding: base64 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics. Rod Doug Henwood wrote: Jim Devine wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
generization
No idea is totally socially constructed (unless the thinker is completely delusional). Every idea is formed through interactions in society and in nature. To argue the constructivist position consistently is to ignore the second part of the epistomological dialect. To live in a world where ideas make ideas. Thus an idealist world. Plato's universals may have real manifestations, but he was still an idealist. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: technology and legal systems
You are right Charles. And there are many other examples. Most of the analysis in the article I posted was garbage, but the basic issue is important. I don't know where we are going, but I am pretty sure that in the issue being addressed that technology will win out over law, in the long run. Intellectual property laws cannot be inforced, and are incompatible with digital technology. Rod Charles Brown wrote: Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/13/00 09:31AM "Technology always ends up putting some other industry 'out of business.' The automobile replaced the carriage; the airplane replaced the train (if you're looking for socialism, look at how the U.S. government props up Amtrak); the Internet is replacing traditional publishing industries. _ CB: If you are looking for faux socialism ( state monopoly capitalism) look at how the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank, bailed out that giant hedge fund when it failed. Or Chrysler , before it was Daimler. CB -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Cold War
For a little fun, I suggest that you check out: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/17/game/ The ultimate in role playing games. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
And up is down and left is right and black is white and out is in and no is yes and big is little and... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO. You are creating false dichotomies. Vulgar biological "determinism" is a already product of vulgar "idealist" mentality, which essentializes, reifies and idealizes biology.. Mine I understand your point about vulgar biological determinism, but to deny the influence of hormones, etc. is a vulgar idealism. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can not "identify" masculine behavior by looking at the presence or absence of reproductive organs.. I think the research is biased for the reasons I mentioned below. It does not consider the social factors other than the "family"! Mine It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
technology and legal systems
of money they earn for their intellectual property. The market has effectively said, 'We will not pay these prices for prepackaged content any longer.' "Technology always ends up putting some other industry 'out of business.' The automobile replaced the carriage; the airplane replaced the train (if you're looking for socialism, look at how the U.S. government props up Amtrak); the Internet is replacing traditional publishing industries. "MP3 has given us a 'mature' technology for the distribution of audio content. While I don't agree with theft of copyrighted material, the RIAA and artists should be re-thinking their business model, not punishing the market. Next will be book publishers as portable 'ebooks' mature. Then will come video content (including movies) as broadband access increases in penetration and speed. "By the time my son is grown, the 'Tom Cruise' of his generation will not be able to command $25 million per film. I don't know if that's good or bad; it's just the way the capitalist economy is changing." Amen, comrade! Uncork the Ketel One and welcome the next capitalist revolution. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
My understand of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture is that nutritional standards did decline, but so did the risk of starvation. Agricultural output was less uncertain. Rod Jim Devine wrote: At 02:33 AM 05/13/2000 -0700, you wrote: On Fri, 12 May 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: very often of a seasonal nature. If you read Juliette Schor's "The Overworked American", you will discover that the average peasant worked half as many hours as the average proletarian during the rise of the industrial revolution. That is the reason resistance to the Enclosure Acts and bans on hunting was so fierce. But didn't this have to do with limited food sources and chronic disease and malnutrition? Peasant societies couldn't sustain year-round work efforts simply because most folks were hungry most of the time (no refrigeration, few reserves, salt was a luxury, etc.), right? it has a lot to do with the fact that agricultural is by its very nature seasonal. Schor specifically refers to the change from the peasant agriculture of the European Middle Ages to capitalism. During the Middle Ages, many of the Catholic Church's saints days were actually celebrated -- except during planting and harvest time -- so that work hours per year rose with the transition to capitalism. (I think it's a good idea to avoid the myth of unilineal and no-downside progress. There is also a lot of evidence that living standards fell with the transition from hunting and gathering to farming. But of course, it's mixed.) Most pre-capitalist societies had high death rates rather than lots of chronic diseases, as I understand it. Those who survived the infant phase are tough critters, who lived about "3 score and 10" if they survived waves of plagues. Also, there are a lot of ways to keep reserves besides using salt, such as smoking meat. As others have noted, the standard of living of peasants also depends on the rate of exploitation by the lords, the state, the Church, etc. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
I think you should read the report of the study again. It says that boys surgically transformed to resemble girls still identify as boys and act as boys (this may be mimicing, etc.) But they were raised as girls. And identified to everyone as girls. I understand your point about vulgar biological determinism, but to deny the influence of hormones, etc. is a vulgar idealism. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can not "identify" masculine behavior by looking at the presence or absence of reproductive organs.. I think the research is biased for the reasons I mentioned below. It does not consider the social factors other than the "family"! Mine It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: genderization (fwd)
It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod posted: Saturday May 13 1:02 AM ET Study Questions 'Sex Reassignment' By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born without penises is being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity is determined in the womb. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital on Friday said the study found that such boys, raised as girls, had masculine behavior and most declared themselves to be boys. actually, this is falsified by other studies. Many studies prove that there is no necessary relationship between your biological identity and gender identity. If you are born with a penis, you may develop a different identity through time, so you don't need to be born without a penis to see how you develop a masculine identity. In so far as the above study is concerned,I would still look at the social environment of male participants. boys may be raised as girls, but do the researchers look at the non-familial enviromental factors such as schooling, friends, media,etc.? The boys may have learnt masculine behaviour from other external sources, which could have become dominant through time, as to contradict family socialization. this has nothing to do with their hormones, but something to do with the contradictions between two forms of socialization (family versus outside family)..we should not underestimate the external factors. Many children, grown with, let's say, egalitarian values at home and see parents sharing household responsibilities equally, may become patriarchal later due to their socialization into external forms of masculinist social practices.. It is also true the reverse case. Many women are grown up with social values that contradict the conventional female wisdom. Some parents, but still few, choose not to give their daughters dolls or son gun toys, or even not vice versa (which . Another big example is mothering. Vulgar biological determinists relate mothering to women's biological and emotional predisposition. It has been found out that men can mother as adequately as women since mothering is a social function, not a biological one. There are many men around who raise children. There are also many women around who don't prefer mothering... Acting "like a man or a woman" is a socially learnt behavior designed to fit the ideological constructions of gender. Mine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
genderization
Saturday May 13 1:02 AM ET Study Questions 'Sex Reassignment' By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born without penises is being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity is determined in the womb. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital on Friday said the study found that such boys, raised as girls, had masculine behavior and most declared themselves to be boys. In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, researchers tracked the development of 27 children born without a penis, a rare defect known as a cloacal exstrophy. The infants were otherwise male with normal testicles, male genes and hormones. Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys, in one case as early as age 5, said Dr. William G. Reiner, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and urologist at the Hopkins Children's Center. ``These studies indicate that with time and age, children may well know what their gender is, regardless of any and all information and child-rearing to the contrary,'' he said. ``They seem to be quite capable of telling us who they are.'' The two children who were not reassigned and were raised as boys fit in well with their normal male peers and were better adjusted psychologically than the reassigned children, Reiner said. He called for a thorough review of the practice of sex reassignment of children. The study was presented Friday at the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society Meeting in Boston. The results contradicted a Canadian study published in the journal Pediatrics in 1998 that suggested gender identity develops after birth. In that study, researchers found that a boy who was raised as a girl after his penis was mutilated during circumcision continued to live as a woman. ``This has very profound implications for the development of gender identity,'' said Michael Bailey, an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University who studies gender identity and sexual orientation. ``This suggests that hormones' effect on the brain has a major impact on gender identity.'' Dr. Marianne J. Legato, a Columbia University professor of clinical medicine who studies the differences between men and women, said sexual differentiation occurs in the first trimester of pregnancy. ``When the brain has been masculinized by exposure to testosterone, it is kind of useless to say to this individual, 'You're a girl,''' she said. ``It is this impact of testosterone that gives males the feelings that they are men.' -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Zimbabwe
If Patrick is still on the list, could he gives us a first hand account of what is happening in Zimbabwe? Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: American looneyism
O we have our loonies. And you have named just a few. But I was asking in the Virginia case. Given the reaction to other actions of this sort. Why were they willing to risks the boycotts and the eventually retraction. South Carolina has backed down on the flag issue. I have visited the US often enough to see the Jefferson Davis' highways and the confederate statues, but the political climate has changed in the US since they were constructed. Already the governor of Virginia is backtracking. Rod Hay Doug Henwood wrote: Rod Hay wrote: What is with the US. A confederate month in Virginia? How do they think that they can get away with it? Not to apologize too much for U.S. lunacy, it seems like you Canadians are experiencing the kind of hard-right lunacy we did 10-15-20 years ago - Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, that Christian reactionary whose name I can't remember who's nudging aside that other nutcase Preston Manning, etc. etc. Doug -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
American looneyism
What is with the US. A confederate month in Virginia? How do they think that they can get away with it? Rod Hay -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
