[PEN-L:11152] Re: shun him!
Shunning is better than cutting someone out of the list, but it takes a high degree of agreement and self-discipline among listers. I sometimes despair at the little room that is often allowed for (what I think are) ideas worth hearing, or if not worth hearing, at least better heard than held secretly. However, Karl's comments were sexist in a way that I don't think most of us would tolerate in a face-to-face conversation, or at any public event we had any responsibility for. I say thank you Michael P. for kicking him out. This is not censorship. It is our right to a democratic atmosphere for discussions, and that requires prompt action against the kind of blatant and aggressive sexism I read in Karl's first couple of messages (I am assuming the rest were more of the same, because I didn't read through them). Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Most folks who've expressed opinions have supported Michael's decision to kick Karl off the list. I think Bill above has articulated something like my thoughts: PEN-L is a commons regime and it may sometimes require defense against those who would despoil it. Michael: I think you do a great job of keeping PEN-L healthy. In my opinion it has just about the highest signal to noise ratio of any email list I'm aware of, even though I have disagreements about all sorts of things with many people on the list and can't always read everything I want for lack of time. Thanks! _ Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "They say that it's never too late, but you know you don't get any younger. Well I better learn how to starve the emptiness and feed the hunger. -- Indigo Girls _
[PEN-L:11129] Re: -- US factories in Nazi Germany
BTW, I don't think it was Dresden where GM or Ford had its factories, since that city was flattened by fire-bombs and as far as I know US-owned companies' factories were mostly spared by US strategic bombing. As I recall from Charles Higham's TRADING WITH THE ENEMY, Du Pont, GM (recall that GM's largest stockholder at the time was the Du Pont family) and possibly other US companies -- rather, I'm sure other US companies, but I don't remember which ones -- had factories in Germany that were destroyed by Allied bombing and consequently received financial compensation from the US government after WWII. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11081] Re: Greenspan's conversion
As Larry Kudlow says, it's a wonderful time to be alive. Doug I thought that was MCI. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10977] Re: K/Y ratios
First, off-the-top, shallow proposal: the rate of exploitation is higher? Given the higher social wage elsewhere, this would make sense, no? Sorry if the subject heading seems racier than it turns out to be... Anyway, what, if anything, does it mean that the U.S. has the lowest capital/output ratio in the OECD? Here are some numbers for 1996, from the OECD in Figures, 1997 edition: CAPITAL/OUTPUT RATIO, BUSINESS SECTOR, 1996 Australia 2.87 Austria 3.71 Belgium 2.89 Canada 2.46 Denmark 3.87 Finland 3.57 France 2.93 Germany 2.75 Greece 2.48 Ireland 2.09 Italy 2.82 Japan 2.55 Netherlands 2.18 Norway 3.43 Spain 2.60 Sweden 2.89 Switzerland 3.21 UK 2.81 US 1.91 Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10856] Re: *FALSE AND DANGEROUS RUMOURS
Blair Sandler wrote, -- trying to drive in San Francisco has become much more difficult, not to mention harrowing, since legislation was passed making it illegal to stop at stop signs or for red lights, or to use one's turn signals (the cops always set a good example regarding these new laws) -- and didn't want to be passing on false rumors. I presume you were carrying your poetic driver's license, Blair. Regards, Tom Walker Okay, I admit I've never actually *seen* this legislation, but it seems clear judging by the way people (including cops) drive that it must be so Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10860] too rich? overconsumption? The FOUR C's.
Doug raised the question of snobbery on this subject. While Schor's style might be lacking, her point was correct. I know pen-l is split on the relevance of sustainability, but there is no way that our environment could sustain a world where everybody lived at the level of the U.S. autoworker. Maybe that is not the appropriate cutoff point, but I suspect that it is. Regarding the question of the "overconsumption of the North": people I work with have come to the conclusion that "overconsumption" is practically a useless term, misleading and possibly, as Doug's story suggests, politically reactionary. Workers in this country are not "too rich." Certainly, we lack sufficient time to take care of ourselves, our families (see Friday's BLS Daily Report on the costs of elder care), our communities. Our public infrastructure is pathetic, and the quality of much of what we consume is frightening (for example, food laced with petrochemicals, toxic air and water, etc.). It's necessary to come to a much finer appreciation of just how much we consume of specific goods and services. For instance: I don't think it is at all clear that there are too many televisions (though, in my opinion there is clearly too much television), VCRs, CD players, etc. Similarly, though I strongly empathize with Michael's point about how much space we "really" need, I suggest that one reason (I emphasize, one among many) communal living arrangements proved so difficult is because we tried to live them in architecture designed for nuclear families: a master bedroom, several smaller bedrooms, and a few relatively large public areas. To have any privacy, one had to lock oneself in one's own (usually very small) space. It's okay for short periods of time, Michael, but I live in a closet, hyperbolically speaking, and I know my mental state would benefit from more private space. If we look more carefully, we can see that overconsumption means something very specific, if anything at all. What do we overconsume? The FOUR C's: cattle, chlorine, cars, carbon. Think about the political, ecological, health, and economic costs of these Four C's, and then think about the space that opens up with significant reductions in just these four things. For example: half of all urban space in San Francisco is occupied by cars (parking lots and garages, repair stations and gas stations, roadways, freeway exchanges, etc.) Get rid of most cars, make the roads narrower, provide a range of buses, recumbent (enclosed) bicycles, pedicabs, etc. -- and lots of light rail -- and how much more green space could there be? How much more affordable housing? Stop burning fossil fuels, and what happens to the air and the climate? Stop using chlorine -- where substitutes are available, which is almost everywhere but water purification (see Greenpeace for details) and watch what happens to quality of air, water, food and health (the notion that food production will drop without chlorinated organic pesticides and so on is a complete fabrication). Get rid of the commercial cattle industry (I'm not talking about vegetarianism -- ecologically sustainable animal husbandry is no difficult feat -- though it does mean *reducing* meat consumption in the U.S.) and a whole host of ecological and health problems disappear. I understand that in all of this, questions of transition, and transition to what, are crucial. I don't mean to suggest that doing these things would be simple or conflict-free, and that solutions to these problems might not, themselves, generate other problems. My point is, first of all, that the solution to the political problem Doug raises is to become much more concrete. Say that workers are too rich and, when they stop laughing at you, they get angry. Talk about the specific problems of specific kinds of production and the benefits of different kinds of production (i.e., not just different processes for production of the "same goods," but also different goods to satisfy certain needs) and we'll listen. Second, "overconsumption" is quite simply a problem without a solution. It is too big to be solved, because it means everything, and therefore nothing. Finding a solution to problems requires first of all correctly identifying problems. Third, raising questions about cattle, cars, carbon and chlorine inevitably leads to questions of political economy, which, in my opinion is always to the good. I hope something I've said here strikes people as, if not correct, then at least interestingly wrong, and worthy of comment. Regards, Blair P.S. If I am simply repeating ideas I've already posted to PEN-L in some earlier life, my apologies. __ The International Joint Commission for Great Lakes Water Quality is appointed by the federal governments of U.S. and Canada to guard over the water quality of the Great Lakes. In 1992, in its Sixth Biennial Report on Water Quality, the IJC wrote, "We conclude that persistent
[PEN-L:10867] Re: *FALSE AND DANGEROUS REPORT OF DEATH WARRANT
Blair, this was Jeronimo Ji Jaga (fka, Elmer Pratt), a then-Panther who was framed in the early 70s for a robbery-murder along with Angela Davis. Davis was acquitted, but Ji Jaga was convicted on the basis of testimony from an FBI informant. The informant and the prosecution did not disclose his status, and so, after this guy has spent half his life in jail, he managed to win an appeal for a new trial. He is out on bail while he awaits it. Power to the people, Tavis Right. Actually, at various times I've been active in the campaign to free Geronimo, but not most recently. This is still definitely a good thing that Geronimo is out, even if the story is not yet over. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10840] Re: *FALSE AND DANGEROUS REPORT OF DEATH WARRANT
I was also wondering about this report. I thought (emphasize "thought") I had heard on KPFA just the other day a news report that Mumia has been released while he awaits a hearing of some sort. I didn't say anything 'til now because I was only half paying attention -- trying to drive in San Francisco has become much more difficult, not to mention harrowing, since legislation was passed making it illegal to stop at stop signs or for red lights, or to use one's turn signals (the cops always set a good example regarding these new laws) -- and didn't want to be passing on false rumors. Has anyone else got any reliable info on this matter? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10791] unnecessary condescension?
I've not been able to keep up with the volume on PEN-L lately due to my own work load. I've been trying to check in now and then just to keep an eye on things, and occasionally read some of the shorter messages. I'm archiving the discussions on France and limiting the working day for later perusal. I did happen to catch this one exchange between Maggie and Karl. I just wanted to thank Karl for putting Maggie in her place. I really appreciated the certainty in Karl's tone, the definitive way he dismisses her thoughts with phrases such as, "nothing significant," and "the real point," which is, as any fool can see, evident with only a "glance." I'm glad Karl is here to point us to the real tasks and decisive issues. Thanks, old man! ... Oh, I'm sorry, was that overly sarcastic? Seriously: did anyone else think Karl's response to Maggie was incredibly condescending, or am I just overly touchy-feely sensitive? I have always thought that the revolutionary movements I've studied had more difficulty dealing with their friends sometimes than with their enemies. That's why I think this sort of thing matters. Just think about how COINTELPRO was able to play on personal relationships in the social movements of the sixties (emphasizing, exaggerating and sometimes even creating difficulties through forgeries, rumors and other sorts of lies). Personally, I think it's possible to disagree with folks without arrogance or condescension. (Not that I always succeed.) And I do apologize for the sarcasm above. I can be arrogant too. I find myself in agreement with Karl sometimes; it was not the content but the tone that bothered me in the message below. Regards to all, Blair MAGGIE: Finally, what I was trying to point out is that huge movements have been formed and succeeded in just the situations you are saying which make organizing difficult. Most unions were formed when people were working six days a week, 10-12 hours a day. KARL: There is nothing significant concerning this Maggie. A glance at the evidence will show that "huge movements have been formed" under these conditions. However you miss the real point: the political character of such movements. There have been movements of the oppressed of one sort or another and there will continue to be further such movements formed. However what is not so certain is whether these movements will have a revolutionary socialist character. The real task ist to assist in promoting the conditions under which this is made more likely. It is politics not organisation that is decisivie Maggie. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10678] Re: Reply To Blair
Shawgi: actually, I thought your comments below very clear and very interesting. The changes you propose in the political process are quite close to much of what the Green Party is focusing on in the US (along with proportional representation). Thanks for responding. Blair, briefly, analysis shows that what is needed is an entirely New electoral process and political system. The present set-up of the super-wealthy only serves to effectively marginalize and ghettoize the broad masses of the people. Democratic renewal is needed. A key feature of democratic renewal is to remove the right to select candidates for election from the hands of party leaders only and create institutions and mechanisms which vest the right to select candidates for election in the hands of every single member of the polity. Related changes include the creation of institutions and mechanisms which enable every single member of the polity the right to initiate legislation, to recall elected officials and to a truly informed vote. As well, referenda, when held, would actually be binding. Today, referenda are routinely held in many places, but are not binding, are routinely dismissed by the ruling classes and its servants. Many other things, including changes in broadcast time alloted to officially registered parties and campaign financing must be implemented. The Canada Elections Act as well as the Federal Elections Commission Act (U.S.) clarify the extent to which only those with extremely large amounts of wealth are privileged by the extant electoral system. Democratic renewal means creating a New electoral system, the only way to constitute a New and different kind of government, to vest sovereignty in the people for the first time. The creation of a modern constitution is also key. Every modern constitution must base itsself on the cardinal principle that all humans have inviolable rights by dint of being human. As well, every modern constitution must enshrine a definite conception of citizenship which stipulates that all have equal rights and duties. It must also affirm the specific rights of national minorities, Aboriginal peoples, women, the youth and other collectives in society. All this is absent at this time. In order to bring about all these qualitative changes which will, for the first time, empower all members of the polity, there must be organized collective discussion on a broad scale in educational institutions, workplaces, neighborhoods, military units, seniors' homes, religious congregations and youth organizations. "Discussion" means actually investigating the essence of social problems and on that basis proposing real solutions. As is well-known, at this time the instruments of discussion (e.g., the media and educational institutions) are monopolized by the bourgeoisie and used to mystify, disinform and divert people. Once the working class and people come to power they will have to work ten times harder than before coming to power. This is when the "real" work begins, so to speak. Capitalism will not just disappear when the working class and people come to power. But nor can the crisis-ridden economy be reorganized without political power in the hands of the vast majority. Please let me know if I can clarify or elaborate on anything. Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10639] Re: FW: Daily Report
Does anyone else fine this to be more than a bit off? At 11:59 AM 6/6/97 -0700, Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997: Fueled by the issue of quality changes, the CPI debate rolls on, says Business Week (June 9, page 68). Among the quotes is one that says a Boskin panel member says that he gets better data on consumer prices by thumbing through old "Consumer Reports". For most products today, the BLS uses a crude method for estimating quality changes. Say a TV set disappears from the shelves, replaced by a new model with a better picture costing 5 percent more. If the inflation rate of other TVs was 2 percent, then the BLS assumes that the rest of the increase, 3 percent, can be attributed to higher quality -- namely the better picture. But the true test of quality is how the new set sells. For instance, if it gains market share, the quality must have risen more than the BLS's 3 percent. Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus says: "We actually don't know how much quality change exists in the BLS numbers." If it gains market share, it might just be that it is the quality of the hype not the product that accounts for better sales. The product quality could be no better than the competition's. Otherwise, if you believe what's said above, you would have to conclude that Camel's really are superior to Winston's, ignoring how seductively Joe Camel has hooked all those kids. Oh, give it up, Michael. You know that the argument must be right under the conditions of perfect competition: many buyers and sellers, homogeneous products, perfect information, no barriers to entry or exit. Get with the program already. ;-) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10437] what marketers really think of consumers
Consumers "are like roaches -- you spray them and spray them and they get immune after a while," says David Lubars, chief executive of the Los Angeles office of BBDO -- Yumiko Ono, "Marketers Seek the 'Naked' Truth in Consumer Psyches," WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 30, 1997. _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:10168] Re: Progressive web sites
Absolutely, Paul, please post the final list. Thanks. Pen-l-ers, At a benefit dinner for Canadian Dimension the other night, I was asked by a retired United Church minister who is now part of a collective of clergy who publish a progressive newsletter on social issues, if I could give him the addresses of progressive web sites (specifically with regard to NZ, but also US, Canada, etc.) which he could monitor for up to date info and opinion of a progressive or radical nature. I mentioned Doug Henwood's and EPI's site but I didn't have the URPs handy. In any case, he wants to put together a listing of the most useful progressive web sites so I am asking all on the list to send me their selection of the best progressive web pages. (Remember, this is for laypersons and retired clergy, not professional economists or related.) If you don't think the list would be interested, send your suggestions to me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I get any response to this request and there is any interest, I will post the top 10 or 20 suggestions to Pen-l. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9765] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
I just heard a description of the "Rethinking Marxism" conference that occurred in Amherst late last year. The reporter (Olga Celle de Bowman, a sociologist from Peru) said that there was a tremendous amount of (verbal) conflict between the audience and the speakers at the plenaries, something I hadn't heard about before. She said that the activists in the audience were objecting to the lack of answers to the key "what is to be done?" question and the lack of any kind of orientation toward people outside of academe. Was anyone on pen-l at the conference and has a different perspective on the conflict? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. Several people on PEN-L were at the conference and will undoubtedly offer different perspectives, but the bottom line is that a bunch of orthodox marxists were upset that suggestions from speakers were not the same as the answers offered by orthodox marxists. Because we know that orthodox marxism has all the answers. oh well. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9797] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
What a romantic account! I don't think anybody in their right mind came to the Amherst conference looking for an activist focus. The conferences have been around long enough for people to know what's up. Back in the late 1980s a friend of mine who was active in Sister Cities Projects and who worked as a nurse went up to the conference (it might have been the first) and returned with the observation that she did not understand a single word that anybody was saying. Pretty soon the word got out. Activists stayed home. So as this filtering process started to take place, the people who did make the trek *understood* what the conference was about. It was an academic conference not that much different from MLA conferences, etc. This conference was a gathering of the post-Marxist tribe. Every graduate student in America who was into Althusser, Zizek, Bourdieu, etc. would have to consider putting money aside for hotel and transportation costs. Later in hotel rooms people would drink Jack Daniels from the bottle and gossip about goings-on in the groves of academe. What happened in December 1996 was unexpected. A whole number of people, possibly a majority of the conference attendees, came with a theoretical approach to Marxism that was much more in line with what I call classical Marxism. People like Ellen Meiksins Wood, John Bellamy Foster, Doug Henwood and Meera Nanda have been carving out a space for this current for a few years now. When graduate students and louts like me came up to the conference with an identification with this current, we clashed with the post-Marxists. The clash could have been avoided if the organizers had the good sense to not have such lopsided plenaries. That they lacked such good sense reminds me of the public relations failure of Social Text after the Sokal Affair. It became tempting for Andrew Ross et al to label Sokal as an enemy of multiculturalism rather than to engage with his ideas. Likewise, it became easier for the Amherst conference organizers to view the disruptions from the floor as evidence of intolerant behavior on the part of others rather than their own exclusionary practices. Louis Proyect Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9788] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several people on PEN-L were at the conference and will undoubtedly offer different perspectives, but the bottom line is that a bunch of orthodox marxists were upset that suggestions from speakers were not the same as the answers offered by orthodox marxists. Because we know that orthodox marxism has all the answers. oh well. Now Blair, I knew you were a partisan, but I thought you were a fair guy. Doug, I think it's fair to say my opinion and indicate clearly that it *is* my opinion, that others will have other opinions. I was hoping you'd be one of them; Louis Proyect was also there. I've read a number of pieces by Nanda Meera and I stand by my opinion. Personally, I agree about the Shiva/Harding panel, also that Balibar talked too long (though I wouldn't say "gassed"). The dissenters impressed me about as much as Shiva and Harding, which is to say, not at all. Blair _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:9789] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
Louis, there was nothing "snide" or "patronizing" about my private message to you. I don't play games. When I like what people are doing I say so; when I don't like it, I say so. Pretty straightforward, I think. It's absurd to say I'm "dissembling" about my connections to RM (I had nothing to do with the conference directly, though). PEN-L has had several long series of discussions about modernist and postmodernist Marxism in which I participated actively and openly as a post-modernist Marxist and member of the RM editorial board. Yup. I'm counting on everyone having forgotten those discussions from, what several months ago? Damn, guess it didn't work with you, Louis, and now you've exposed me. I don't understand your reference to "postmodernist/Althusserian/green regionalism trip": how does "green regionalism" fit in there? Blair Yeah, this question of personal insults rings a bell with me. Blair sent me some snide private mail shortly after I showed up on PEN-L giving me a patronizing pat on the back for my AM posts, but slapping my wrist for "boorish" behavior at the Amherst Conference. During the discussion period following the first plenary with the ineffable Vandana Shiva, I charged Richard Wolff with running an exclusionary panel and that in the future such bullshit should not be allowed. By the way, isn't it important for Blair to identify himself as a member of the collective that sponsored the Conference? This is highly scandalous when people hide such information. Where's Jerry Levy when you need him? Jerry, it's time for a crusade against Blair Sandler's dissembling before the august body of PEN-L. The nerve of Blair to hide his connections. Oh, perfidy. The problem with the Amherst school is that it has placed all of its eggs in a rotting basket. This whole postmodernist/Althusserian/green regionalism trip is getting very dated. We got a visitation from a group of Teresa Morton's acolytes over on the Spoons Marxism list loaded for bear. They were going to slay all postmodernists, including *Doug Henwood and Ellen Meiksins Wood*. Yes, it does sound weird, but these are weird people. A witty comrade from Portugal commented that postmodernism is dead as a doornail and not worth the trouble of killing twice. He suggested that Marxism's main opponent are the old-fashioned ones of pragmatism and idealism. I think there's something to be said for that. It's getting harder and harder to simply make the usual allegations against "orthodox" Marxism. (Actually, classical Marxism is a much more descriptive term and is embraced by the new journal "Historical Materialism" that just got founded over in Great Britain.) The reason for this is that the objective circumstances that led to the pomo doctrine have largely disappeared. 1997 looks a lot different than pre-crash 1987 when characters like Baudrillard had the ability to captivate the thinking of humanities professors in America. Louis Proyect _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:9765] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
I just heard a description of the "Rethinking Marxism" conference that occurred in Amherst late last year. The reporter (Olga Celle de Bowman, a sociologist from Peru) said that there was a tremendous amount of (verbal) conflict between the audience and the speakers at the plenaries, something I hadn't heard about before. She said that the activists in the audience were objecting to the lack of answers to the key "what is to be done?" question and the lack of any kind of orientation toward people outside of academe. Was anyone on pen-l at the conference and has a different perspective on the conflict? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. Several people on PEN-L were at the conference and will undoubtedly offer different perspectives, but the bottom line is that a bunch of orthodox marxists were upset that suggestions from speakers were not the same as the answers offered by orthodox marxists. Because we know that orthodox marxism has all the answers. oh well. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9788] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several people on PEN-L were at the conference and will undoubtedly offer different perspectives, but the bottom line is that a bunch of orthodox marxists were upset that suggestions from speakers were not the same as the answers offered by orthodox marxists. Because we know that orthodox marxism has all the answers. oh well. Now Blair, I knew you were a partisan, but I thought you were a fair guy. Doug, I think it's fair to say my opinion and indicate clearly that it *is* my opinion, that others will have other opinions. I was hoping you'd be one of them; Louis Proyect was also there. I've read a number of pieces by Nanda Meera and I stand by my opinion. Personally, I agree about the Shiva/Harding panel, also that Balibar talked too long (though I wouldn't say "gassed"). The dissenters impressed me about as much as Shiva and Harding, which is to say, not at all. Blair _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:9789] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
Louis, there was nothing "snide" or "patronizing" about my private message to you. I don't play games. When I like what people are doing I say so; when I don't like it, I say so. Pretty straightforward, I think. It's absurd to say I'm "dissembling" about my connections to RM (I had nothing to do with the conference directly, though). PEN-L has had several long series of discussions about modernist and postmodernist Marxism in which I participated actively and openly as a post-modernist Marxist and member of the RM editorial board. Yup. I'm counting on everyone having forgotten those discussions from, what several months ago? Damn, guess it didn't work with you, Louis, and now you've exposed me. I don't understand your reference to "postmodernist/Althusserian/green regionalism trip": how does "green regionalism" fit in there? Blair Yeah, this question of personal insults rings a bell with me. Blair sent me some snide private mail shortly after I showed up on PEN-L giving me a patronizing pat on the back for my AM posts, but slapping my wrist for "boorish" behavior at the Amherst Conference. During the discussion period following the first plenary with the ineffable Vandana Shiva, I charged Richard Wolff with running an exclusionary panel and that in the future such bullshit should not be allowed. By the way, isn't it important for Blair to identify himself as a member of the collective that sponsored the Conference? This is highly scandalous when people hide such information. Where's Jerry Levy when you need him? Jerry, it's time for a crusade against Blair Sandler's dissembling before the august body of PEN-L. The nerve of Blair to hide his connections. Oh, perfidy. The problem with the Amherst school is that it has placed all of its eggs in a rotting basket. This whole postmodernist/Althusserian/green regionalism trip is getting very dated. We got a visitation from a group of Teresa Morton's acolytes over on the Spoons Marxism list loaded for bear. They were going to slay all postmodernists, including *Doug Henwood and Ellen Meiksins Wood*. Yes, it does sound weird, but these are weird people. A witty comrade from Portugal commented that postmodernism is dead as a doornail and not worth the trouble of killing twice. He suggested that Marxism's main opponent are the old-fashioned ones of pragmatism and idealism. I think there's something to be said for that. It's getting harder and harder to simply make the usual allegations against "orthodox" Marxism. (Actually, classical Marxism is a much more descriptive term and is embraced by the new journal "Historical Materialism" that just got founded over in Great Britain.) The reason for this is that the objective circumstances that led to the pomo doctrine have largely disappeared. 1997 looks a lot different than pre-crash 1987 when characters like Baudrillard had the ability to captivate the thinking of humanities professors in America. Louis Proyect _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:9797] Re: Rethinking Marxism conference
What a romantic account! I don't think anybody in their right mind came to the Amherst conference looking for an activist focus. The conferences have been around long enough for people to know what's up. Back in the late 1980s a friend of mine who was active in Sister Cities Projects and who worked as a nurse went up to the conference (it might have been the first) and returned with the observation that she did not understand a single word that anybody was saying. Pretty soon the word got out. Activists stayed home. So as this filtering process started to take place, the people who did make the trek *understood* what the conference was about. It was an academic conference not that much different from MLA conferences, etc. This conference was a gathering of the post-Marxist tribe. Every graduate student in America who was into Althusser, Zizek, Bourdieu, etc. would have to consider putting money aside for hotel and transportation costs. Later in hotel rooms people would drink Jack Daniels from the bottle and gossip about goings-on in the groves of academe. What happened in December 1996 was unexpected. A whole number of people, possibly a majority of the conference attendees, came with a theoretical approach to Marxism that was much more in line with what I call classical Marxism. People like Ellen Meiksins Wood, John Bellamy Foster, Doug Henwood and Meera Nanda have been carving out a space for this current for a few years now. When graduate students and louts like me came up to the conference with an identification with this current, we clashed with the post-Marxists. The clash could have been avoided if the organizers had the good sense to not have such lopsided plenaries. That they lacked such good sense reminds me of the public relations failure of Social Text after the Sokal Affair. It became tempting for Andrew Ross et al to label Sokal as an enemy of multiculturalism rather than to engage with his ideas. Likewise, it became easier for the Amherst conference organizers to view the disruptions from the floor as evidence of intolerant behavior on the part of others rather than their own exclusionary practices. Louis Proyect Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9754] Ellen (forwarded message)
I received the following phone number and made a quick call to let Chrysler know that I think they SHOULD have retained their sponsorship of the April 30 "Ellen" episode. Simple -- you just push a couple of buttons (1 for their Media/PR line; 2 for their "Ellen" line, and then 2 (but double check me here) to disagree with their decision to pull sponsorship. You don't have to talk to a human, you just basically vote with your phone. It's EASY and FAST and FREE. So let's do our part cuz the Fundies are calling in too! Thanks! Here's the number: 1 (800) 992-1997 Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9561] Re: FWD: IMPORTANT !!! READ RIGHT AWAY!!!!
Do not forward this message to anyone. The message itself is the scam. Email cannot execute a virus. A Microsoft Word file attached to an email can do lots of things to Word and Word files, but only if you open it. (And anyone using Word 6 or later can install free Word Macro protection as easy as abc. The scam is the time it takes people to deal with this supposedly friendly "warning." God I wish people would learn how to deal with their computers. Email cannot run a virus. It is harmless. Get a clue. Subject: FWD: IMPORTANT !!! READ RIGHT AWAY Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline -- Subject: IMPORTANT READ RIGHT AWAY! Date: Tuesday, April 08, 1997 11:03AM ATTENTION INTERNET AND ONLINE USERS.. Be on the lookout for this email subject AOL4FREE.com. It will bring lots of heart ache when it destroys your system files as you open it for viewing. Delete it IMMEDIATELY! THERE IS A NEW AOL SCAM."It is essential that this problem be reconciled as soon as possible. A few hours ago, I opened an E-mail that had the subject heading of aol4free.com Within seconds of opening it, a window appeared and began to display my files that were being deleted. I immediately shut down my computer, but it was too late. This virus wiped me out. It ate the Anti-Virus Software that comes with the Windows '95 Program along with F-Prot AVS. Neither was able to detect it. Please be careful and send this to as many people as possible, so maybe this new virus can be eliminated. FORWARD this to as many people as you care about] __ This e-mail message is subject to attorney-client privilege and contains information intended only for the person(s) named above. If you have received this transmission in error, notify us immediately. Destroy the original message and all copies. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9533] Re: taxing games
Because it's pathetic? Because it's tragic-comic? Because if we weren't laughing we'd be crying? Because, this guy's a *Marxist*??!! Why does this make me laugh? It's from that commercial working paper abstracting service that most PEN-Lers seem to hate. Note there's a fee for this paper. Though a few of these are now distributed from web sites, an increasing number of working papers now come with a fee. No doubt this service has encouraged charging for WPs. MIT's fees start at $12. "The Democratic Political Economy of Progressive Income Taxation" BY: JOHN E. ROEMER University of California, Davis Paper ID: UC Davis Working Paper #97-11 Date: March 1997 Contact: Donna Wills Raymond E-Mail: MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Department of Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8578 Phone:(916) 752-9240 Fax: (916) 752-9382 ERN Ref: PUBLIC:WPS97-154 HARD COPY PAPER REQUESTS: Papers are $3.00 in the U.S. and Canada, $4.00 outside of the U.S. Checks must be payable to "Regents of the University of California" and drawn on U.S. banks. We do not invoice, accept purchase orders, or cash. Requests must be accompanied by payment and mailed to Donna Wills Raymond at the Department of Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. Why do both left and right political parties almost always propose progressive income taxation schemes in political competition? Analysis of this problem has been hindered by the two-dimensionality of the issue space. To give parties a choice over a domain which contains both progressive and regressive policies requires an issue space that is at least two-dimensional. Nash equilibrium between two parties with (complete) preferences over two-dimensional policies fails to exist. I introduce a new equilibrium concept for political games, based on inner-party struggle. A party consists of three factions--reformists, militants, and opportunists: each faction has a complete preference order on policy space, but together they can only agree on a partial order. Inner-party unity equilibrium is defined as Nash equilibrium between two parties, each of which maximizes with respect to its quasi- order. Such equilibria exist in the two-dimensional model, and in them both parties propose progressive income taxation. JEL Classification: D72, H20 Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html _ Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. -- Cree Indian saying, circa 1909 _
[PEN-L:9515] Re: query: uneven development
Does anybody on pen-l know of any good references on (or special insight into) the subject of the Marxian theory of "uneven and combined development." I am specifically thinking of the theory that the Bolsheviks invoked in the early 20th century, rather than the dependency school's "uneven development" (to use Samir Amin's phrase), even though I know that the two theories are related, to some extent overlapping, and to some extent conflicting with, each other. thanks ahead of time. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim: Ric McIntyre wrote an excellent article in RETHINKING MARXISM 5.3, Fall 1992, "Theories of Uneven Development and Social Change." Blair _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:9357] Re: more requiem
Max Sawicky writes, Self-interest pervades all human behavior ..., so I don't see how you can imagine a movement which leaders or people in authority did not seek to exploit for some narrow purpose. The real question is how the process can work to yield constructive reform. Well, here's an unexamined and bourgeois (read neoclassical economics) assumption about human nature. History shows literally countless examples of altruistic and selfless behavior, by mothers, fathers, children, siblings, other relatives, neighbors, friends, and strangers. Saying that these examples just reflect the self-interest (i.e. preferences) of those particular individuals reduces "self-interest" to a meaningless tautology: everything people do, whatever it is, is self-interested by assumption. This means, of course, that self-interest explains absolutely nothing and can in no way assist us in understanding the motivations of individuals or groups. On the other hand, if by "self-interest" you mean people always put themselves and their own immediate concerns first, before the needs, concerns and well-being of others, then your statement is demonstrably false. I'm aware that you didn't say "self-interest "rules" all human behavior," you just said "pervades." But this is equally meaningless, as in any case it provides us with no ability to understand, explain, or predict. Max, could you be just a *little* more theoretically self-conscious, please? Blair _ Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "They say that it's never too late, but you know you don't get any younger. Well I better learn how to starve the emptiness and feed the hunger. -- Indigo Girls _
[PEN-L:9304] info request re: John Cassidy
The December 2 NEW YORKER carried an article by John Cassidy, "The Decline of Economics." Basically, he trashes monetarism for unrealistic assumptions (supply always equals demand and everyone has perfect knowledge about the economy), its hyper mathematical formalism and its irrelevance to public policy, business, and social concerns in general. Without ever really coming out and saying so, he defends Keynesianism. Of course, "economics" for this fellow means neoclassical economics, and he has no awareness, at least not that's expressed in the article, of any heterodox theorists or theories, neither Marxist, feminist, green, institutionalist, nor anything else. I'd like to know more about Cassidy, who he is, what's his background. Anybody have any information? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone, particularly in economics" -- J. M. Keynes, the Preface to the GENERAL THEORY
[PEN-L:9290] Re: Noam Chomsky on p.1 of NY Times today...
Mark Weisbrot writes, I haven't seen anything like this on the front page of the NYT for at least 20 years. I think the end of the cold war is finally opening some space in the media for some truth on these matters. It is very limited, of course, but it appears to be a qualitative change. I'm not convinced. The U.S. media have before been willing to air *past* errors and mistakes (sic) of U.S. foreign policy, but only long after the struggles in question had been resolved and the revelations could be quickly consigned to the dustbin of history. This seems to be more of the same. Look what happened when the SJ Mercury broke the story on Contra drug running. All the mainstream media rallied around the flag quicker than you could say "communist propaganda." Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9244] Re: entertainment??
Jerry, One important difference is that people who play the Monopoly board game usually would have a rich set of different kinds of social relations amongst themselves, of which playing Monopoly would presumably constitute only a very small portion. The game described below would involve people who most likely would have no other direct relations with or knowledge of each other and who would be further encouraged to relate to one another as manipulable objects. Also: the board game, played in a physical room, on a table, say, with the other people physically present, likely does not have the immersive quality of a (perhaps ever more 3-D, multimedia, etc.) virtual reality, against which the alternative reality outside the computer would possibly pale with respect to excitement, the wielding of power, and so on. Blair The WSJ, March 20, contained a special section on Entertainment and Technology. One article, "Where the Action is" (p. R19) about San Francisco's SOMA (South of Market) "Multimedia Gulch," discussed the development of interactive stories, and contained the following: "One such story is an Internet game that Mr. Martinez claims could involve up to one million people, broken into tribes warring for control of a digital planet. Items in the story--such as weapons, oil and transportation--are sold to the audience, whose members may then trade parts with each other, with PostLinear [the company] collecting a transaction fee." Is this bizaare or what? People usually get paid for trading (the work of trading); now people are paying for the right to perform the exchange process? They're not even getting (or exchanging) anything real; the act of exchange is the whole point here! This is bread and circus on a scale zillions of times bigger than anything the Romans ever dreamed up: entire communities of people engaged in fantasy worlds, working in the real world to make money to work in a fantasy world. I really don't get it. Anybody have any thoughts about this? Blair It doesn't sound that much different than the board game called "Monopoly" that you played as a child. It also reminds me of an electronic game that James Bond played in one of his more recent movies. Jerry _ Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "They say that it's never too late, but you know you don't get any younger. Well I better learn how to starve the emptiness and feed the hunger. -- Indigo Girls _
[PEN-L:9215] Re: correction
Why is Yugoslavia any different? It represents a perversion of the socialist idea. "Self-interest" was one of the guiding principles of the original project, a dubious one in light of the original Marxist vision of "from each according to their needs, to each according to their ability." This of course should be "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Sorry to be picky; actually, the above is grammatically incorrect (relating "each" and "their"). No possessive pronoun is necessary; it should be: "From each according to ability; to each according to need." Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone, particularly in economics" -- J. M. Keynes, the Preface to the GENERAL THEORY
[PEN-L:9166] Re: help on background on nobel prize in econ.
Hi Doug, Before I give this out to my intro macro students, did you ever get confirmation, or more info, about these questions? Thanks. Hope you are well. Blair Each year about this time there is a discussion on the "lists" about who won the "nobel" prize in econ., altho this year the topic hasn't come up yet on PEN-L. It is also the case that almost ever fall, we have a discussion about the origin of the Econ prize. This year, I posted the msg below to FEMECON-L when the topic first came up. I have now received a request to print something about the origin of the Econ prize in the IAFFE newsletter. Before I send something off to "print" I want to double check some issues. 1) does someone know the source for the quote describing the prize that is included below. I took it from an part of the PEN-L discussion in 1993. 2) does anyone know a source to document that A. Nobel did not consider Econ. a science. I have heard and read it many times, but I would like a more solid cite. 3) when were the original Nobel prizes created? 4) any other background that someone thinks is important. I am hoping Trond is still lurking and can help out on this. Trond?? _ Every Fall I get to send out the same msg because there are always new members of the list. The is NO Nobel prize in economics. When Alfred Nobel set up his prizes to reward scientific excellence he SPECIFICALLY declined to create a prize for economics because he believed "economics is not a science, it is an ideology." He endowed the Nobel prizes with part of the fortune he had acquired from his invention of dynamite. The prizes were meant to assuage part of the guilt he felt the the destructive uses to which his invention had been put, especially as weapons of war. The "Nobel prize in economics" as the media, in its ignorance calls it was created by, and funded by the Bank of Sweden: "The Bank of Sweden, at its tercentanary in 1968, instituted the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel, pledging an annual amount equal to one of the regular Nobel Prizes. The winner of the Prize...is to be chosen each year by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences." Notice1: it is a prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel, not a Nobel prize. For the first few years, the Nobel committee would issue a statement trying to clarify that the two are completely different things. But the media refused to change the way the reported the prize, so the Committee gave up. Notice2: No nobel prize in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. has ever been given to someone whose work was later shown to be simply wrong. However, this has occurred several times in economics, with the most famous case being the prize to Milton Friedman for the theory of monetarism, i.e. only money causes inflation and money always causes inflation, which was shown to be wrong in the 1980s The Bank of Sweden prize in economics is simply a stamp of ideological approval for particular economic theories that serve the interests of the elite in capitalist societies. Thus, it is not likely we will ever see this prize given to anyone who is engaged in feminist economics!! Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." -- Dom Helder Camara
[PEN-L:9127] trading snide and petty insults
For example: I know you're trying to be constructive after your recent personality crisis - focusing on the positive can be very therapeutic. And: You certainly have a way of raising the quality of discussion. I would like to suggest that those who wish to trade snide and petty insults do so privately, off-list, thus sparing us bandwidth. Thanks. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Oh our work is more than our jobs and our life is more than our work. -- Charlie King, "Our Life is More Than Our Jobs" Wouldn't it be nice, to take it easy for a while? Wouldn't it be nice, to call in dead for work? And sit on the sidelines, watching the rats run by? -- "The Rats are Winning," by Charlie King. _
[PEN-L:8927] Re:Marilyn Waring
As an aside it is inaccurate to state that Ms Waring was the only women member of parliament at the time of her election and I would be interested in the source of this particular statement. I thought this was stated in the video. I could be mistaken. I happened to watch this Marilyn Waring video on Public TV last Tuesday evening here in SF. Because they did not give the date of Marilyn Waring's book, or the date of the video (at the beginning of the thing -- I didn't watch til the very end -- and I am a little miffed at KQED about this because I feel they misled the viewer into thinking that the video was recent), I managed to assume that this was a new book, currently published, and a new video. I thought I was telling everybody something new, but very abruptly discovered that it was old hat. 1988 seems like the stone age to me at this point. Soo, I'm a little embarrassed about all this. Also, I have not been a close follower of "feminist economics." Thus the Waring name was new to me. Curtis: the video is pretty new (last year?). The book is 1988. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8923] Re: Cuba
I would like to thank Shawgi for posting Fidel's speech and the Granma article on the net. I would also like to point out, in furtherence of his previous posting about Walmart's decision to take Cuban made PJ's out of their Canadian stores, that the company under Canadian pressure decided to sell Cuban PJs again but that now the American government is again trying to enforce US law in Canada by pressuring (prosecuting?) Walmart's American head office. This is the most intolerable form of American imperialism that I can imagine. It disgusts me that Americans put up with such clearly anti-humane behaviour on the part of their government. Paul: This is the most intolerable form of American imperialism you can imagine? I assume you're speaking hyperbolically. Imagination is not necessary to think of far more intolerable (at least to me) forms of American Imperialism; just remember U.S. training of Central American death squads and South American torture squads, or the ecological destruction of Vietnam, or the repeated (multiply x n) invasions, occupations, overthrows of elected governments, etc. in Latin America, etc., etc., etc. I mean, really! :) Blair P.S. Not a criticism, Paul; just thought I'd mention it, for the record, so to speak. _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:8922] Re: New SSA in place?
At 12:42 PM -0800 3/14/97, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug, I sure hope you didn't get the impression I was *endorsing* the WSJ newsitorial?! Because if you did, perhaps I will post a clarification. Heavens no Blair. I was reacting to the celebration of the American way of life that's all the rage. Doug Oh, good. The JOURNAL is among my favorite print media, but entirely as a source of humor. (Black humor, to be sure.) :) Blair _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:8908] Re: New SSA in place?
At 9:03 AM -0800 3/14/97, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Mr. Soros, who worries so much about an anticapitalist backlash, thinks the new boom 'will be constantly tested' by crises, but nevertheless 'might last a century.' " So,... aren't you all just *thrilled* by the good news...? Where is the evidence for this boom except that capitalists keep getting richer and more powerful and feel really good about themselves? Is a 2.5% U.S. expansion boomy? Two of the three major centers, Europe and Japan, are stagnant. Latin America is hardly sparkling and Africa is a wreck. The fastest growth rates are in Asia - and these are very fast indeed, 6-8%, the fastest by far of any regional group in Maddison's 175-year database. They're 2-3 times what the U.S. and Britain saw at their peaks. Asians, of course, haven't achieved those growth rates with anything like the American model, which is nonetheless fashionable because of its 2.5% growth rate. Doug Doug, I sure hope you didn't get the impression I was *endorsing* the WSJ newsitorial?! Because if you did, perhaps I will post a clarification. I don't read the WSJ -- or anything else, really -- to learn "what is going on"; rather to learn what different people *think* is going on. Blair _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:8907] Re: new SSA?
Jim writes, BTW, I am not predicting that the key factor that M E predicted in the MANIFESTO will automatically come about, i.e., that the working class will rise up and transform capitalism into a socialist system. Their prediction, in retrospect, seems to be based on mere optimism and extrapolation from what was happening at the time. The actual development of working class movements is much less predictable than the development of capital. Nor would I. But I submit that as TNCs become more T and less N, it becomes "easier" for workers of "home" countries to identify with workers wherever they work, rather than with "domestic" capitalists. Patriotism and nationalism have been thoroughly destructive of worker solidarity, and I can at least imagine that these problems might diminish as enterprises become more and more (patently) stateless. Blair _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:8898] New SSA in place?
In what strikes me as an important editorial piece (masquerading as a first page news article), the WSJ today opined that a new global social structure of accumulation (they don't use that term, of course) is in place for a sustained period of high growth rates it several times refers to as a "new golden age." The elements of this new long term period of rapid growth include: "a vast expansion of economic freedom and property rights" "reductions in the scope of government" "an explosion in trade and private investment" "a quickening of innovation" "elimination of controls on international capital" [that are "irreversible"] "U.S. multinational corporations are in the forefront of this globalization process and among its biggest benficiaries. Aided by domestic deregulation, flexible labor markets and their own openness to new technology, 'U.S. firms have developed the best practices over the greatest range of industries,' says Bill Lewis, chief of consulting firm McKinsey Co.'s Global Institute." " 'Governments all over the world are moving in the same direction--deregulating, privatizing, cutting their deficits and vying for foreign investment,' says Luis Rubio, president of Mexico's Center of Research for Development." [I can't resist: "rubio" means "blond" in Spanish.] (By the way, the article claims that "multinationals' foreign affiliates send two-thirds of their exports to other units of the same company.") "Mr. Soros, who worries so much about an anticapitalist backlash, thinks the new boom 'will be constantly tested' by crises, but nevertheless 'might last a century.' " So,... aren't you all just *thrilled* by the good news...? Blair _ Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." _
[PEN-L:8896] Re: Marilyn Waring video
Last night (Tuesday, March 12, 9:30-11:30, PST) on KQED Public TV in San Francisco a video presentation featuring Marilyn Waring was aired. Waring is the author of the book "Who's Counting," internationally published. In some countries the title is "If Women Counted." (The computer at Stacey's books in SF was not able to come up with this book, however. So, I don't yet know how to get it.) The video is currently available through KQED for $150 as part of the current KQED membership drive. (For the $150 you get a year membership in KQED + the video -- not relevant for anyone outside the Bay Area, I know.) The video includes a "study guide." You may not be able to purchase the video anywhere else at this time. (When I called the national video number through which service most PBS videos are available, I was told that this video is only available through KQED at present.) Bullfrog Films distributes the video, "Who's Counting?" Their voice phone number is 800-543-3764. Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In the U.S. Waring's book is, IF WOMEN COUNTED: A NEW FEMINIST ECONOMICS. Harper and Row, 1988. I believe it's out of print but that's heresay. Friends of mine said the video is "boring." I've now watched it four times, and while that gets a bit tired, it's still not painful. The main useful point for intro econ (I've used it in both macro and micro) is to challenge the notions that GDP = standard of living, that firms produce and households consume (as in the "circular flow of spending and income), that the market is a useful/reasonable/good measure of value, and finally to question the positivist pretensions of neoclassical theory. My students have seemed to find it interesting enough, and they certainly get the point. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8808] Re: accounting of gov. payrolls?
If you're using Schiller's text, I hope you're getting "Political Economy and Social Justice" for free for your students. If you order the module along with the text it comes wrapped with the text at no extra cost to the students. You need supplemental material on income and wealth distribution, exploitation and alienation and economic justice to go along with that text because Schiller does very little -- not that any other intro text does more. Robin: I am definitely using other materials, everything from LBO to Marilyn Waring. However, I am not getting and didn't know about the PE and SJ module for free. I will make inquiries. Thanks. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8791] accounting of gov. payrolls?
Okay, folks: stupid macro question v.32.a4: I'm teaching intro macro, using Schiller's THE MACROECONOMY TODAY. Nowhere that I can see does it mention the national accounting categorization of government payroll expenditures: wages and salaries of all the various "civil servants." It's not "G," government expenditures, right, because that's only purchases of goods and services in the product markets. In the diagram on p. 120, for example, "The circular flow of spending and income," factor incomes come from "Business" but apparently not from "Government." What am I missing? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8713] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
What Blair described is the ocassional human contract that manages to seep into market society. Such events are so extraordinary that they need to be singled out for comment. I am off to Walmart Michael Perelman Michael, was that "human *contract*" or "human *contact*?" Serious question: if the former I don't understand. Assuming the latter, then I think perhaps what you mean is it's not the market at all that I'm saying "can be fun." Back in the old days, before there were natural food stores and it was impossible (at least in New Haven) to get decent food from the supermarket, I was a member of a moderate size (60-75 people) food buying club. Once a month we'd have these huge get-togethers, pot-luck dinners, the work of divvying up the food, and afterwards we'd talk politics, make music, etc. These were not only productive (transforming bulk, wholesale goods into small quantities of goods suitable for individual (mostly but by no means entirely communal) households, but also much fun, restorative human contact, and so on. So here's a way of distributing goods and services (the ostensible purpose of markets) without the markets and with all the fun of the kind of market I described in my earlier post. Is this basically what you're suggesting, Michael? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone, particularly in economics" -- J. M. Keynes, the Preface to the GENERAL THEORY
[PEN-L:8715] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Anders, thanks for your response to my comments about "academic dreamers" and all that. I think/hope if/when you see my paper you'll find it interesting, relevant and useful. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone, particularly in economics" -- J. M. Keynes, the Preface to the GENERAL THEORY
[PEN-L:8714] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
On Tue, February 18, 1997 at 16:22:18 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am I just wrong, perhaps overly romanticizing, if I suggest that markets
can be fun when they are highly contextualized, a small part of an
extensive network of non-market relations? [...]
And Bill replies,
Excuse the venom, but:
Am I just wrong, perhaps overly romanticizing, if I suggest that rape
can be fun when it is highly contextualized, a small part of an
extensive network of non-sexual relations?
Well I think it's clear that the answer to your question is "yes" (i.e. you
would be wrong), but that doesn't help me answer my question about
understanding possible relationships between markets and the rest of the
social totality. I understand your analogy; I just don't think it's a good
one. But just for the record, I'm no fan of the ("free") market, nor
"market socialism," nor even "socialized markets." Also for the record, I
don't assume that there is never any appropriate role for markets, however,
in any circumstances whatsoever.
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one
thinks too long alone, particularly in economics"
-- J. M. Keynes, the Preface to the GENERAL THEORY
[PEN-L:8686] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
At 10:06 AM 2/17/97 -0800, Max wrote:
Maybe we differ in that one impulse is devoted to
creating a legacy of a vision which future
generations will find illuminating and useful,
and frankly I'm interested in work whose
beneficial, tangible effects I will live to see,
not least because I would like to be assured they
are indeed forthcoming.
And Anders replied,
I think you could even argue that it doesn't make a lot of sense to create
a vision of the future
I agree with Anders, but I think the differences between me and Max (and
Max's comment was a response to me) have nothing to do with concrete,
practical activity in the here-and-now versus fantasy projections about
some imagined future. Differences between me and Max (they've come up
before) have to do rather with our different understandings of the dynamics
of capitalist relations, the relationships these have to the social
totality, and the relationships between the dynamics of capitalist
relations and anti-capitalist/anti-corporate activities and resistance.
This is obviously a long discussion, and I have time now only to suggest a
few basic and undoubtedly controversial elements of the relationships I
mention above.
The hallmark of capitalism is its ability to adapt to changing environments
and contexts. This feature has been oft-noted, typically as a reference to
its revolutionizing or dynamic tendencies. However, this is usually
discussed in the context of technological changes. Think about the micro
level first: capitalist enterprises appropriate surplus, and then they
distribute the surplus in various ways to secure access to the conditions
necessary for exploitation (capitalist surplus appropriation). As
conditions change, so do the ways in which enterprises distribute the
surplus. Managing surplus distribution to maneuver through changing social,
natural, political and economic landscapes is precisely what the board of
directors and its appointed agents do.
Thus, enterprises bribe politicians, acquire competitors, spin off
suppliers, survey "consumers'" changing attitudes and opinions, develop new
products, donate funds to particular charities, purchase new technologies
or build new plants ("accumulation"), fund scientific research, lobby
legislators, etc., etc. to make sure they can continue to appropriate
surplus from laborers through exploitation.
This basic structure of capitalist enterprises -- appropriate to distribute
to appropriate -- makes them extremely flexible and adaptable. Thus,
capitalism's fantastic (and recognized) ability to coopt, recuperate, and
appropriate resistance movements of any sort.
On the other hand, this ability of capitalism has often been taken as a
kind of absolute, as if the world is a passivity waiting to be taken over,
appropriated, by the dynamism of capital, so that the only way to overthrow
capitalism is with "radical" activity, to tear it up by the roots, to
finish it totally, once and for all, so there is nothing left of it to act
as coopter, recuperator, appropriator (see Gibson-Graham, RETHINKING
MARXISM 6.2, 1993). Hence, the "reform vs. revolution" debates. However,
this notion of tearing it up by the roots once and for all is a fantasy;
there is no activity of resistance so large and expansive as all that. All
we have is reform, small activities that chip away, a war of position. But
then we are back to capitalist recuperation of reforms. Are we then in a
hopeless position? Obviously, the question is what kind of reform activity
can challenge the basis of capitalist relations?
All this so far is simply by way of introduction, context. The point, to
return to Max and Anders' comments to me, is that I think the kind of
reforms Max suggests and works on (insofar as I know about these, which
could be very little, but in any case is based on what I recall of his
comments here on PEN-L) are precisely reforms that require enterprises to
alter their patterns of surplus distribution (just what they do best!), but
present little or no threat to the existing structure of surplus
appropriation.
Does this mean I think that any activity that does not directly attack the
capitalist fundamental class process (surplus production and appropriation)
is a waste of time and resources? No. Precisely because of the
overdetermined relationship between fundamental and subsumed class (surplus
distribution) processes, challenges to particular patterns of surplus
distribution may, under certain circumstances, also present challenges to
capitalist forms of surplus appropriation. Everything hinges then upon the
larger social context (and changes within it) in which these challenges to
capitalist surplus distributions are taking place, and in particular, on
the articulation of these different challenges.
["What? Really? You're going to stop here, just when you're about to say
something concrete?!"
"Well, I'm currently writing a paper about just these points. All shall be
revealed in due time. And really my
[PEN-L:8698] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Michael wrote, Besides, markets are not a lot of fun. Am I just wrong, perhaps overly romanticizing, if I suggest that markets can be fun when they are highly contextualized, a small part of an extensive network of non-market relations? I have fun going to the farmers' market, seeing people I know, looking at all the food I'm not going to buy (as well as that I am), talking with people about the harvest, agro-ecological problems, organic farming, etc., etc. Maybe what's fun about it is socializing, community, and not the buying and selling per se, but I'm not sure it can that easily be separated out. Even haggling (regatear) is fun when it's done in the right way and if people aren't desperate (i.e. desperately poor). What do people think? Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Oh our work is more than our jobs and our life is more than our work. -- Charlie King, "Our Life is More Than Our Jobs" Wouldn't it be nice, to take it easy for a while? Wouldn't it be nice, to call in dead for work? And sit on the sidelines, watching the rats run by? -- "The Rats are Winning," by Charlie King. _
[PEN-L:8696] Re: the oddities and logic of capitalism
To say that capitalism is "odd", by itself, is not a very meaningful
statement. For Marx, the object was to discover the _logic_ of capitalism
("the economic law of motion of modern society"), rather than mere
oddities. It is easy enough to talk about "oddities" -- more difficult is
developing a systematic analysis of why what appears only to be odd
represents a necessary form of appearance of capital inherent in the
value-form.
While discussion of "oddities" is a (sometimes) amusing and interesting
pastime, the task of political economy is to penetrate beyond the veil
of both the "odd" and the "normal."
Jerry
But Jerry, considering that most people see capitalism as "natural,"
indeed, the only way to fly, it seems to me that getting folks to see
capitalism as "odd" may be a way to get them to asking questions about
others of its characteristics. I didn't think that Doug or Tom were
suggesting further analysis of this oddity is unnecessary. Did you, really?
Blair
*
Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one."
*
[PEN-L:8695] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Still bothering me in the "market socialism/planned socialism" dichotomy is
a little demon I'll call by the code name of the teleology of reason. Isn't
Hegel standing on his head _still_ Hegel?
Was this not Althusser's precise point? ("overdetermination and
contradiction" -- or vice versa -- in FOR MARX)
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8697] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
At 6:45 AM -0800 2/17/97, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prior to agriculture, people hardly worked
at all, and didn't have a sense of "work" as separate from leisure (as far
as we know). The economy as a separate sphere of the world, in particular,
is an invention of capitalism.
And please don't make me out to be stupid (ignorant, okay, but not stupid):
I'm *not* suggesting we should kill 5 billion or so people, destroy all the
machinery, factories, and buildings, give up agriculture, and practice
hunting and gathering.
I know you're neither stupid nor ignorant Blair, but just what *are* you
suggesting here then?
Doug
Thanks, Doug. Likewise. :)
As I recall, Tom had suggested that "the cash nexus is just a new-fangled
will-o'-the-wisp." Max responded that it has been around for some 2000
years ("since the death of christ"). After that, I lost the thread (and
trashed the specific file to which I was responding), so I can't trace the
immediate point. The general discussion about work and leisure (and Max
asks me about this, too -- a fair question, no doubt) will have to wait,
for me, 'til I get some work done.
;-)
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one
thinks too long alone, particularly in economics"
-- J. M. Keynes, the Preface to the GENERAL THEORY
[PEN-L:8694] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Maybe we differ in that one impulse is devoted to creating a legacy of a vision which future generations will find illuminating and useful, and frankly I'm interested in work whose beneficial, tangible effects I will live to see, not least because I would like to be assured they are indeed forthcoming. As I've said before, if I was in academia I might have different inclinations. Max: I'm not in academia (except in the most part-time, temporary, contingent, way). If I were, I might have different inclinations, too. So *that* certainly doesn't explain our differences. And I don't think your characterizations are accurate, in any case. The effects of your work may be beneficial (but what are *all* the effects? Are they necessarily beneficial in sum?), and they may be tangible in certain specific forms (legislation, e.g.). Other kinds of work has effects whose benefits may be just as tangible, though not institutionalized as legislation, judicial decisions, etc., rather in the practice of activists, organizations and movements. That all remains to be seen, of course, your work as well as mine. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8693] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
He's referring to our simian origins. -- Follow the bananas = follow the money of watergate fame. J. Fred Max = J. Fred Muggs(sp) - a monkey. Don't go ape now. Is J. Fred Max perchance related to U. Max, famous homo economicus? Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8651] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8639] Re: market socialism, planned socialism And what's your time horizon for "new-fangled"? Since the death of Christ? . . . Even "since the death of Christ" is only 2000 years -- of 2 million years of human beings. This is one-tenth of one percent of history, Max. Hell, *agriculture* is "new-fangled!" Blair Sandler The burden of this statement is to show that the first, oh, 1.5 million "years of human beings" informs some kind of alternative paradigm for the organization of society. I don't envy you the task, but I can suggest at least one clue: follow the bananas. Regards, J. Fred Max Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't follow, "follow the bananas" or "J. Fred Max." I'd appreciate some enlightenment on these burning questions. Actually, Max, I think it does. Prior to agriculture, people hardly worked at all, and didn't have a sense of "work" as separate from leisure (as far as we know). The economy as a separate sphere of the world, in particular, is an invention of capitalism. And please don't make me out to be stupid (ignorant, okay, but not stupid): I'm *not* suggesting we should kill 5 billion or so people, destroy all the machinery, factories, and buildings, give up agriculture, and practice hunting and gathering. Blair * Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." *
[PEN-L:8639] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
And what's your time horizon for "new-fangled"? Since the death of Christ? Mid 19th century for capitalist work discipline (see E.P. Thompson, "Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism"). 1920s for consumer orientation (See Benjamin Hunnicutt, _Work without End_). But I guess from the perspective of a timeless present, a hundred years or two might as well be eternity. Even "since the death of Christ" is only 2000 years -- of 2 million years of human beings. This is one-tenth of one percent of history, Max. Hell, *agriculture* is "new-fangled!" * Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." *
[PEN-L:8510] Re: Nairu, etc.
Second, some of the comments here (not Paul's) seem to imply that rising wages, at whatever rate of unemployment they occur, are the cause of inflation. In other words, some of the discussion even here on PEN-L seems to be about the rate of unemployment at which rising wages trigger rising prices. That is disappointing for a list such as this, as has already been remarked by someone. Isn't the rate of unemployment and or the capacity utilization rate a proxy for the level of demand at which capitalists collectively succeed in raising prices? And shouldn't that be the first point made in public discussions of NAIRU? Gene, excuse my torpidity, but I don't get the point in the second paragraph. Would you please elaborate? Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8457] Re: Is this a consensus?
Sid Shniad quoted, "Karl Marx argued that capitalism needs a 'reserve army' of unemployed labor to restrain wage demands and safeguard profits. Most economic policy makers still think the same way, but recent experience in the U.S. and Britain suggests the army might need fewer troops than it used to." And Doug Henwood replied, Yes, I'd say this is the ruling class consensus now. And Tom Walker responded, Yeah, but. Stay tuned for "The End of NAIRU," coming soon to a listserv near you. Two years from now you won't be able to find an economist anywhere who will admit to having believed in the 'natural rate of unemployment'. Print this prediction and paste it on your monitor, if it doesn't come true, send me the paper and I'll eat it. And I ask, But why should this be so? I remember Yellen, Reich, and several others, last spring (as quoted in a WSJ article I could dig up but don't really want to), making the point that NAIRU is not given and unchanging but depends on the social context. So that in any given conjuncture there is some level of unemployment below which inflation will accelerate, but what that level is varies from conjuncture to conjuncture. One might think this vitiates the concept of NAIRU, but it allows an effective out from just the sort of squeeze Tom suggests is coming. Do I misunderstand something? Blair * Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." *
[PEN-L:8403] Re: BalBudget Ad
At 9:26 AM 1/30/97, Max B. Sawicky wrote: In my perception of the political/media/public treatment of UE, when UE breaches 7.0 it's a signal that there's a problem. Short of that, we're in the de factor NAIRU zone, under the conventional wisdom. If it is possible to make an effective stink when we're at 5.5 I would be delighted to have a hand in doing so. Isn't this just the point? Shouldn't we try, however pathetically meager our resources are, to change the terms of the debate, rather than perpetually reacting to everything the big boys do? Wouldn't this be an opportunity (and I apologize for the Rotarian optimism of what follows) to make some attempt at developing a positive agenda (the relatively low unemployment rate of the last couple of years is a good thing, and let's make things better by pushing U even lower)? Why wait until 2 million people lose their jobs to make a stink about unemployment? Doug Why aren't "we" willing to challenge the conventional wisdom? I'd like to speculate that the reason "we" can't do anything about unemployment now is because "we" really do believe NAIRU: anybody unemployed in today's "tight" labor market is a layabout, a shirker, a deviant or delinquent, drug-addict, black, hispanic, or mentally defective. But if unemployment increases and 2 million people lose their jobs, by the very fact that they *were* once employed, it shows that they're decent, law-abiding, hard-working, god-fearing folk, and they *deserve* to have a job. Blair By the way, just in case anyone reading the paragraph above believes that I think currently unemployed persons are "layabouts," "shirkers," or the like, I suggest you go back to school and learn to read. :) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8374] overtime vs. comp time
An article in yesterday's (1/28) WSJ says labor is divided over the GOP proposal to allow employers to offer workers comptime instead of overtime pay. I understand that there are legitimate concerns about employers forcing workers to take comptime rather than paying them overtime, but assuming reasonable safeguards (is this the catch?) I should think labor would be all for the option of reducing workloads (which at least in principle, even if negligibly, would increase jobs), especially given the concern workers have for free time, family time, etc. In other words, though this may be a boon for capitalists, isn't it also in our interest as workers, doesn't it give workers more power over their lives, more space away from capitalist jobs? Doesn't it suggest more interest in social relationships and activities and less interest in consumption (because less income)? Doesn't it even provide a small opening for non-capitalist productive activities with the time freed up? I know what I've written is very sketchy, but I believe it's also old hat for most of us, so I hope folks can fill in. There's a long and well-known literature on free time and leisure. The question is then, what is labor's objection really? In other words, shouldn't we push labor to get behind this proposal full force in order to shape it in accord with workers' needs, rather than just saying "no?" Interested in others' opinions, Blair * Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." *
[PEN-L:8216] Re: Without Modern Communism The Workers And
If we could have a system without exploitation of any individual or group of individuals by another, and with everyone living off their own work, the whole of mankind would be emancipated. "Everyone living off their own work?" But this is socialism, not communism, according to the previous paragraph Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8215] RE: Marx on interest rates
At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote: I'm skeptical, but open to anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing an index of the relative strengths of financial and industrial capital. While I'd never go so far as Hilferding and argue that they've become one, it's still pretty damn hard to tell them apart. Doug GE, for instance, in this morning's WSJ lead story: GE Capital is just over a third of GE's revenues and just over a quarter of net earnings (calculations quick and dirty in my head, no calculator). Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8217] Re: Without Modern Communism The Workers And
Third, the principle, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work," is socialist. The principle, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is Communist. This is quite well-known. It's also sexist. The personal pronoun is entirely unnecessary. Why not just say, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." It makes a better sound bite, too. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8217] Re: Without Modern Communism The Workers And
Third, the principle, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work," is socialist. The principle, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is Communist. This is quite well-known. It's also sexist. The personal pronoun is entirely unnecessary. Why not just say, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." It makes a better sound bite, too. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8216] Re: Without Modern Communism The Workers And
If we could have a system without exploitation of any individual or group of individuals by another, and with everyone living off their own work, the whole of mankind would be emancipated. "Everyone living off their own work?" But this is socialism, not communism, according to the previous paragraph Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8215] RE: Marx on interest rates
At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote: I'm skeptical, but open to anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing an index of the relative strengths of financial and industrial capital. While I'd never go so far as Hilferding and argue that they've become one, it's still pretty damn hard to tell them apart. Doug GE, for instance, in this morning's WSJ lead story: GE Capital is just over a third of GE's revenues and just over a quarter of net earnings (calculations quick and dirty in my head, no calculator). Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8049] Re: North Korean apology re: sub
I don't believe everything I read in S. Tell, but to each his own. Max, is this supposed to mean you think I believe everything I read from Shawgi? If you think Shawgi has nothing interesting to say, fine. What's the point of baiting him (or me)? You're just being a jerk. Grow up. Temper, temper. Somebody should do an empirical study of the growth of Starbucks et al. and the shortness of fuses. Actually what I meant was, I was surprised that you would believe ANYTHING Comrade Tell had to say. This was what led me to think originally you were baiting him, which I don't do myself. Much. If you like, I will be happy to put you on my "walk around as if on eggshells" list. I don't drink coffee or caffeine, Max, so you'll have to come up with something else. Please notice that I was just responding to you. You don't bait Shawgi? You just publicly insult him, that's all. (See the first sentence in your second paragraph above if you're having trouble understanding why I say this.) I don't *believe* anything I read *anywhere* -- not from Shawgi, and certainly not from the NYT or WSJ. The point is I like to hear what different forces are saying about different things, and this is how I figure out for myself what I think. If the WSJ and NYT are the only sources of information I have about N. Korea, why shouldn't I think Shawgi will provide useful information? It's not about believing or not believing. This is all completely obvious to anyone who has thought for even a moment or two about information and propaganda, and I know you know this, Max, which is why if you weren't baiting Shawgi (and me) I have a hard time understanding what was the purpose of your post. I think it's interesting that when people disagree with someone they sometimes apparently feel this disagreement gives them the right to ignore all common standards of courtesy and respect. It happens less on PEN-L perhaps than other places, but still too much for my taste. Doug Henwood and I disagree strenuously about pomo and related issues (and this disagreement has been expressed publicly on PEN-L), yet he has never felt the need to insult or dismiss me, and I'd like to think I have treated him and his messages in the same way. Why is this so difficult for people? (God, I sound like Rodney King :) ) Off to the meat market. (Enjoyed your message, Jerry L.) See you all later. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8064] Re: North Korean apology re: sub
We also have pretty basic political differences. The most relevant difference in this context is that I view Stalinism as no better in its works than fascism, and for all his innocent, good intentions, Tell's posts are a paean to Stalinism. And the NYT and WSJ are paeans to capitalism (which I hate every bit as much as or perhaps *more* than "Stalinism," especially since I have to live in it). Shawgi's posts are certainly no more offensive (to my mind) than anything the WSJ or NYT have to say. When I get past the rhetoric, I find I agree with much of what Shawgi says, at least in outline, *about capitalism*, though not necessarily with analytical details or proposed solutions. By the way, please don't accuse me of defending Stalinism; that would be both wrong and stupid. Max, I agree that we have pretty basic political differences, but I don't think the most relevant differences between us are our views of Stalinism. Actually, I suspect we mostly agree on this point. I believe it's in our views of *capitalism* that we most strenuously disagree. (I could be wrong here; I'm just going by your posts on PEN-L since I've been reading them.) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8017] Re: North Korean apology re: sub
I have posted many posts on the DPRK's position on various events and developments, including a couple of lenghthy posts on the DPRK's account of the submarine tragedy. Shawgi Tell I know that, Shawgi, that's why I'm interested in your opinion about this latest development, which the Times and the WSJ are both reporting as an "about-face," so to speak. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8018] Re: North Korean apology re: sub
On 30 Dec 96 at 4:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawgi, I would like to hear your take on the official North Korean statement of regret regarding the sub incident. Blair And Max replied, Naughty, naughty. No, Max, perhaps you're projecting. Evidently so. I've been interested in reading Shawgi's pieces on Korea and I'm interested in his take on this current event. I don't believe everything I read in the WSJ or NYT. I don't believe everything I read in S. Tell, but to each his own. Max, is this supposed to mean you think I believe everything I read from Shawgi? If you think Shawgi has nothing interesting to say, fine. What's the point of baiting him (or me)? You're just being a jerk. Grow up. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7979] North Korean apology re: sub
Shawgi, I would like to hear your take on the official North Korean statement of regret regarding the sub incident. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7989] Re: North Korean apology re: sub
On 30 Dec 96 at 4:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawgi, I would like to hear your take on the official North Korean statement of regret regarding the sub incident. Blair And Max replied, Naughty, naughty. No, Max, perhaps you're projecting. I've been interested in reading Shawgi's pieces on Korea and I'm interested in his take on this current event. I don't believe everything I read in the WSJ or NYT. Shawgi, all I know is what I read in the Times and the Journal (the Times article is on-line on their web site, in case you have access). Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7712] Re: The rogue, p.m.
The small dictionary on my computer has, as one possible etymology for the term, the 16th century *cant roger* "a vagabond pretending to be a poor scholar." But these days there are so many poor scholars pretending to be poor scholars that perhaps we've no more use for the genuine vagabonds. Do you mean "poor" as in "impoverished?" Or "poor" as in "low quality?" Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7714] Re: an interesting WWW site
the estimates of the difference b/tw :"northern" and "southern" diets are also very thought provoking, especially when you see the number of fat people walking around in western societies. that is all i was hoping to do with this. If this is the point, read, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH, Worldwatch's Alan Durning's critique of consumerism, which discusses northern and southern "diets" in the larger sense not just of food but resource consumption in general. It's good teaching material (of course it lacks any hint of Marxian class analysis but this can be remedied by the instructor). Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7656] Re: The Long Term (Henwood)
Here's the history of U.S. employment gain and loss over the last 15 years. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (thousands) loss 1981-82 - 2,761 gain 1982-90 +21,229 loss 1990-92 - 1,394 gain since 1990+12,150 total since 1981 +29,224 What's the trend, and what's the cycle? Doug: wouldn't the relevant statistic require comparing job creation with "labor force creation?" Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7657] Re: strange bedfellows
Social constructionists come in so many forms From the latest Rachel's weekly newsletter, titled Political Science: On the other hand, in the arena of environmental regulation, the same corporations (and their same representatives in Congress) are working hard to undermine the credibility of mainstream scientific views. In this arena, their goal is to boost the standing and credibility of the scientific fringe --the handful of dissidents who say that global warming is not harmful and may even be beneficial; that the ozone hole is natural or has perhaps been faked; and that dioxin is not nearly as poisonous as most scientists say it is --and it may even be good for you. The thread that ties these contradictory views together is the goal of making science into something that confuses people and thus drives people apart, instead of something that helps people reach agreement about the nature of reality. The effort to make science more political has been gathering momentum since the election of 1994 when self-styled "conservatives" gained control of Congress. Doug This is another red herring, Doug. Right-wing, reactionary, corporate politics comes more often in the modernist than the "social constructionist" form. Your insistence on pinning all the evils of capitalism on post-modernism (or social constructionism or what have you) is getting tiresome. Blair P.S. Please don't anyone confuse this with a personal attack on Doug. Mostly I agree with Doug; and I'd like to think that even our strong disagreement on these matters (post-modern wars) is merely a disagreement among friends, so to speak. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7658] Re: The Long Term (Yates)
Having committed the venal sin of actually having read Rifkin's book as well as Aronowitz DiFazio's, Yates' and several others I would second Michael's opinion of Aronowitz Difazio's book. Rifkin's is more interesting than AD's, but mostly because of the material he gleans from (and jazzes up) Hunnicutt's _Work Without End_ -- how's that for inverting a title! -- and Roediger and Foner's _Our Own Time_. Yes, Rifkin manages to insert a dollop of utterly absurd hyperbole -- I don't know if that makes him a charlatan or just a self-absorbed story-teller. My standard for charlatanism is Toffler; Rifkin doesn't quite measure up. Maybe my standards are too high. My impression of Michael Yates' book was that it was earnest and accessible in a Monthly Reviewish sort of way, but not particularly innovative or inspiring in its prescriptions (please don't press me for specifics because it was over a year ago that I read it). Juliet Schor's _Overworked American_ didn't excite me particularly. In my view, the author that has something really original and important to say on this topic of technological change, the future of work and working time is Andre Gorz in _Critique of Economic Reason_. Certainly not as accessible as Michael's book but a lot meatier. I should qualify my comments by pointing out that my perspective in reading these books is as a policy analyst looking for specific policy hooks rather than generalized calls for broad mobilization. Perhaps the Gorz wouldn't be such a good recommendation for a union activist or an undergraduate (unless, of course, they were really into it). Tom: thanks for the capsule book review. I agree that Gorz is the most serious thinker on work and leisure, going way back to his Strategy for Labor in the mid-70s (?). Though CRITIQUE OF ECONOMIC REASON is perhaps somewhat heavy going for someone without some specialized training or a willingness to work hard, Gorz' earlier PATHS TO PARADISE: ON THE LIBERATION FROM WORK and FAREWELL TO THE WORKING CLASS: AN ESSAY ON POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIALISM are both excellent (not above criticism, of course) and somewhat more accessible than CRITIQUE. My $2.00 (inflation) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7645] Re: The Long Term
But do allow me to indulge a slight digression on the 'nothing new here' theme. In October of last year, the Atlantic Monthly carried a cover story criticizing the use of the Gross Domestic Product as a surrogate measure of national prosperity. Conventional economists arose with such a uniform chorus of 'nothing new here' that it would have been easy to imagine they were all activated by a single master switch. Of course there was 'nothing new here', reasoned critiques of GDP have been advanced -- and dutifully ignored -- for decades. I know this is actually off the subject of the thread to date, but just for the record, and for those of you who didn't see this article, it's excellent material for intro and intermediate macro classes. "If GDP is UP Why is America Down?" Halstead, Cobb, and Rowe, the authors of the Genuine Progress Indicator, Redefining Progress' "corrected" measure of economic welfare. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7618] Re: patriarchy etc.
Along those lines, there's a pull-quote in the new issue of Socialist Review that describes capitalism as more racist and patriarchal than ever. Is that really true? On a global scale, Third World elites are being brought into the club, and in the First World, women are increasingly all over the place. I certainly don't mean to argue that racism and patriarchy have disappeared - obviously they haven't - but isn't the trend away from them? Doug I don't think there's a trend away from racism and sexism (yes I switched words but I don't think patriarchy is sufficiently well-defined for me to use). I think the forms they take are changing, partly in consequence of the interaction of class with race and gender. Unless you mean that the passage of Prop 209 (anti-affirmative action) in California is a blow against racism because it would prevent the use of racial preferences Blair P.S. Doug: I don't think you think that about 209. :) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7537] Banned at Borders (fwd)
Original message - Forwarded message follows - Banned by Borders -- By Michael Moore On November 9, as I write this, I was supposed to have been at the Borders bookstore in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, speaking and signing copies of my book Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American. It was to have been the final stop of my forty-seven-city tour. But on October 30 I was told that the book-signing had been canceled. The Fort Lauderdale Borders had received a memo from its corporate headquarters in Ann Arbor, Michigan, banning me from speaking or signing at any Borders store in the country. When I was growing up in Michigan, the original Borders was a store that actively championed free expression. In fact, when I was publishing the Michigan Voice, Borders would carry my paper when other establishments would not. Now, Borders is a huge nationwide chain, and its "liberal" views have earned it the reputation as the "Ben Jerry's of the book chains." So why was I banned from Borders? My book was doing well. It has been on the New York Times best-seller list for a month and was the number two best-selling Random House book for the entire Borders chain. I've been banned, I found out, because I made the mistake of uttering a five-letter word, the dirtiest word in all of corporate America -- "union." Back in September, on the second day of my tour, when I arrived at the Borders store in downtown Philadelphia, I found nearly 100 people picketing the place because Borders had fired a woman named Miriam Fried. She had led a drive to organize workers at the store into a union. The effort failed, and, a few weeks later, Miriam was given the boot. When I found this out I told the Borders people that I have never crossed a picket line and would not cross this one. I asked the demonstrators if they wanted to take the protest inside. They thought it was a good idea. I had no desire to cause a ruckus, so I asked Borders management if it was O.K. to allow the protesters in. They said yes. So we all came into the store, I gave my talk, I gave Miriam the microphone so she could talk, everyone behaved themselves and it was a good day all around -- including for Borders, which ended up selling a lot of books, breaking the record for a noontime author at that location. (The record had been held by George Foreman, and I now like to tell people only Ali and I have beaten Foreman.) I also announced that I would donate all my royalties for the day to help Miriam out. Although Anne Kubek, Borders' corporate V.P. in charge of labor relations, had approved my bringing the protesters inside, upper management decided that she had made a mistake -- and they were going to take it out on me. On the following Tuesday I was scheduled to speak at the new Borders store in New York's World Trade Center. When I arrived, I was met by two Borders executives. They had flown in from Michigan just to stop me from speaking. The executives, flanked by two security guards, explained that I could come into the store and sign books, but I would not be allowed to talk to the people who had come to hear me. They said that the "commotion" I had caused in Philly raised "security concerns." I couldn't believe I was being censored in a bookstore. The Borders manager told the assembled crowd that I would not be speaking because "Port Authority police and fire marshals have banned all daytime gatherings at Borders." When I heard this, I stepped forward and told the people this was a lie, that I was forbidden to speak because of my support for the workers in Philly. Under protest, I signed the books of those who stayed -- beneath a big banner celebrating "Banned Books Week." On October 13, I spoke to a large crowd in a Des Moines auditorium. After the speech I went out front and started signing books. "What store are these from?" I innocently asked. "Oh, these are from the local Borders," I was told. Well, I thought, they don't mind if I make them some money -- as long as it's not on their premises! Then someone slipped me an anonymous note. It read: "We are employees of the Des Moines Borders. We were told that we could not work the book table tonight, that only management was working the table, because they said they wanted to 'protect us' from you." An hour later, I went out to the parking lot and saw some people standing there in the dark -- the employees from the Des Moines Borders! They said they were hiding out there because they had spotted Borders' regional director with another man inside. "He flew in to spy on you, or us, or both," they told me. "He saw us so we may not have jobs on Monday." (Bookstore employees afraid they might be fired for attending a public speech at the Herbert Hoover High School auditorium!) The executive had not introduced himself to me -- or his colleague, who employees believe is a unionbusting "consultant" hired by Borders. I
[PEN-L:7502] NLRB rules on Yale grads' strike
Some of you may have been following the situation at Yale over the past year. If not here's the short summary. Grad students have been trying to unionize and the administration refused to recognize them. Last December TAs staged a grade strike, refusing to turn in final grades. Yale responded with Union Busting 101 tactics and the strike eventually fell apart. GESO filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board over their actions. Here's the news about what happened (this comes from a friend of mine who has been an organizer in the English department for a while). -Jeff - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:54:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Newsflash--NLRB decision ... For all you folks out there who one way or another have been following the progress of graduate student teachers' unionization efforts at Yale, a MAJOR decision has just come down from the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. After Yale's threats and reprisals in response to the GESO grade strike last winter, GESO filed an unfair labor practice suit against Yale. I, along with a number of other graduate students who had been threatened, fired, or brought up on disciplinary charges, gave testi- mony in the case. Today, the NLRB General Counsel announced his decision on the case, which is that a complaint charging Yale with unfair labor practices should be filed. In reaching that decision, he resolved four major points of prece- dent: 1) Grad student TAs and instructors at private universities are employees and so are covered by the National Labor Relations Act 2) The Grade Strike was a legal job action 3) Yale's threats and reprisals were illegal 4) The case sets precedent for private universities across the country. Yale now faces a choice. It can either agree to an informal settlement now by offering us terms we would accept, or it can appeal, beginning an appeals process that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. This decision is very good and very important. It extends workers' rights to a large group of hitherto-excluded graduate teachers. More personally, it means Yale will have to give back pay and apologies to its grad student teachers. It means we at Yale have the right to organize, to bargain collect- ively and to withhold our labor without risking our academic careers. There should be a story in the New York Times tomorrow morning, possibly with quotes from yours truly, and it will be hitting other newspapers and news forms in the next couple of days. Yh!! --Chris Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7511] Re: Pomo trucks
Philip Kraft discusses the new VW plant in Resende, Brazil. The special section on technology in the Nov. 18 WSJ includes an article on Colgate which suggests the the new intranet software connecting not only all Colgate plants and employees around the world but also suppliers, retailers, etc., challenges the notion of the enterprise and raises the question what is inside and what is outside the firm. Also: different but related: re: the struggle between Norfolk Southern and CSX to buy Conrail. Pennsylvania state law affirms that enterprises need not sell to the highest bidder but can also consider the needs of state residents, customers and suppliers (read workers) in such matters. This too strikes a blow at the notion that the firm is well-bounded and its interests well-defined as "profit-maximization." Also: the Texaco settlement with its African American employees includes the formation of a committee which comprises membership chosen half by the enterprise and half by the plaintiffs (and one person chosen by both) and is to have "unprecedented" power over personnel relations and policy, etc. A modernist notion of a firm is going to have more difficulty, I believe, integrating these kinds of developments than pomoish theories will. Blair P.S. Nike is another company with a particularly complex and bizaare structure from the point of view of modernish Marxism that can be theorized in interesting and useful ways from an overdeterminist Marxian class perspective (someone at UMass is studying Nike and I heard a talk they gave, but can offer no further details). Regards. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7512] Re: Yale grad students win one
Forwarded FYI I wanted to inform and update you all about what has been happening and will happen the rest of this week out here in the UC System. We have been striking! We are striking to gain recognition, as the UC System currently denies that we have any collective bargaining rights as we are apprentices. The idea was to having roving strikes at three UC Campus over this whole week. On Monday, the Student Assoc of Graduate Employees (SAGE) at UCLA began the strike. They will continue to strike the test of the week. If recognition was not granted by 5:00 PM on Monday the Association of Student Employees (ASE) at UC San Diego would strike. The UC did not grant recognition. We began striking yesterday and will continue the rest of the week. We also gave them a 5:00 PM deadline, which was not met. So today, Wednesday, UC Berkeley will begin striking and will continue the rest of the week. The academic student employee unions at UC Santa Cruz and UC Santa Barbara will be doing actions in support of the striking campuses. The Chancellor at UCLA has sent a letter to Grad Students at threatening to fire them if they strike this week. UCLA had about 1,000 show up to picket on Monday. I haven't about what happened yesterday. Here at UCSD the turn-out has not been as great. But the Chancellor is meeting with a group of students that represent the ASE/UAW on Thursday. It is the first formal meeting we have had with the University here. We are having a Big Rally here on campus on Thursday. There is a home page that has information about the strike. The address is http://www.nagps.org/NAGPS/nagps-hp2.html If you would like to show your support, you could call the Chancellors on the three campuses, E-mail them, or fax them. If you want to send E-Mail to them you could send it to the ASE/UAW account and we will forward it to the Chancellors. The Address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will post the phone numbers and fax numbers later in the day and try to keep you all informed about what is happening. Thanks for any support you can provide. Dan Johnston ASE/UAW Staff Member 619-454-0170 Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7513] Last reminder: conference announcement
Last reminder (I promise!). The November 23 pre-registration deadline draws nigh: ** Rethinking Marxism Presents Its Third International Gala Conference: "POLITICS AND LANGUAGES OF CONTEMPORARY MARXISM" December 5-8, 1996 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Full logistical information and preliminary schedule can be found at our web site: http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx For further information: email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 413-545-6361 "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism," the third in Rethinking Marxism's series of international conferences, will continue its commitment to present a working forum open to all traditions within Marxism and the left. The conference will include more than 180 panel discussions, workshops, films, videos, and other forms of artistic presentation. PLENARY SESSIONS AND SPEAKERS I. Thursday, December 5, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Opening Plenary: "Knowledge, Science, Marxism" Chair: Richard Wolff, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Presenters: Jack Amariglio, Merrimack College Sandra Harding, University of California, Los Angeles Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resources, Delhi, India II. Friday, December 6, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Class and Race: A Dialogue" Chair: Antonio Callari, Franklin and Marshall College Presenters: Etienne Balibar, University of Paris, X Cornel West, Harvard University III. Saturday, December 7, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Locations of Power" Chair: Andrew Parker, Amherst College Presenters: Wendy Brown, University of California, Santa Cruz Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley Wahneema Lubiano, Duke University IV. Sunday, 12:00 noon - 2:00 p.m. Closing Plenary: "Postmodern Socialism(s) and the Zapatista Struggle" Chair: Carmen Diana Deere, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Presenters: Roger Burbach, Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) Arturo Escobar, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Fernanda Navarro, University of Michoacan, Mexico THE 180 PANEL TOPICS INCLUDE OVER 500 PEOPLE PRESENTING WORK ON THE FOLLOWING PARTIAL LIST OF TOPICS . . . C.L.R. JamesClass and Mental Health Hegemony Today Performative Activism New Development Paradigms Postmodernism Derrida on Marx Communism Utopian Marxism Identity Politics and Political Subjects Globalization Black Marxism Postcolonial Theory Failure of Praxis The Labor Movement Television, News and Ideology Althusser after Althusser Multiculturalism and the University Marxism and PedagogyTheoretical Concepts of Marxism Value TheoryGreen Visions of Radical Community Identity Politics Feminist Work in Global Politics Queer TheoryOrganizing for African American Equality PERFORMANCE/FILM/VIDEOS Performance by Robbie McCauley, Friday, December 6, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. "Struggles in Steel: A Story of African American Steelworkers", a showing and discussion led by producers Tony Buba and Ray Henderson, Friday, December 6, 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. "Television Economies:" films and videos curated by Walid Ra'ad, shown throughout conference. ** PRE-REGISTRATION FORM: PRINT OUT AND MAIL TO THE ADDRESS BELOW ___ Name _ Address _ City StateZip/Postal Code _ Country __ E-mail Telephone Please check the days for which you are registering [Thurs 1 p.m.-Sun 1 p.m.]: ___ Thursday___Friday___Saturday___Sunday Checks in U.S. dollars should be made payable to AESA Conference Pre-registration Full $50 Full, Low Income $30 Two Days $40 Two Days, Low Income $25 One Day $25 One Day, Low Income $15 Total PRE-REGISTRATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 23 Please send completed form and check to: Rob Garnett, Registrar Department of Economics Texas Christian University Fort Worth, TX 76129 CHILD-CARE To obtain information on available subsidies and on providers, call (413-545-6361) or send e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). All requests for subsidies must be received by November 23. SPECIAL SUBSCRIPTION OFFER FOR RETHINKING MARXISM Guilford Publications, Inc. is happy to offer special Rethinking MARXISM subscription rates to conference registrants. Conference registrants can request a new (does not apply to renewals) subscription at the
[PEN-L:7454] Re: more science!
At 2:57 PM 11/17/96, James Michael Craven wrote: Gradually through debate, cross-testing provisional hypotheses and data/data sources, paradigm/power shifts, old-timers dying etc etc some of the "constructions of truth" become patently untenable for all but the totally warped, some become less provisional and more established, some become the established orthodoxy until dialectically, the spiral process continues with the established orthodoxy under challenge, new and old constructions of truth emerging as provisional, some narratives remaining "local" while other local narratives become more generalized through linking up of people living under not-so-common conditions and forms of oppression and so on Uh, is this another way of saying that approximations of "truth" are arrived at through experimentation, struggle, and conversation? Doug I will say it again: the whole point (disagreement, dispute, difference) is not whether there is or is not truth, just as we are not disagreeing about the existence of physical reality. This is just a red herring. The issue is what we think we mean by "truth," "reality," and so on. And this is precisely about how to communicate with people who do not already see the world the way we do (as Marxists, e.g.) when our opponents and enemies are more powerful than we. *Some* pomos may be paralyzed by relativity; I know many pomoish social theorists who are totally involved in radical, militant, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-sexist political activity, whose activity is fundamentally shaped (and for the better, as I see it) by their commitment to something we could generally and loosely call "post-modernism." Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7453] Re: more irreality
Another walk on the wild side. Three epigraphs from Judith Butler's Bodies that Matter: "Why should our bodies end at the skin, or include at best other beings encapsulated by skin?" - Donna Haraway Anyone who has any serious knowledge of martial arts should have no trouble whatsoever with this sentence. Of course, notice that understanding it requires a certain (extensive) *practice*, without which it appears to be nonsense. The practice does not only make sense of the statement, it makes it "performative." "If on really thinks about the body as such, there is no possible outline of the body as such. There are thinking os the systematicity of the body, there are value codings of the body. The body, as such, cannot be thought, and I cannot approach it." - Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak Out of context, I can't parse this grammar. The one time I heard Spivak speak, I found her unintelligible. (I've never read her work.) "There is no nature, only the efects of nature: denaturalization or naturalization." - Jacques Derrida Out of context this could mean almost anything. (Context is everything, which should be obvious to Marxists. Notice that context just means, "with text," i.e. the core of post-modern understanding.) This book, which I've only begun to sample, has a blurb from Margaret Whitford of the University of London that claims that it explores "gender as iteration"; another, from Elizabeth Grosz of Monash U, says that it explores "the politically transgressive potential of gender performativity." What's the problem with these remarks? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7455] Re: more science
At 9:19 AM 11/16/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I refer to my other comment, that the quotes cited do not deny material reality, but material reality "independent of... humanity." This is what the quote actually says, and this last clause, not the *existence* of material reality, is where all the action is. Your omission of the all-important phrase is telling. And Doug responded, My omission is hardly telling. As I said in my response to Greg Ransom, I do believe in a material reality independent of humanity. If every last Homo sapiens were to drop dead after lunch tomorrow, I don't doubt that the earth would go on without us. If a tree fell in the forest without a human audience, there would be no one there to hear the sound - and obviously the terms "hear" and "sound" depend on a human audience - but the tree and the forest would still exist. I agree with the last sentence, which does not mean that reality is independent of humanity. People who are still interested in this subject (anybody?!) might check out Bruno Latour's LABORATORY LIFE: THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Latour worked for a time as a tech at the Scripps Institute (participant observation). His description of how certain enzymes in the human body were not "discovered" but *invented/constructed/produced* by means of particular "inscription devices" -- i.e. machines that perform certain operations on tissues and body fluids and parts and such -- is brilliant and compelling. The point is that these enzymes, which we use to cure "real" diseases and such, did not exist independently of human science; they were not just "there," in the body, waiting to be discovered, but only exist because of the particular scientific machinery (literal and metaphorical) necessary to construct them; that a different kind of science would not have produced these enzymes and they wouldn't exist. Explaining this better or reproducing the compelling quality of his description here would require a *very* long message, but if you're interested, read the book. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7457] re: more science
Fucking hell, how many times do I have to say this? Of course, reality is socially constructed, observation affects results, yadda yadda hey, but to deny there's a physical reality independent of human observation is to flirt with psychosis. Doug Doug, if I understand the above, you're flirting with psychosis. :)) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7458] conference announcement (update)
Hi folks: I thought I sent this to the list already but I never got it from PEN-L, so here it is -- again? FYI. Blair ** Rethinking Marxism Presents Its Third International Gala Conference: "POLITICS AND LANGUAGES OF CONTEMPORARY MARXISM" December 5-8, 1996 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Full logistical information and preliminary schedule can be found at our web site: http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx For further information: email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 413-545-6361 "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism," the third in Rethinking Marxism's series of international conferences, will continue its commitment to present a working forum open to all traditions within Marxism and the left. The conference will include more than 180 panel discussions, workshops, films, videos, and other forms of artistic presentation. PLENARY SESSIONS AND SPEAKERS I. Thursday, December 5, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Opening Plenary: "Knowledge, Science, Marxism" Chair: Richard Wolff, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Presenters: Jack Amariglio, Merrimack College Sandra Harding, University of California, Los Angeles Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resources, Delhi, India II. Friday, December 6, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Class and Race: A Dialogue" Chair: Antonio Callari, Franklin and Marshall College Presenters: Etienne Balibar, University of Paris, X Cornel West, Harvard University III. Saturday, December 7, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Locations of Power" Chair: Andrew Parker, Amherst College Presenters: Wendy Brown, University of California, Santa Cruz Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley Wahneema Lubiano, Duke University IV. Sunday, 12:00 noon - 2:00 p.m. Closing Plenary: "Postmodern Socialism(s) and the Zapatista Struggle" Chair: Carmen Diana Deere, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Presenters: Roger Burbach, Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) Arturo Escobar, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Fernanda Navarro, University of Michoacan, Mexico THE 180 PANEL TOPICS INCLUDE OVER 500 PEOPLE PRESENTING WORK ON THE FOLLOWING PARTIAL LIST OF TOPICS . . . C.L.R. JamesClass and Mental Health Hegemony Today Performative Activism New Development Paradigms Postmodernism Derrida on Marx Communism Utopian Marxism Identity Politics and Political Subjects Globalization Black Marxism Postcolonial Theory Failure of Praxis The Labor Movement Television, News and Ideology Althusser after Althusser Multiculturalism and the University Marxism and PedagogyTheoretical Concepts of Marxism Value TheoryGreen Visions of Radical Community Identity Politics Feminist Work in Global Politics Queer Theory Organizing for African American Equality PERFORMANCE/FILM/VIDEOS Performance by Robbie McCauley, Friday, December 6, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. "Struggles in Steel: A Story of African American Steelworkers", a showing and discussion led by producers Tony Buba and Ray Henderson, Friday, December 6, 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. "Television Economies:" films and videos curated by Walid Ra'ad, shown throughout conference. ** PRE-REGISTRATION FORM: PRINT OUT AND MAIL TO THE ADDRESS BELOW ___ Name _ Address _ City StateZip/Postal Code _ Country __ E-mail Telephone Please check the days for which you are registering [Thurs 1 p.m.-Sun 1 p.m.]: ___ Thursday___Friday___Saturday___Sunday Checks in U.S. dollars should be made payable to AESA Conference Pre-registration Full $50 Full, Low Income $30 Two Days $40 Two Days, Low Income $25 One Day $25 One Day, Low Income $15 Total PRE-REGISTRATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 23 Please send completed form and check to: Rob Garnett, Registrar Department of Economics Texas Christian University Fort Worth, TX 76129 CHILD-CARE To obtain information on available subsidies and on providers, call (413-545-6361) or send e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). All requests for subsidies must be received by November 23. SPECIAL SUBSCRIPTION OFFER FOR RETHINKING MARXISM Guilford Publications, Inc. is happy to offer special Rethinking MARXISM subscription rates to conference registrants. Conference registrants can request a new (does not
[PEN-L:7459] goodbye for now
Hello, all: I'm going to be incommunicado for a while, so please don't take my temporary absence as sign of retreat :) or disgust. On the contrary, I shall miss the ideas and the information. Hope to see some of you at the RM conference, if not back here before then. Regards, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7421] Re: more science!
At 8:58 PM 11/15/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A quote from Sokal's "hoax" is supposed to constitute evidence that social constructionists deny physical reality? Doug, please. He sets up a straw theory to criticize. This is my point. They published the damn thing, didn't they? If someone submitted a paper to RM whose opening paragraphs claimed that physical reality didn't exist, but was merely a social/linguistic construct, what would you do? I'd toss it, and wonder what drugs the author had been doing. And wasn't Aronowitz himself, a "strong advocate" for publishing Sokal, cited as evidence for the nonexistence of the physical? Doug I'm on the ed board of RM. We don't necessarily agree with everything we publish. We think everything we publish (ideally, at least) is interesting, relevant, thoughtful, provocative, etc. I can't defend Aronowitz; I don't know his stuff. Maybe he's *one* social constructionist who actually does not believe in material reality. I find this difficult to believe. I refer to my other comment, that the quotes cited do not deny material reality, but material reality "independent of... humanity." This is what the quote actually says, and this last clause, not the *existence* of material reality, is where all the action is. Your omission of the all-important phrase is telling. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7406] Re: more science!
Or read the first paragraph or two of Sokal's piece, which claims that physical reality doesn't exist - more music to the social constructionists. Ain't true either. That Social Text fell for the hoax was funny, but it also revealed some serious intellectual problems with the social constructionists' position that they have apparently still not acknowledged. Doug I don't agree with either of these claims. (1) No "social constructionist" that I know of denies physical reality. The question is, what's our epistemological relationship with this physical reality. All we know of it, all we experience of it, and all we can say about it, are mediated by culture, by discourse, that is, language *and practice*. [Similarly, anyone who claims that discourse is just language doesn't understand discourse: as Wittgenstein pointed out, language is [embedded in] practice -- practical activity, or as Marx called it, praxis.] It is interesting that the antis are so prone to make this claim, that pomos don't believe in physical reality. It is *so* much easier to attack a straw theory. (2) That SOCIAL TEXT fell for the hoax may reveal some intellectual problems with SOCIAL TEXT (their review process, or their familiarity with the state of scientific research), but I think it says very little about the questions raised in the science wars. In other words, the "hoax" by Sokal was an effective propaganda tool in the situationist mode, but in and of itself proves nothing (and contributes only marginally) to the real debate, which is not moved forward in the least by such statements as Doug's first claim above. Putting the stupidest possible interpretation on a theory or deliberately misreading it may be an effective way of winning an argument but does little to increase our understanding. Regards, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7418] Re: more science!
At 1:56 AM 11/15/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1) No "social constructionist" that I know of denies physical reality. "However, consistent with his philosophical Leninism, [Bhaskar] insists on epistemological arguments for the objectivity of the material world. That is, against the idealism's 'irrealism,' which Bhaskar ascribes to the Kantian idea that science refers exclusively to the conditions of knowledge, he retains objective reality as a(n) (indeterminate) referent independent of the processes of knowing This leaves him with a self-described realist metaphysics Even when he writes somewhat sympathetically of Hegel's dialectics, the influence of English positivism and empiricism remains heavily on the page." -Stanley Aronowitz, "The Politics of the Science Wars," Social Text 46-47 I'm not sure, but I think "Leninism" and "positivism" are cuss words in Stanleyism. Doug: the quote above does not -- NOT -- "deny physical reality." The whole question at stake is the relationship between human consciousness and material reality. Is there a split between subjective human consciousness and objective material reality, or rather a dialectical relationship between the two? Marx, for one, clearly thought the latter (and I agree with him on this point). Human consciousness is an aspect of material reality. "Rather, [natural scientists] cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Englightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in 'eternal' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the 'objective' procedures and epistemological structures prescribed by the so-called scientific method. But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics (Heisenberg 1958; Bohr 1963); revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility (Kuhn 1970; Feyerabend 1975; Latour 1987; Aronowitz 1988b; Bloor 1991); and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the facade of 'objectivity' (Merchant 1980; Keller 1985; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Best 1991). It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical 'reality,' no less than social 'reality,' is at bottom a social and linguistic construct Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science - among them, existence itself - become problematized and relativized." - Alan Sokal, "Transgressing the Boundaries," Social Text 46-47. A quote from Sokal's "hoax" is supposed to constitute evidence that social constructionists deny physical reality? Doug, please. He sets up a straw theory to criticize. This is my point. However, even the quote above does not "deny physical reality." It denies physical reality *independent of* humans. Just ask the dodo if material reality is independent of humanity! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7383] RM Gala Conference Updated Announcement
"POLITICS AND LANGUAGES OF CONTEMPORARY MARXISM" December 5-8, 1996 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Full logistical information and preliminary schedule can be found at our web site: http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx For further information: email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 413-545-6361 "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism," the third in Rethinking Marxism's series of international conferences, will continue its commitment to present a working forum open to all traditions within Marxism and the left. The conference will include more than 180 panel discussions, workshops, films, videos, and other forms of artistic presentation. PLENARY SESSIONS AND SPEAKERS I. Thursday, December 5, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Opening Plenary: "Knowledge, Science, Marxism" Chair: Richard Wolff, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Presenters: Jack Amariglio, Merrimack College Sandra Harding, University of California, Los Angeles Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resources, Delhi, India II. Friday, December 6, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Class and Race: A Dialogue" Chair: Antonio Callari, Franklin and Marshall College Presenters: Etienne Balibar, University of Paris, X Cornel West, Harvard University III. Saturday, December 7, 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. "Locations of Power" Chair: Andrew Parker, Amherst College Presenters: Wendy Brown, University of California, Santa Cruz Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley Wahneema Lubiano, Duke University IV. Sunday, 12:00 noon - 2:00 p.m. Closing Plenary: "Postmodern Socialism(s) and the Zapatista Struggle" Chair: Carmen Diana Deere, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Presenters: Roger Burbach, Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) Arturo Escobar, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Fernanda Navarro, University of Michoacan, Mexico THE 180 PANEL TOPICS INCLUDE OVER 500 PEOPLE PRESENTING WORK ON THE FOLLOWING PARTIAL LIST OF TOPICS . . . C.L.R. JamesClass and Mental Health Hegemony Today Performative Activism New Development Paradigms Postmodernism Derrida on Marx Communism Utopian Marxism Identity Politics and Political Subjects Globalization Black Marxism Postcolonial Theory Failure of Praxis The Labor Movement Television, News and Ideology Althusser after Althusser Multiculturalism and the University Marxism and PedagogyTheoretical Concepts of Marxism Value TheoryGreen Visions of Radical Community Identity Politics Feminist Work in Global Politics Queer TheoryOrganizing for African American Equality PERFORMANCE/FILM/VIDEOS Performance by Robbie McCauley, Friday, December 6, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. "Struggles in Steel: A Story of African American Steelworkers", a showing and discussion led by producers Tony Buba and Ray Henderson, Friday, December 6, 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. "Television Economies:" films and videos curated by Walid Ra'ad, shown throughout conference. ** PRE-REGISTRATION FORM: PRINT OUT AND MAIL TO THE ADDRESS BELOW ___ Name _ Address _ City StateZip/Postal Code _ Country __ E-mail Telephone Please check the days for which you are registering [Thurs 1 p.m.-Sun 1 p.m.]: ___ Thursday___Friday___Saturday___Sunday Checks in U.S. dollars should be made payable to AESA Conference Pre-registration Full $50 Full, Low Income $30 Two Days $40 Two Days, Low Income $25 One Day $25 One Day, Low Income $15 Total PRE-REGISTRATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 23 Please send completed form and check to: Rob Garnett, Registrar Department of Economics Texas Christian University Fort Worth, TX 76129 CHILD-CARE To obtain information on available subsidies and on providers, call (413-545-6361) or send e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). All requests for subsidies must be received by November 23. SPECIAL SUBSCRIPTION OFFER FOR RETHINKING MARXISM Guilford Publications, Inc. is happy to offer special Rethinking MARXISM subscription rates to conference registrants. Conference registrants can request a new (does not apply to renewals) subscription at the special low rates listed below: Subscription for Rethinking MARXISM Regular (inside U.S.) $20 Low Income $15 Shipping for non-U.S. subscriptions Surface $5 Air $ 15
[PEN-L:7355] Re: Brit politics
Doug wrote, has Blair taken the Labour Party that far to the right that class is utterly verboten? Hey, wait a minute, here. I have no control over the Labour Party whatsoever, so I am absolutely not to blame for this sorry state of affairs. Furthermore, if it were up to me class would be one of the principal theoretical concepts used for Labour Party analyses and the basis of public discourse. Blair ;-) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7356] Re: racism, affirmative action, etc.
I also have heard from various sources that many thought
they were voting for affirmative action when they voted yes on 209. The
wording said that it was a vote against discrimination. You had to get
past the way it was worded to understand it. Even though there was a lot
of publicity on it, you can certainly chalk up some yes votes to
confusion.
Based on my experience (first and second hand) organizing against 209, it's
clear that *lots* of folks understood 209 as a vote against discrimination
(and I don't just mean "reverse discrimination"). In fact, up until the
Republicans weighed in near the end of the campaign, its
sponsors/organizers waged a brilliant propaganda effort based on precisely
that deliberate confusion. Only when the Repubs came in at the end with
heavy-handed support for 209 did the significant numbers for the initiative
begin to drop, so that in the end it did not win by nearly as much as it
looked like it would.
Of course, on the other hand, the population as a whole voted against a tax
that would only affect a very few rich people. Even though I know better, I
remain dumbfounded at the ignorance of the US people. This particular vote
has much to do with the absolute pervasiveness of Neoclassical economics
("the economics we all already know, whether we know it or not") upon which
hinges the effectiveness of business anti-tax propaganda campaigns.
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
