Re: [lbo-talk] KPFA Staff Open Letter to the Local Station Board

[michael]

This is very sad.  I have no idea what is at stake.  The other letter
that I saw also had endorsements from people that I respect.  All that I
know is that I hope that Sasha & the other people at KPFA continue their
good work.  I am very dependent on the information that I get off the
station.
I first heard Pacifica while spending a summer in LA in 1960.  I was a
senior in college, but I had never been exposed to anything like that --
both culturally & politically.  When I went to grad school in Berkeley
during the 60s, I learnt more from the station than from my classes.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: [lbo-talk] Compare/Contrast Texas Dem and GOP platforms

[Chris Doss]

mail.ru is behaving spastically, so I resubbed using yahoo.
Sigh. Louis, I personally know people who were ethnically cleansed from Chechnya. They were raped, had their apartment confiscated, and left Chechnya on foot.
It took me all of 45 seconds on google to find a reference to the very well-known and well-documented phenomenon of ethnic cleansing in Chechnya here:
Consequently, while ethnic cleansing affects people what is really at stake is territory; the primary consideration behind moving people is to secure territory defined in ethnic terms. In other words, the quest for territory inhabited only by one's own people is arguably the modus operandi of the ethnic cleansing process; the goal, then, is the ethnically homogeneous or pure (cleansed of minority ethnic groups) nation-state. Ethnic cleansing is therefore an instrument of nation-state creation. Indeed, such population movements are often carried out to bolster claims for international boundary changes or to consolidate control over disputed frontier areas. The cleansing of Croats from Serbian occupied Krajina, the cleansing of Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh, and the cleansing of Russians from Chechnya are just a few post-Cold War examples of ethnic cleansing's role in the quest for national self-determination.
http://www.ippu.purdue.edu/failed_states/2000/papers/jacksonpreece.html
I am really tired of "conversations" involving an interlocutor who doesn't know what he or she is talking about, and will not admit it. So, you can take it up with Vadim Stolts, who happens to have the following on his website:
Neither the genocide of ethnic Russians in Chechnya, in 1994-1999, nor the enslavement of and slave trade in thousands of working class people by Islamic fascists, nor their murderous attack on Dagestan, as the result of which the entire ethnic group (the Avars) was driven on the brink of extinction, nor the repeated pleas of Maskhadov-Basaev clique for NATO to attack Russian cities (mostly populated by working class people), nor dynamiting the working class apartment buildings in Piatigorsk, Bujnaksk, Moscow, and Volgograd--none of these crimes elicited as little as a token _expression_ of protest from ISWoR.
http://left.ru/burtsev/iswor/reflections.html
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

Talk Left, Walk Right

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

A short entry on corrupt conservatives and neoliberals who talk left
and walk right (borrowing the title of Patrick Bond's new book):
"Talk Left, Walk Right,"
<http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_montages_archive.html#108304110866702307>.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>

Re: [lbo-talk] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq

[Joel Wendland]

>
> Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military
> occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship,
> checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due
> process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech.
>
I'm not sure why I'm being characetrized as having argued that Iraqis have
free speech. More accurately, I think that we can't just assume that people
are lying or are duped or their own view of things is as "clear" as we think
ours is.
I can't quite see the point of this argument. The (active) anti-war
movement is irrevocably committed to "U.S. out of Iraq Now!"  The debate
is really over on that. No one is going to go out and organize in favor
of some such slogan as "The U.S. should think about leaving as soon as
it has established a stable order that the U.N. is willing to oversee
and that is approved by at least 63% of the Iraqi people in a
scientifically organized poll."
The march 20th demo near where I live used the slogan "US out/UN in." I just
don't think the situation is as simple as "US out Now!" Of course they
should get out; they should have never gone.
To my mind, there are some similarities to the situation in Haiti. After the
US unleashes terrorist gangs (former death squad types funded by the CIA),
sponsored now by the Republican Party, by the way, should we just say "US
out Now!" and let the Haitians fend for themselves?


And regardless of exact percentage of Iraqis that (verbally) support
this or that, it is clear that well over 10% of the Iraqi population is
committed to expelling the U.S. That guarantees that upwards of 100,000
troops are permanently committed to taking continual casualties so long
as the U.S. remains there. That in turn means
(a) that the u.s. lacks the military resources for further aggression
elsewhere -- e.g., there can be no _direct_ u.s. intervention in
Venezuela, and
(b) that the anti-war movement will be able to retain at least its
present level of strength, with new people in it becoming steadily more
committed to protracted struggle. It should even grow a bit after the
present hiatus from politics ends sometime early in 2005.
Nearly everyone in the local group is committed to ABB, but they are
also quite free from the sectarian crap that seems to infest most (not
all) ABBs on the maillists. Hence it makes sense to a very large core to
work hard to build for the future. And no one has let out a peep about
popularity polls in Iraq. They want the troops home.
What I said in October 2001 seems to be still holding: the political
future is much brighter than it was before 9/11.
Carrol
All very well put.

Joel Wendland
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/70/1/14/
(interview with Iraq CP representative I did late last September)
_
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: [lbo-talk] Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq

[Carrol Cox]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> At 4:07 PM -0800 3/26/04, Devine, James wrote:
> >people do often reply to polls by saying what they feel they "ought to" say.
>
> They often do even under "normal" circumstances in the United States
> (e.g., Americans overstate their church attendance).
>
> Doug and Joel ought to remember that Iraq is *under foreign military
> occupation conducting counterinsurgency warfare* with censorship,
> checkpoints, house raids, arbitrary arrest and detention, no due
> process, etc. -- i.e. Iraqis do not have freedom of speech.
>

I can't quite see the point of this argument. The (active) anti-war
movement is irrevocably committed to "U.S. out of Iraq Now!"  The debate
is really over on that. No one is going to go out and organize in favor
of some such slogan as "The U.S. should think about leaving as soon as
it has established a stable order that the U.N. is willing to oversee
and that is approved by at least 63% of the Iraqi people in a
scientifically organized poll."

And regardless of exact percentage of Iraqis that (verbally) support
this or that, it is clear that well over 10% of the Iraqi population is
committed to expelling the U.S. That guarantees that upwards of 100,000
troops are permanently committed to taking continual casualties so long
as the U.S. remains there. That in turn means

(a) that the u.s. lacks the military resources for further aggression
elsewhere -- e.g., there can be no _direct_ u.s. intervention in
Venezuela, and

(b) that the anti-war movement will be able to retain at least its
present level of strength, with new people in it becoming steadily more
committed to protracted struggle. It should even grow a bit after the
present hiatus from politics ends sometime early in 2005.

Nearly everyone in the local group is committed to ABB, but they are
also quite free from the sectarian crap that seems to infest most (not
all) ABBs on the maillists. Hence it makes sense to a very large core to
work hard to build for the future. And no one has let out a peep about
popularity polls in Iraq. They want the troops home.

What I said in October 2001 seems to be still holding: the political
future is much brighter than it was before 9/11.

Carrol

Re: talk

[Devine, James]

I didn't have that result. It 
(http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/talks/SMC03-16-04.htm) worked for me, using both 
Netscape and IE. 


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine




> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] talk
> 
> 
> Jim:
> 
> Clicking on your talk, I "get file not found."
> 
> Do you know what happened?
> 
> Joel Blau
> 
> Original Message:
> -
> From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:09:29 -0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: talk
> 
> 
> To see the notes of a talk I just gave to the Progressive Alliance at
> Santa Monica College, see
> http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/talks/SMC03-16-04.htm. 
> Thanks to Doug
> Henwood, who found an (obvious!) error in my calculation of the profit
> rate in my first graph. 
> 
> 
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> 
> 
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
> 

Re: talk

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Jim:

Clicking on your talk, I "get file not found."

Do you know what happened?

Joel Blau

Original Message:
-
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:09:29 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: talk


To see the notes of a talk I just gave to the Progressive Alliance at
Santa Monica College, see
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/talks/SMC03-16-04.htm. Thanks to Doug
Henwood, who found an (obvious!) error in my calculation of the profit
rate in my first graph. 


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine


mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

talk

[Devine, James]

To see the notes of a talk I just gave to the Progressive Alliance at
Santa Monica College, see
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/talks/SMC03-16-04.htm. Thanks to Doug
Henwood, who found an (obvious!) error in my calculation of the profit
rate in my first graph. 


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Liberal Talk Radio to Launch March 31

[Michael Hoover]

LIBERAL TALKRADIO NETWORK TO LAUNCH MARCH 31
Wed Mar 10 2004 13:15:26 ET

Air America Radio, a progressive talk radio network, announced today it
will hit the airwaves on March 31st. "Air America Radio is launching in the
top U.S. markets with leading talent that will provide compelling and
entertaining programming on the radio, on satellite feeds, and on the web,"
said Mark Walsh, Chief Executive Officer of Air America Radio. "We aim to
build an important new media franchise that delivers results."

The network's on-air personalities represent today's top political and
popular satirists, commentators and activists. Comedian, and best selling
author Al Franken, who was recently taken to court when Bill O'Reilly and
Fox News were seeking an injunction to halt distribution of "Lies and the
Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," and is
known for fact-based, drug-free satire, will host a weekday show on the
network called "The O'Franken Factor."

"I'm so happy that Air America Radio will be on in three battleground
states, New York, Illinois and CaliforniaŠ.no waitŠthose aren't
battleground states. What the hell are we doing?" said Franken.

Air America Radio has signed actress and comedienne Janeane Garofalo, hip
hop icon Chuck D, radio personality Randi Rhodes, and political humorist
Sam Seder to join Franken at the network. Environmental activist Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr., "The Daily Show" co-creator Lizz Winstead, and
business-of-the-media analyst on the public radio program "Marketplace"
Martin Kaplan will also join the network.

The network has unveiled its current weekday and weekend line-up:

Monday-Friday
Uprising: 6:00-9:00am

This is a fast paced morning show that will entertain and engage audiences
with wit and political satire. It will feature the latest news, offering up
to-the-minute interviews with newsmakers, analysis and strong opinions.

Host: Marc Maron
Co-host: Sue Ellicott
Co-host: Mark Riley

Unfiltered: 9:00am- 12:00pm
Air America's midmorning program is a showcase for conversation about the
political and cultural state of the union. Unfiltered introduces listeners
to fresh new voices not available in mainstream media today.

Co-host: Lizz Winstead
Co-host: Chuck D
Co-host: Laura Flanders

The O' Franken Factor: 12:00-3:00pm
Relentless, pure satire, delivered by the leading political humorist of
this generation. With his partner, longtime radio host Katherine Lanpher,
this will be three hours of fearless barbs, sketches, and interviews with
newsmakers and characters who have lived, up until now, only in Al's
fertile imagination. He's no policy wonk, but this best-selling author and
veteran of Saturday Night Live, is devoting his energy to fighting back
against rightwing propaganda with hard evidence and facts.

Host: Al Franken
Co-host: Katherine Lanpher
Producer: Billy Kimball

The Randi Rhodes Show: 3:00-7:00pm

Randi Rhodes has spent the last 20 years burning up the airwaves in
southern Florida with her pointed and provocative brand of talk radio.
Combining live interview, call-in and commentary, Randi engages her
audience with a passionate presentation.

Host: Randi Rhodes

So What Else Is News? : 7:00-8:00pm
Based in Los Angeles, this is a one-hour program showcasing the
intersection of politics, media and popular culture. This program will
feature analysis and reports from the presidential campaign, as well as a
daily reporters' roundtable on how the news of the day is affected and
reflected by the media. Marty will also cover the spinning of the news with
a regular segment called "The Corrections." This is also the place to hear
the political voice of Hollywood, with celebrity guest interviews from the
entertainment industries.
Host: Marty Kaplan

The Majority Report: 8:00pm-11:00pm

This program will introduce new, younger voices and opinions, with live
guests from the world of politics, the arts and entertainment. Host:
Janeane Garofalo
Co-host: Sam Seder

Saturday and Sunday

Air America Radio's weekend line-up will offer more original programming,
like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mike Papatanio's "Champions of Justice," a
program that brings a fresh and entertaining perspective to talk radio from
the top legal and social issues focused minds in the country. Additional
programming will include Best-of Air America Radio and Best-of-O'Franken
Factor as well as other original programming to be announced soon.

"Air America Radio will be available immediately in top markets across the
country, and our distribution channels will continue to expand in the
coming months via affiliation agreements with partner stations across the
land," said Air America Radio President Jon Sinton. Air America Radio will
debut its programming on radio stations WLIB (AM 1190am) in New York, WNTD
(AM 950) in Chi

Strait-Talk

[Funke Jayson J]

Title: Strait-Talk




Several months ago I circulated a note to some people regarding a friend of mine, John Locke, who was working on completing his master’s project that involved making a documentary that examines the bias of perceptions (exacerbated by the media, academics, governments etc.) between Cuba and the US. John’s documentary, Strait-Talk is now complete and he is beginning to show it in public. I met John as a fellow traveller in Cuba last May/April, and was fortunate enough to share many wonderful Cuban experiences with him.

John is not selling copies of his documentary, but he is willing to show it publically. Having seen it I think that it can be a useful classroom tool for introducing students to international relations issues, media bias & perception control, and, of course, all issues relating to Cuban/US relations.

You can learn more about Strait-talk on John’s informative and well-done web site: http://www.strait-talk.org/, and you can also contact him about possibly showing it in your area.

Please visit his site.


Jayson Funke



The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee.
Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorized.
If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator.(B)

Re: [lbo-talk] 2004 military spending 47 percent of total Federal outlays

[Doug Henwood]

Diane Monaco wrote:

Where your income tax money really goes.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
[27 percent]:
Current Military, $459B:Military Personnel $99B, Operation and
Maintenance $133B, Procurement $68B, Research and Development $58B,
Construction $6B, Family Housing $4B, Retired Pay $39B, DoE Nuclear
Weapons $16B, 50% NASA $8B, International Security $7B, 60% Homeland
Security $16B, misc. $5B Note: President Bush does not include any
funds for the war on terrorism or the war on Iraq in this budget, which
he expects to request later as supplemental funding.
[20 percent]:
Past Military, $345B: Veterans? Benefits $63B; Interest on National
Debt (80% estimated to be created by military spending) $282B
I admire the WRL, but their accounting is exaggerated - there's no
reason to attribute 80% of interest costs to military spending.
Doug

talk of US miracle overblown, says pen-l member

[Eubulides]

US miracle is based on longer hours for less pay

Doug Henwood
Monday February 2, 2004
The Guardian

In the late 1990s the US was famous across the globe for its New Economy.
Computers had unleashed a productivity miracle, recessions were relics of
a transcended past, ideas had replaced things as the motors of economic
life, the world had become unprecedentedly globalised, work had evolved
into something deeply meaningful and mutual funds had put an end to class
conflict.

That miracle did not quite work out as hoped, but now the US economy is
working a new kind of miracle: clocking near-Chinese rates of GDP growth
while producing hardly any new jobs. In the third quarter of 2003, the
economy grew by 8.2% while employment rose 0.1%.

In the fourth quarter Canada, despite being about one-eighth the size of
its southern neighbour, produced more new jobs than the US - not in
percentage terms but in absolute numbers.

Strangely, the two miracles are not unrelated. The economic heart of the
1990s miracle was the productivity revolution. There is no doubt that the
official productivity statistics shook off their 20-year-old torpor in the
mid-90s and accelerated significantly. But what does that mean?

There are at least two ways to approach that problem: the technical and
the philosophical. Let us take the technical approach first. Labour
productivity measures real output per hour of labour. There are serious
problems in estimating both the numerator and denominator of the
productivity equation.

The labour inputs to the productivity calculations are not hours worked
but hours paid, as reported by employers to the bureau of labour
statistics (BLS). That is no small distinction.

One of the undisputed stars of the productivity revolution is the huge
retail group Wal-Mart, which has repeatedly been sued for requiring its
"associates" to work long after they have clocked off for the day. The BLS
does not have firm estimates of how long management work weeks are;
essentially it makes a guess.

At Wal-Mart, many store managers work 60- or 70-hour weeks, but the
productivity statistics assume far less. The same goes with the computer
industry. The BLS assumes that executives in the hi-tech sector work
normal 35- or 40-hour weeks. To anyone in the industry, that assumption is
hilarious.

There are plenty of problems with measuring output, too. Take, for
example, the computer. If today's $1,000 PC is twice as fast as last
year's then, according to conventional economic logic, its "real" value is
twice the 2003 model's. Who knows if that is true? If you are typing
letters and sending email, the speed increase hardly makes a difference.

But to the official US accountants, the matter is settled. That logic
ripples throughout the statistical apparatus.

According to economist Robert Gordon, one of the few mainstream sceptics
on the productivity revolution, most of the acceleration in productivity
has occurred in the manufacture of computers and similar devices. Gordon's
conclusion is controversial but even enthusiasts concede that productivity
in heavy computer-using industries - such as finance, business services
and communications - has either been increasing very slowly or declining.

But the technical argument needs a broader context. The point of
increasing productivity is, or should be, to improve our material standard
of living and make our lives a little easier. The American productivity
miracle has done neither. Even at the peak of the boom, more than 60% of
respondents to a Business Week poll said the miracle had done little to
raise their incomes or improve their job security.

Over the longer term, productivity gains have done little to ease the work
effort, either. A worker paid the average manufacturing wage would have
had to work 62 weeks to earn the median family's income in 1947. In 2001,
he or she would have had to work 81 weeks. So, despite the fact that
productivity was up more than threefold over the period, the average
worker would have to toil six months longer to make the average family
income. Americans work more hours a year than just about anyone else on
earth, and things only got tougher in the 1990s. Some revolution.

During the boom, there was plenty of irrational exuberance and spare cash
to spice things up a bit. American workers saw some real wage growth in
the late 1990s, a welcome change from the previous 20 years of stagnation
alternating with decline.

With the bursting of the bubble and the emergence of a jobless recovery
(with no real wage growth), the underlying reality of the productivity
revolution has been revealed: wage squeezing and extra pressure in the
workplace.

The essence of the US economic model was nicely encapsulated in a 1997
article by New York Times reporter Alan Cowell. In the midst of lecturing
the Germans on the need to give up their long weekends and long vacations,
Cowell recommended that they adopt the American approach, which he defined
as "working longer for 

Re: [Fwd: Lbo-talk digest, Vol 1 #2013 - 9 msgs]

[Joel Blau]

The poll seems to have to backfired on the American Family Association.
Two days ago, a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage led
75% to 20%. Now, support for gay marriage has catapulted into the lead
by something like 149,000 to 145,000 votes.
Joel Blau

joanna bujes wrote:


>
> I got an e-mail this morning from a parishioner about an online poll
> being taken by the American Family Assn. about "homosexual marriage,"
> the results of which they are going to submit to Congress.
>
> The parishioner hoped that if enough people responded in favor, the
> whole thing might backfire on them.
>
> I responded and found that they're publishing actual results, it
> would seem. So here's the link to respond to the poll:
>
> http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp
>
> Please pass it on.

[Fwd: Lbo-talk digest, Vol 1 #2013 - 9 msgs]

[joanna bujes]

>
> I got an e-mail this morning from a parishioner about an online poll
> being taken by the American Family Assn. about "homosexual marriage,"
> the results of which they are going to submit to Congress.
>
> The parishioner hoped that if enough people responded in favor, the
> whole thing might backfire on them.
>
> I responded and found that they're publishing actual results, it
> would seem. So here's the link to respond to the poll:
>
> http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp
>
> Please pass it on.

talk to the Mystic Wheel

[Devine, James]

For your information, here are the notes of a talk I gave to a bunch of
Rotarians yesterday:
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/talks/rotarians12-03.htm.

I didn't get a chance to ask them if they'd read Sinclair Lewis' IT
CAN'T HAPPEN HERE. 


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

FW: EYE ON IRAQ – An Expensive Bill, Cheap Talk

[Devine, James]

from Common Cause, the liberal lobbying group:

CauseNET for November 6, 2003

EYE ON IRAQ â An Expensive Bill, Cheap Talk

The $87 billion emergency-spending bill passed by Congress on Monday may be the 
largest bill of its kind in history, bigger than the budgets of Departments of 
Homeland Security and Education combined.  Yet, Congress has left itself only a modest 
role to play in the oversight of how the money is actually spent.

Originally both the House and Senate agreed that more transparency and accountability 
were necessary in the reconstruction process.  But many of the provisions that members 
voted for were later removed when House and Senate negotiators agreed on a single 
bill.  For example:
 
=> The Senate originally voted 97 to 0 to have the General Accounting Office conduct 
audits of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq.  That provision was 
stripped in the conference committee on a party line vote.

=> Responding to the uproar about non-competitive bidding in Iraq, the House passed an 
amendment requiring competitive bidding on oil contracts. But that was also removed 
during a conference committee vote.

=> Perhaps most astounding, Congress in its final Iraq spending bill did not even 
include language offered by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to penalize war profiteers 
for defrauding American taxpayers.  The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously 
approved a provision to ensure that contractors who cheated the American taxpayer 
would face fines of up to $1 million and jail time of up to 20 years.  Senators of 
both parties supported the provision, but Republican House negotiators refused to 
include the language in the final bill. 

In the end, for all the grandstanding about transparency and accountability in Iraq, 
Congress has made only a modest attempt to oversee how the reconstruction money will 
be spent.  And Congress doesnât seem interested in punishing people who are 
convicted of defrauding the government.

BUT ITâS NOT TOO LATE.  Congress can still do something.  Senator Leahy is offering 
his anti-profiteering provision as a freestanding bill, the War Profiteering 
Prevention Act of 2003. 

Call your Senators and ask them to prove they are interested in protecting the 
American taxpayer by cosponsoring S. 1813, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2003.

If you know who your Senators are, you may call the Capitol Switchboard and ask for 
them directly:

=> 202-224-3121

Otherwise, you can look up your Senators and their numbers here:

=> http://capwiz.com/afr/utr/1/FTBUCGPGCP/NDICCGPGKW/

Michael Yates on Talk of the Nation

[Louis Proyect]

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1388017

Unions and Politics

Aug. 7, 2003

All nine democratic presidential hopefuls wooed the AFL-CIO convention
this week, but union membership stagnates. Meanwhile, Verizon and its
union workers struggle over job security and health care. Join Neal
Conan for a look at the importance of unions in this economic and
political climate. BR>
Guests:
Michael Yates
*Labor Economist
*Author of Why Unions Matter (Monthly Review Press, 1999)
Steven Greenhouse
*Covers Labor and Workplace issues for The New York Times
Aaron Bartley
*Union Organizer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
Chapter 615 (Boston Janitors Union)
*Organized janitors at Harvard for better wages and benefits (1998-2001)
--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

RE: "Can't bomb Iraq and tell us to talk to Pak, India tells US"

[Max B. Sawicky]

More on Ledeen, poster child for U.S. imperialism,
as recounted by Josh Marshall:

This is the quote from Michael Ledeen, from this morning's event at AEI,
which I noted in the previous post.

The quote came in response to a question from the floor, asking how many
casualties the American public would be willing to endure and still support
the war in Iraq. This was the heart of his response ...

"I think it all depends how the war goes. And I think the level of
causalities is secondary. It may sound like an odd thing to say. But all the
great scholars who have studied American character have come to the
conclusion that we are a warlike people. And that we love war. And one of my
favorite comments on American character, which is Patton's speech at the
beginning of the movie, where he says "Americans love war. We love fighting.
We've always fought. We enjoy it. We're good at it. And so forth." What we
hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well, and if the
American public has the conviction that we're being well-led, and that our
people are fighting well, and that we're winning, I don't think causalities
are gonna be the issue.

If the American public gets the idea that we're doing poorly, that we're
badly led, that the war plan is inferior, that we're being outmaneuvered,
outwitted and our guys are dying on behalf of a losing cause, then the
American people will turn against it. And that's the usual rule. "

Interestingly, in the neo-conservative circles in which he runs, Ledeen is
known not so much as an Iraq-hawk, but rather as an Iran-hawk.

"Can't bomb Iraq and tell us to talk to Pak, India tells US"

[Tom Walker]

Dear Dubya-Dubya III & Duce bin Ledeen,

Unlike your designated demon, "Saddam Hussein," India and Pakistan have nukular 
weapons of mass destruction. Maybe after "taking
out" Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, you'll have enough cruise tomahawks and humvees 
left for a quick sweep across the sub-continent?

"New Delhi, March 25: India on Tuesday countered the renewed call by the US for 
resumption of talks with Pakistan, asking why
military action was resorted to against Iraq and Afghanistan instead of dialogue to 
resolve the crisis confronting the two
countries. "If dialogue per se is more critical than combating international terrorism 
with all necessary means, then one can
legitimately ask why both in Afghanistan and Iraq military action instead of dialogue 
has been resorted to," External Affairs
Ministry spokesman told reporters.

"He was asked about remarks made by US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in 
Washington that "violence will not solve
Kashmir's problems. Dialogue remains a critical element in the normalization of 
relations between India and Pakistan."

Chickens. Home. Roost.

Duct tape is for dummies; stock up on piano wire.

Tom Walker
604 255 4812

People power in Kenya--talk by new Kenyan MP

[Drewk]

“All is Possible without Moi”
PEOPLE POWER DEFEATS TYRANNY IN KENYA

a talk by KOIGI WA WAMWERE
newly elected member of the Kenyan Parliament

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 7 p.m.

At African Services Committee
429 West 127th St.
New York, NY 10027
(between Morningside and Amsterdam; if coming from Amsterdam,
turn east onto 126th St., from which 127th St. forks off
mid-block)

The long-time ruling party of dictator Daniel arap Moi was ousted
from power in Kenya’s recent election.  Grass-roots supporters of
the new coalition government called their campaign “people power”
and raised the slogan “All is Possible without Moi.”

Among those elected to the new parliament was KOIGI WA WAMWERE, a
political activist and writer who has been fighting for human
rights and social change for three decades.  He won a landslide
victory in Subukia constituency, and is one of the few radical
leftist Kenyan politicians who offer hope of a new future for
Kenyans.

Although a member of the party in power, NARC, he is maintaining a
dissenting voice to challenge the government to end corruption,
redistribute land, and implement its promises to the Kenyan
people.

Wa Wamwere was imprisoned in Kenya five times between 1975 and
1996, spending a total of thirteen years in prison, including
periods during which he was tortured. His execution was averted
only by the combined efforts of the Norwegian government and human
rights activists around the world. His autobiography, I Refuse to
Die, My Journey for Freedom was recently published in the U.S. by
Seven Stories Press. It documents the brutality of the colonial
years, the roots of the Mau Mau rebellion, the evolution and
degeneration of Jomo Kenyatta and the rise of Daniel arap Moi.

Talk followed by free and open discussion, and celebration!

Co-sponsors:
News and Letters New York Committee, (212) 663-3631
African Services Committee, (212) 222-3882





_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Jim Craven To Talk On Marxism And Indigenous Struggles In Sacramento

[Seth Sandronsky]

November 17, 2002 
News Release 
For more information: 
Call John Rowntree, (916) 446-1758
P.O. Box 160406 Sacramento, CA 95816
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<www.marxistschool.org>
 
Jim Craven To Talk On Marxism And Indigenous Struggles In Sacramento
Jim Craven, a professor of economics, will give a talk titled "Marxism and Indigenous Struggles: A Case Study of the Blackfoot Nation" on Thursday, November 21 at 7 p.m. in the Green Room at the Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, Sacramento, CA. 
Craven will look at links between Marxist and Indigenous activists. He will also speak about the international law and genocide in relation to the Blackfoot Nation.
Craven is a veteran and anti-war activist whose forthcoming book is titled "Political Economy of Indian Country." The Marxist School of Sacramento is sponsoring his talk.
This is a free event open to the public. For more information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758.

 ###







Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online 

talk by nomi prins in new york

[Michael Perelman]

For those of you who are interested or haven't yet made plans for this
Wednesday evening - I'll be doing a talk on Corporate and Wall Street
Conflicts of Interest  (the love / hate relationship). It's at the New
School, part of the CEPA (Center for Economic Policy Analysis) program:
6:00-7:30 on 80 5th Ave. 

http://www.newschool.edu/cepa/events/

Hope to see you there!
Best, Nomi 
 -- Michael Perelman Economics
Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

talk about a revolving door!

[Devine, James]

Title: talk about a revolving door!





from the L.A. TIMES, July 17, 2002:


>Eric Haseltine is moving from one top secret organization to another.


>Walt Disney Co.'s chief of research and development is leaving to become head of research for the National Security Agency, which uses sophisticated technology to gather intelligence, break codes and protect sensitive government information systems.

>Haseltine worked for a decade at Walt Disney Imagineering, the company's design and development group. As such, he would seem an unlikely choice for his new government mission. But the worlds of the NSA and Disney Imagineering aren't so dissimilar. Both include a diverse group of top-level scientists and share a penchant for security and secrecy (Disney won't say how many scientists it employs). There's a certain institutional quality to the unmarked, drab buildings that make up the sprawling Walt Disney Imagineering complex in Glendale. Beyond developing innovative ride systems for theme parks, Disney's research and development team also has expertise in areas with military applications, including virtual reality technology. Disney scientists are at the forefront of interactive TV and developing systems for protecting the company against Internet piracy.

>Haseltine, 50, who holds a doctorate in physiological psychology, is no stranger to the defense world. He spent 13 years at Hughes Aircraft Co., where he managed R&D projects and was known as a top expert on flight simulation. He joined Disney in 1992.

>In his new role, he will lead a research and technology team for the spy agency, a division of the Defense Department. Neither NSA nor Haseltine will detail his exact responsibilities.<

is it true that Goofy moved over to the Security & Exchange Commission and that Mickey Mouse is the real president?
JD

India/Pakistan: Talk of war

[Sabri Oncu]

The New York Times
May 23, 2002
Indian Leader's Threat of War Rattles Pakistan and the U.S.
By BARRY BEARAK


NEW DELHI, May 22 — Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee told
Indian soldiers along the tense frontier in Kashmir today to
prepare for a "decisive battle" against terrorism, words powerful
enough to rally his troops, threaten Pakistan and scare much of
the world.

India has a grim choice at hand: make good on its pledge to
retaliate forcefully against militant groups based in Pakistani
territory, or appear at home and abroad as a nation that draws a
line in the sand only to keep moving it back.

The prevailing expectation is that the Indians will soon strike a
punitive blow, perhaps against the militants' training camps in
the Pakistan-controlled area of the disputed state. The
overarching fear is that such a provocative act might lead to
swift escalation, unleashing the kind of nuclear combat that has
long been mankind's worst nightmare.

For five days, the two nations have exchanged artillery fire
across the frontier. A million troops face each other. Defense
councils meet. Stock prices have plunged.

Pakistan responded to Mr. Vajpayee's call with a statement saying
it would use "full force" if attacked.

Worried diplomats are scheduling visits to New Delhi and
Islamabad, trying to apply the brakes. The United States deputy
secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, plans a visit.

At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said
that the administration was deeply concerned about the rising
tensions and that senior American officials were speaking with
their counterparts in both nations.

"There's no question but that the entire administration has been
in touch with associates in Pakistan and associates in India,"
Mr. Rumsfeld said. He said the "message, clearly to everyone, is
that it is a dangerous situation and that our hope and all of our
efforts are aimed at encouraging them to lessen the tension along
the border, both in Kashmir and elsewhere."

The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, heads here next week.
On Tuesday Mr. Straw explained bluntly, "India and Pakistan both
have nuclear weapons and the capacity to use them, and have
talked publicly about a possible nuclear exchange." He called the
situation "potentially devastating."

India for now seems willing to listen to the envoys, but
officials made clear that India's clock is ticking. The alarm is
specially set to awaken the United States.

The threat of a war that would jeopardize the American hunt for
Osama bin Laden is India's leverage to get Washington to pay
attention to what is sees as Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism
against India.

"The Americans are asking us for some time to let them sort
things out, and India is not going to do anything hastily," a
senior Indian official said this week. "At the same time, it is
not going to be an indefinite wait."

Regularly in private, and increasingly in public, Indian leaders
are talking resentfully about the United States, which to them
has declared a global campaign that defines terrorism too
narrowly, as evil that occurs within the 50 states.

Specifically, the Indians are disappointed with American coziness
with Pakistan, a nation they accuse of fighting a proxy war
against India with guerrillas instead of uniformed soldiers. That
war continues apace.

"There's no doubt that the overwhelming amount of terrorist
infiltration into Kashmir is planned by the Pakistan Army," said
C. Raja Mohan, one of India's leading journalists. "India knows
it, America knows it. How long will it be allowed to go on? I
think America has to be asking Pakistan that question."

The Indians want the United States to use the full weight of its
power to get Pakistan to abandon its support for the anti-Indian
attacks in Kashmir, just as it successfully pressed Pakistan
after Sept. 11 to jettison its support for the Taliban.

United States officials have in fact been urging Pakistan's
president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to rein in militants within his
borders. They say they are pleased a crackdown has taken place,
although one official said it is difficult to find the precise
pressure point that would make the general fully change his ways.

"What do you come up with that will convince the general we're
serious, when we need him so much?" one American official asked.

India insists Americans are either being gulled or turning a
blind eye. The United States military needs Pakistan's help in
capturing the remnants of Al Qaeda. Would the White House hurt
the chances of snaring Mr. bin Laden for the sake of halting
anti-India attacks in Kashmir?

"Our observation is that General Musharraf has a divided agenda,"
said a senior Indian intelligence official. "He provides limited
support to America on his western border with Afghanistan while
assisting the terrorists — sometimes the very same terrorists —
on his eastern border with India."

Five months ago, in the fashion of the United States, India
procla

India/Pakistan: Talk of war

[Sabri Oncu]

India Talks of War, World Watches Warily
Thu May 23,12:52 AM ET
By Y.P. Rajesh and Raja Asghar

NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - India's prime minister meets his
security advisers in disputed Kashmir (news - web sites) on
Thursday after telling troops confronting Pakistani forces to
prepare for action after a week of cross-border firing.

Atal Behari Vajpayee, on a three-day visit to the state at the
root of two of the three wars between the South Asian neighbors,
has sent extra troops to India's border with Pakistan and extra
warships to the Arabian Sea off its coast.

With the nuclear-armed nations trading bellicose warnings and
cross-border fire, the United States and its European allies said
they were working behind the scenes to stop the two sides
slipping back into war.

"The message clearly to everyone is that it is a dangerous
situation and that our hope and all of our efforts are aimed at
encouraging them to lessen the tension along the border, both in
Kashmir and elsewhere," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told
reporters in Washington on Wednesday.

Rumsfeld said he had spoken to Indian Defense Minister George
Fernandes and expected to talk to him again soon.

State Department officials echoed Rumsfeld's concern.

"What we want to do right now is prevent a war," one senior
official told reporters.

India blames Pakistan for attacks by Islamic militants in
Kashmir, its only Muslim-majority state, and further afield. A
December attack on the Indian parliament in the capital New Delhi
triggered the latest military standoff between the rivals.

Vajpayee, who meets his security advisers in Indian-controlled
Kashmir's main city of Srinagar, told his troops on Wednesday to
prepare for action.

"Be prepared for sacrifices. But our aim should be victory.
Because it's now time for a decisive fight," Vajpayee said in a
speech broadcast live across the nation by state television.

Pakistan responded by warning India against any military
"misadventure" and vowing to use "full force" if attacked.

Both Vajpayee and Pakistani military leader General Pervez
Musharraf are under considerable domestic pressure to appear
tough in dealing with their old rival but it is unclear how close
the two countries really are to war.

The crisis has launched a diplomatic flurry. European Union
(news - web sites) External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten
will be followed by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw early
next week and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in
early June.

EXCHANGES OF FIRE

The sabre-rattling has been matched by heavy exchanges of border
fire over the last week since an attack on an Indian army camp in
Kashmir in which 31 people, mostly wives and children of
soldiers, were killed by suspected Pakistan-based militants.

The two sides traded heavy mortar fire across the Line of
Control, a cease-fire line dividing Kashmir, in two places on
Thursday, an Indian defense official. An Indian soldier was
killed and a woman wounded on Wednesday night, he said.

Dozens of civilians and soldiers on both sides have been killed
and wounded over the past week.

The two nations have massed a million men, backed by tanks,
missiles and fighter jets, on the border since India blamed
Pakistan-based Kashmiri rebels for the December parliament raid.

Vajpayee was in Jammu and Kashmir, his first visit to the state
in nearly two years, to express solidarity with victims of last
week's attack and boost the morale of India's troops.

India's navy said on Wednesday five warships from its eastern
fleet were reinforcing its western fleet in the Arabian Sea off
Pakistan to increase the level of preparation in the area.

Pakistan, while warning India it would use full force if
attacked, reiterated a pledge made by Musharraf in January,
saying it would not allow its territory to be used for terrorist
activity -- a key Indian demand to end the standoff.

Pakistani analysts said Wednesday's pledge by Islamabad went
further than earlier assurances as it was Pakistan's first public
commitment not to permit terrorist activity from the part of
Kashmir it controls.

India is demanding proof of such assurances.

India and Pakistan have gone to war three times since
independence from Britain in 1947. India sees Kashmir as an
integral part of its territory. Pakistan wants a plebiscite to
determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

Violence from a revolt that began in Kashmir in late 1989 has
killed more than 33,000 people.

Full at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=721&e=1&;
u=/nm/20020523/wl_nm/southasia_dc_78

talk on the current economic situation

[Devine, James]

Due to the kind invitation of Yoshie Furuhashi and Keith Kilty, I presented
a talk on the current economic situation in historical perspective at the
Student International Forum and Social Welfare Action Alliance at Ohio State
University in Columbus, OH, on Thurday, May 16. My (slightly revised) notes
are available at http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine/talks/Ohio.htm. 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ TO TALK ON GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS @SACRAMENTO MARXIST SCHOOL

[W. Robert Needham]

Can her talk be put on the webv?

>April 6, 2002
>News Release
>For more information:
>Call John Rowntree, (916) 446-1758
>P.O. Box 160406  Sacramento, CA 95816
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
>ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ TO SPEAK ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AT THE MARXIST
>SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO
>
>Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, activist, author and professor, will give a talk
>"International Human Rights" on Thursday, April 18 at 7 p.m. in the Green
>Room at the Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, Sacramento.
>
>Dunbar-Ortizí talk is part of the Point of View: Challenging Perspectives on
>Current Issues speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of Sacramento.
>
>Dunbar-Ortiz will focus on how global freedom movements have worked with the
>United Nations to build international human rights law.  She will suggest
>how this work can help U.S. activists challenge U.S. globalization and
>militarization.
>
>Dunbar-Ortiz is a professor of ethnic studies and womenís studies at CSU,
>Hayward. The Great Sioux Nation, Roots of Resistance is one of the many
>books she has written.
>
>This event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more
>information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758.
>
>  ###
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


Dr. W. Robert Needham
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
N2L 3G1
Tel: 519-888-4567 ext 3949
Home: 519-578-4143
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/ECON/faculty/needham.html

["We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our
fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run
as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Herman Melville]

["Fascism should be more properly called corporatism, since it is the
merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini]

ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ TO TALK ON GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS @ SACRAMENTO MARXIST SCHOOL

[Seth Sandronsky]

April 6, 2002
News Release
For more information:
Call John Rowntree, (916) 446-1758
P.O. Box 160406  Sacramento, CA 95816
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ TO SPEAK ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AT THE MARXIST 
SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, activist, author and professor, will give a talk 
"International Human Rights" on Thursday, April 18 at 7 p.m. in the Green 
Room at the Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, Sacramento.

Dunbar-Ortiz’ talk is part of the Point of View: Challenging Perspectives on 
Current Issues speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of Sacramento.

Dunbar-Ortiz will focus on how global freedom movements have worked with the 
United Nations to build international human rights law.  She will suggest 
how this work can help U.S. activists challenge U.S. globalization and 
militarization.

Dunbar-Ortiz is a professor of ethnic studies and women’s studies at CSU, 
Hayward. The Great Sioux Nation, Roots of Resistance is one of the many 
books she has written.

This event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more 
information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758.

  ###













_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>>>You still don't get it. Even if there is enough demand takes up 100%
>>>of the production, the profitability drops because the stuff can be
>>>produced cheaper, but the firms who invested in the
>>>oldertechnmologies have these huge sunk costs taht they cannot nake
>>>back.
>>
>>Still don't understand how we move from the difficulties these
>>backward firms face to a fall in the average rate of profit for
>>capital-as-a-whole.
>
>I don't know wwether the rate of profit does tend to fall. This is a 
>vexed empirical question. But I can see an argument based on the 
>above that it might, though it would take some additional 
>assumptions.

Justin,
It's not a vexed empirical question for Brenner, though Shaikh raises 
questions about how the capital stock is measured; but for Brenner 
and Shaikh and Moseley, the rate of profit did fall, and fall hard, 
esp for Brenner between approx. (if I remember correctly) 65-73 for 
US capital. Charles has to re-read Perlo; Justin, you have to re-read 
Brenner!

>
>
>I do think there has
>>been progress in reworking official data from a value perspective
>>(criticism of wage led profit squeeze thesis carried out by Shaikh
>>and Moseley),
>
>I have studied Shaikh's work, and I think some of his criticisms are 
>valid, but can be expressed without the value theoretic commitments. 
>I'm an overproductionist a la Brenner myself.

That's not the point. The question is whether profit to wage is a 
proxy for s/v. the answer is no; the data have to be reworked. That 
required new work by value theoretic Marxists.



>
>value theoretic analysis of the role of the
>>interventionist state (Mattick, deBrunhoff),
>
>I think you overrate Mattick, though he's not bad.


well thanks but I "overrate"--a peculiar word, I must say--Mattick 
along with the old Root and Branch collective, Moseley, Shaikh, Tony 
Smith and even O'Connor (who develops a contrary theory). Michael 
Perelman makes favorable references to PMSr, so does Robt Lekachman 
for goodness' sake.




>I also don't think you need value theory to say what he says. Fisk's 
>The State and Justice makes some of the same points without the 
>value theory.

In encouraging a political theorist friend to become a Marxist years 
ago, I lent her this book; it's good news I suppose that I never got 
it back.

But as I remeber Fisk does not have a theory of state debt as 
accumulation of fictitious capital. And I have behind me a book by 
Fisk on Value and Ethics, though I have not read it--it's not about 
labor value is it?
Hasn't Fisk recently written on health care like pen-l's Charlie Andrews?



>
>analyses of the world
>>market and unequal exchange (Amin, Bettleheim, Sau, Dussel,
>>Carchedi),
>
>This stuff I don't know ell.

I should have thrown in Tilla Siegel.


>
>value based investigations of the labor process (Tony
>>Smith),
>
>You left out Braverman. But I think,a gain, that the argumebts do 
>not require value theory.

Tony Smith's arguments are rooted in value theory, so he does not 
share your estimation. Let's see if we can ask whether his best 
arguments are free of value theory?



>
>attempts to undertand non commodity, fiat and near money
>>(Foley, Gansmann),
>
>I don't know this.

And I should have added latest book Political Economy of Money and 
Finance by Makoto Itoh and Costas Lapavitsas and Makoto Itoh and last 
chapters in the new book by Alfredo Saad Fihlo The Value of Marx: 
Political Economy for Contemporary Capitalism. And there is some very 
crystal clear work by Martha Campbell and others in the International 
Journal of Political Economy.

Oh, and I forgot the whole value theoretic analyses of the state 
(Holloway and Picciotti as well as Williams and Reuten).



>
>attempts to understand share capital (Hilferding,
>>Henwood),
>
>Henwood's not a value theorist, are you, Doug?

Good question.

>
>value based phenomenlogical studies of time (Lukacs,
>>Postone),
>
>I know Lukacs inside and out, and I think tahtw hile he is 
>abstractly commited to the LTV, his analyses do not presuppose value 
>theory at all.

I would answer that Lukacs' analysis is based on the Marxian concept 
of abstract labor if this is what you mean by abstractly committed. 
More importantly,  Postone's theory is value theoretic through and 
through, and I would not consider his accomplishment degenerate, 
unless we mean degenerate in a good way.

Haven't read Ben Fine's recent value theoretic critique of human 
capital theory either.


>>
>>
>
>Some and some. On the whole, I stand my my claim. A lot of smart 
>people have used the framework. I don't see that their best work 
>depends on it.

Well you should certainly not be stopped from doing your best work on 
a value free theoretical orientation based on some combination of 
Marx, Robinson and Brenner, and Ian of course is free to develop his 
own theoretical orienation on the basis of the viewpoints that he is 
trying to put together which seem to be united in only aspect--th

Re: Re: Value talk/Engels Marx

[Waistline2]

ot;Anti-Duhring"



 "The word overproduction in itself leads to error. So long as the most 
urgent needs of a large part of society are not satisfied, there can of 
course be absolutely no talk of an over-production of products - in the sense 
that the amount of products is excessive in relation to the need for them.

On the contrary, it must be said that on the basis of capitalist production, 
there is a constant under-production in this sense. The limits to production 
are set by the profit of the capitalist and in no way by the needs of the 
producers. But overproduction of products and over production of commodities 
are two entirely different things. 

If Ricardo thinks that the commodity form makes no difference to the product, 
and furthermore, that commodity circulation differs only formally from 
barter, that in this context the exchange-value is only a fleeting form of 
the exchange of things, and that money of therefore merely a formal means of 
circulation - then this is in fact in line with the presupposition that the 
bourgeois mode of production is the absolute mode of production, hence it is 
a mode of production without an definite specific characteristic, its 
distinctive traits are merely formal. 

He cannot therefore admit that the bourgeois mode of production contains 
within itself a barrier to the free development of the productive forces, a 
barrier which comes to the surface in crises and, in particular in 
over-production - the basic phenomenon in crises. (End of paragraph)

Theory of Surplus Value. Volume 2 of Theories of Surplus Value, Progress 
Publishers, Moscow first edition 1968. 

Karl Marx



"But the perfecting of machinery is making human labor superfluous."

"the bourgeois mode of production contains within itself . . . a barrier 
which comes to the surface in crises and, in particular in over-production - 
the basic phenomenon in crises."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>>
>>You still don't get it. Even if there is enough demand takes up 100%
>>of the production, the profitability drops because the stuff can be
>>produced cheaper, but the firms who invested in the
>>oldertechnmologies have these huge sunk costs taht they cannot nake
>>back.
>
>Still don't understand how we move from the difficulties these
>backward firms face to a fall in the average rate of profit for
>capital-as-a-whole.

I don't know wwether the rate of profit does tend to fall. This is a vexed 
empirical question. But I can see an argument based on the above that it 
might, though it would take some additional assumptions.

>
>>  A degenerating research program often doesn't have a single fatal flaw. 
>>It
>>just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal
>>problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I
>>think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian
>>value theory over the last century.
>
>
>You must realize that this is not an argument but an evaluation that
>comes across as an insult and fighting words.

Well, you can feel insulted if you like, but it's not meant as an insult, 
just as an evaluation.

I do think there has
>been progress in reworking official data from a value perspective
>(criticism of wage led profit squeeze thesis carried out by Shaikh
>and Moseley),

I have studied Shaikh's work, and I think some of his criticisms are valid, 
but can be expressed without the value theoretic commitments. I'm an 
overproductionist a la Brenner myself.

value theoretic analysis of the role of the
>interventionist state (Mattick, deBrunhoff),

I think you overrate Mattick, though he's not bad. I also don't think you 
need value theory to say what he says. Fisk's The State and Justice makes 
some of the same points without the value theory.

analyses of the world
>market and unequal exchange (Amin, Bettleheim, Sau, Dussel,
>Carchedi),

This stuff I don't know ell.

value based investigations of the labor process (Tony
>Smith),

You left out Braverman. But I think,a gain, that the argumebts do not 
require value theory.

attempts to undertand non commodity, fiat and near money
>(Foley, Gansmann),

I don't know this.

attempts to understand share capital (Hilferding,
>Henwood),

Henwood's not a value theorist, are you, Doug?

value based phenomenlogical studies of time (Lukacs,
>Postone),

I know Lukacs inside and out, and I think tahtw hile he is abstractly 
commited to the LTV, his analyses do not presuppose value theory at all.

clarification in differences of underconsumption,
>disproportionality and frop crisis theories, development of a theory
>of oil rent and rentier states (Bina).

Don't know this.
>
>I think Justin is making a strong evaluation without having carefully
>evaluated above work.
>

Some and some. On the whole, I stand my my claim. A lot of smart people have 
used the framework. I don't see that their best work depends on it.

jks


_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

RE: Value talk

[Devine, James]

CB: We don't need new hypotheses and predictions and theories until we
finish the project of overthrowing capitalism and initiating socialism.
Theory for the sake of theory, generation of theory for only the sake of
theory is an especially bad idea in the historical sciences.

Charles, that's ridiculous. We clearly don't have all the answers to a lot
of questions. Some of those answers may help us bring about socialism. 

For example, Marx didn't study psychology (it didn't really exist at the
time). But maybe the issues of (social) psychology could someday become
clear in a way that would help people deal with the issue of working class
consciousness, e.g., the inadequate appreciation of capitalist exploitation.


Jim D.

Re: Value talk

[Michael Perelman]

A few quick notes on value theory

To begin with, the major insight from value theory comes from understanding
social relations.  Direct authority relations exist in feudal societies.
The value relations control behavior under capitalism.  I agree with what I
think Rakesh means in saying that moral depreciation alters social
relations.

Firms have to adapt to the law of value, of course.  But algebraic estimates
of underlying values may not be particularly helpful.

Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

> In response to Christian:
>
> >  >As a result of moral depreciation, the older means of production as
> >use values have not changed; nor has the concrete labor embodied
> >therein changed. What changes is the the aliquot of homogeneous,
> >social, and abstract labor time represented by those means. The key
> >here is the duality of labor--Marx's key discovery.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Re: Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

In response to Christian:

>  >As a result of moral depreciation, the older means of production as
>use values have not changed; nor has the concrete labor embodied
>therein changed. What changes is the the aliquot of homogeneous,
>social, and abstract labor time represented by those means. The key
>here is the duality of labor--Marx's key discovery.
>
>Actually, the abstract labor time hasn't changed either. What's 
>changed are the means to realize or represent that time--which is 
>now wasted or sunk.

I would argue that the value of the morally depreciated means has 
itself changed, which does not mean of course that the sum of money 
that the capitalist class laid out for them has changed.


>  The terms for that realization are wages and debt.


don't understand yr point. Are you saying that wages and credit lines 
have to be sufficient for the surplus value that has been produced to 
be realized? Are you saying that the full value of older equipment 
can be realized if demand is strong enough? Are there any limits on 
the autonomous creation of demand? And  even if value and surplus 
value are fully realized, profitability can still founder due to more 
fundamental difficulties in the very production of sv, and firms may 
then not make use of the lines of credit that they have and in this 
uncertain environment workers will not use their available credit 
either. The problem would then not be insufficient credit and 
purchasing power. The problem would be that there would be no use of 
the credit and purchasing power that are already available. We can 
explore the connection between this critque of underconsumption with 
Keynes' liquidity trap, along with the relation between Marx's 
falling profit rate and Keynes' marginal efficiency of capital and 
the relation between Marx's theory of accumulation and Keynes' 
effective demand.

Of course our bourgeois Macroeconomic textbooks don't do us the 
favor. Even the radical Keynesian ones.


At any rate, I would think a Marxist would keep the analytical focus 
on growing problems in production and the class struggle therein 
rather than in difficulties in the realization of surplus value in 
terms of inadequate market based demand. Why would we want to give an 
analytical focus to our theory that complements bourgeois economics' 
obsession with exchange relations. Luxemburg made a  mistake, I 
think, in seeking the limits of capital in the market.

>But you can explain this without reference to values, can't you?

maybe, i am asking how.



>  If you begin with money (as below), there's no reason to keep value 
>in the equation, unless you (a) buy into Marx's moral taxonomy of 
>credit money ("fictitious capital"--"the mother of all insane 
>forms," "a fetish," "money breeding money," etc.)

don't follow.



>  or (b) reserve value as a ground for the class-existential analysis 
>of capital's limits.

the system finds its historic limits in workers' turning their 
resistance to the extraction of their surplus labor time in the 
process of production to a revolutionary struggle. It is possible 
however that the system will annihilate both classes or (I suppose) 
that a managerial mode of production could replace the capitalist one.


>Neither of these seem necessary to get at the baleful effects of 
>capital, which seem pretty evident even in the enchanted world we 
>live in.

Though not properly recognized in equilibrium theories.


>
>As per the crisis thing: I'm not quite sure I get why Marxists think 
>it's an accomplishment to predict repeated crises.

because it provides an explanation unlike GET?



>  Anybody can do that--in fact, most leftists--save maybe Doug and 
>Anwar Shaikh--have been predicting recession, depression, or 
>financial calamity for the past 5 years. So what?

We are talking about the underlying explanation, not reading tea leaves.



>  As a defense of a theoretical model, this seems pretty weak, since 
>(a) hardly anyone gets the timing of the crisis right (ie Brenner, 
>whose (great) work has been pointing to the big one since 1997),

it's not possible to do so. a theory can be explanatory while not 
being predictive in the strict sense that you indicate.


>  and (b) in the absence of that what you give is the stern policy 
>advice to flush the whole system, cause capital will always produce 
>crises.

who's advising policy makers?



>  Again, so what? At least in theory, what social dems like Godley 
>and Izuretia have going for them is that they think there are ways 
>of mitigating, though not preventing, crises.

If they think the major problems in the capitalist system 
(unemployment, intensification of labor, wipe outs of workers' 
savings) will be solved once we social democrats convince US policy 
makers to run up the federal debt to 50 or so % of GDP (unlikely that 
we could; and surely counterproductive if we were successful), they 
are no less crackpot realists than those who imagine that we will 
indeed live in 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>
>You still don't get it. Even if there is enough demand takes up 100% 
>of the production, the profitability drops because the stuff can be 
>produced cheaper, but the firms who invested in the 
>oldertechnmologies have these huge sunk costs taht they cannot nake 
>back.

Still don't understand how we move from the difficulties these 
backward firms face to a fall in the average rate of profit for 
capital-as-a-whole.

>  A degenerating research program often doesn't have a single fatal flaw. It
>just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal
>problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I
>think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian
>value theory over the last century.


You must realize that this is not an argument but an evaluation that 
comes across as an insult and fighting words. I do think there has 
been progress in reworking official data from a value perspective 
(criticism of wage led profit squeeze thesis carried out by Shaikh 
and Moseley), value theoretic analysis of the role of the 
interventionist state (Mattick, deBrunhoff), analyses of the world 
market and unequal exchange (Amin, Bettleheim, Sau, Dussel, 
Carchedi), value based investigations of the labor process (Tony 
Smith), attempts to undertand non commodity, fiat and near money 
(Foley, Gansmann), attempts to understand share capital (Hilferding, 
Henwood),value based phenomenlogical studies of time (Lukacs, 
Postone), clarification in differences of underconsumption, 
disproportionality and frop crisis theories, development of a theory 
of oil rent and rentier states (Bina).

I think Justin is making a strong evaluation without having carefully 
evaluated above work.

Rakesh

Re: Value talk

[christian11]

>As a result of moral depreciation, the older means of production as 
use values have not changed; nor has the concrete labor embodied 
therein changed. What changes is the the aliquot of homogeneous, 
social, and abstract labor time represented by those means. The key 
here is the duality of labor--Marx's key discovery.

Actually, the abstract labor time hasn't changed either. What's changed are the means 
to realize or represent that time--which is now wasted or sunk. The terms for that 
realization are wages and debt. 
But you can explain this without reference to values, can't you? If you begin with 
money (as below), there's no reason to keep value in the equation, unless you (a) buy 
into Marx's moral taxonomy of credit money ("fictitious capital"--"the mother of all 
insane forms," "a fetish," "money breeding money," etc.) or (b) reserve value as a 
ground for the class-existential analysis of capital's limits. Neither of these seem 
necessary to get at the baleful effects of capital, which seem pretty evident even in 
the enchanted world we live in.

As per the crisis thing: I'm not quite sure I get why Marxists think it's an 
accomplishment to predict repeated crises. Anybody can do that--in fact, most 
leftists--save maybe Doug and Anwar Shaikh--have been predicting recession, 
depression, or financial calamity for the past 5 years. So what? As a defense of a 
theoretical model, this seems pretty weak, since (a) hardly anyone gets the timing of 
the crisis right (ie Brenner, whose (great) work has been pointing to the big one 
since 1997), and (b) in the absence of that what you give is the stern policy advice 
to flush the whole system, cause capital will always produce crises. Again, so what? 
At least in theory, what social dems like Godley and Izuretia have going for them is 
that they think there are ways of mitigating, though not preventing, crises. That 
seems a lot more realistic than imagining that someday we'll live in some complex 
social system that is immune to crisis. 

Christian


>Let me  say as a side note that Marx begins with inputs as neither 
physical goods nor values. He begins with invested money capital, the 
money invested as constant and variable capital, and refers to that 
monetary sum as the cost prices of commodities. Marx's theory is thus 
closer to Keynes' monetary theory of production than it is to 
Sraffa's technical input-output matrix.

Re: Value talk

[miyachi]

on 2/7/02 05:34 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Justin: A degenerating research program often doesn't have a single fatal
> flaw. It 
> just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal
> problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I
> think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian
> value theory over the last century.
> 
> 
> 
> CB: We don't need new hypotheses and predictions and theories until we finish
> the project of overthrowing capitalism and initiating socialism. Theory for
> the sake of theory, generation of theory for only the sake of  theory is an
> especially bad idea in the historical sciences.
> 

Sir Charles Brown
MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre.
JAPAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For young Marx, theory was considered as below.
He noticed that" we shall simply show the world why it is struggling, and
consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether it wishes or not"


"Nothing prevents us, therefore, from lining our criticism with a criticism
of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real
struggles and identifying ourselves with them. This does not mean that we
shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here
is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for
the world new principles from the existing principles of the world. We shall
not say: Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you
with true campaign-slogans. Instead, we shall simply show the world why it
is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether
it wishes or not. 

The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of
its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in
explaining its own actions to it. Like Feuerbach's critique of religion, our
whole aim can only be to translate religious and political problems into
their self-conscious human form.

Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by
analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in
religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has
long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious
for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is
not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the
thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not
being any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its
old work. 

We are therefore in a position to sum up the credo of our journal in a
single word: the self-clarification (critical philosophy) of the struggles
and wishes of the age. This is a task for the world and for us. It can
succeed only as the product of untied efforts. What is needed above all is a
confession, and nothing more than that. To obtain forgiveness for its sins,
mankind needs only to declare them for what they are." 

Re: Re: Re: : Value talk

[miyachi]

on 2/7/02 04:37 AM, Justin Schwartz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>> From: Rakesh Bhandari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [PEN-L:22469] Re: : Value talk
>> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:46:46 -0800
>> 
>> Justin writes:
>> 
>>> . Or (2) (as Rakesh suggests) there is athe moral deprecaition line,
>>> the idea that value explains crisis.
>> 
>> 
>> Crisis is  explained on the basis of the law of value, not by
>> reference to moral depreciation at all. In fact I did not suggest
>> that moral depreciation explains crisis at all. I underlined that it
>> helped to explain why machinery has not seemed to fufill its task of
>> reducing the torment of labor. You simply are not reading carefully.
>> And you haven't yet proposed an alternative set of concepts by which
>> to understand moral depreciation.
> 
> No doubt I am careless and illiterate, also lazy and stupid. I do see how
> moral depreciation offers a theory of crisis. I don't seewhat value talk
> adds to it.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As I have shown here by restating the argument without reference to
>>> value, and as Brenner has shown in greater length, value does no
>>> work in this story.
>> 
>> Have you followed any of the criticism of Brenner's theory?
> 
> No. I have a full time nonacademic job and a family. Value theory, and
> indeed crisis theory, is a distinct sideline interest for me. I'd rather
> think about legal positivism, democracy, or, closer to home, judicial
> admissions under a 12(b)96) motion to dismiss. There may be problems with
> Brenner's view, and it no doubt doesn't explain everything. same with many
> views of Marx or anyone else. Still, I think it is basically right. As I
> say,I'm lazy and illiterate and careless when I do read, so I'm going to go
> on thinking that until something large hits me on the head. Fortunately, you
> are here to keep the rest of the world on track.
> 
> jks
> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> _
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

 MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre.
JAPAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Brenner's reductionism is clear. he only analyze market, finance, or credit.
This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is
natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is
reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any
English translation of " Capital" there is no distinction between Sachen and
Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property,
and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can
not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to
understand Marx's critique of fetishism)rule people, and people
unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive
power for people.

And finally Marx described

"In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent,
labour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection
between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources,
we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the
conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the
material production relations with their historical and social
determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which
Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social
characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great
merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and
illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social
elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of
production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did
so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus
above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by
representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms,
and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the
direct production process"

We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But
Stalin neglect this fundamental fact.
"Crisis theory" was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx
firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital,


"As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decompo

Re: Re: Re: Re: : Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>Cmon Justin, you spent years thinking through value theory, and you
>have very strong opinions. In fact one could easily have the
>impression that you think value theorists are desperate and inward
>turning.

True, I did, and I came to certain conclusions, expressed here and in my 
published work. I also don't read much if any philosophy of mind any more, 
having made up my mind about certain things I thought I';d worked though.


>
>Well these are all debates we had on LBO long before all the
>published critiques by Glick, Dumenil and others.  You were then on
>LBO; check the archive. We had this argument.

I'm not sure we are much further along.

>
>Upon first reading, I was saying very loudly and in no uncertain
>terms that Brenner was wrong to make competition the explanatorily
>fundamental variable;

I think you misread Brenner. It is a common mistake, but it is still a 
mistake. Profitability is the f.v. for Brenner, in a competitive context. 
Right, Bob?


>I said then that Brenner had no theory of why effective demand had
>proven insufficient for the realization of commodities at value. He
>won't take the underconsumption line from Bauer to Sweezy to Robinson
>to Devine.

You still don't get it. Even if there is enough demand takes up 100% of the 
production, the profitability drops because the stuff can be produced 
cheaper, but the firms who invested in the oldertechnmologies have these 
huge sunk costs taht they cannot nake back.

>>I'm going to go on thinking that until something large hits me on
>>the head.
>
>How will you know when you have been so hit?
>
>

When, as they say, the house falls around my ears. I do read a bit in 
theare, NLR, MR, D&S, , S&S, maybe someone will say something that changes 
my mind. It has happened before.

jks

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Value talk

[Charles Brown]

Justin: A degenerating research program often doesn't have a single fatal flaw. It 
just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal 
problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I 
think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian 
value theory over the last century.



CB: We don't need new hypotheses and predictions and theories until we finish the 
project of overthrowing capitalism and initiating socialism. Theory for the sake of 
theory, generation of theory for only the sake of  theory is an especially bad idea in 
the historical sciences.

Re: Re: Re: : Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Justin wrote

>
>No doubt I am careless and illiterate, also lazy and stupid. I do 
>see how moral depreciation offers a theory of crisis.

yes you are right. It can play a role in a theory of crisis. But it 
not what I was trying to explain in terms of it if you are interested 
in conversing with me.



>  I don't seewhat value talk adds to it.

I don't understand how else to conceptualize moral depreciation. 
Perhaps the tradition to which you are committed does a good job by 
dealing with fixed capital as a joint product? I don't know. It is a 
genuine question.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>As I have shown here by restating the argument without reference to
>>>value, and as Brenner has shown in greater length, value does no
>>>work in this story.
>>
>>Have you followed any of the criticism of Brenner's theory?
>
>No. I have a full time nonacademic job and a family. Value theory, 
>and indeed crisis theory, is a distinct sideline interest for me.

Cmon Justin, you spent years thinking through value theory, and you 
have very strong opinions. In fact one could easily have the 
impression that you think value theorists are desperate and inward 
turning.


>  I'd rather think about legal positivism, democracy, or, closer to 
>home, judicial admissions under a 12(b)96) motion to dismiss. There 
>may be problems with Brenner's view, and it no doubt doesn't explain 
>everything. same with many views of Marx or anyone else. Still, I 
>think it is basically right.

Well these are all debates we had on LBO long before all the 
published critiques by Glick, Dumenil and others.  You were then on 
LBO; check the archive. We had this argument.

Upon first reading, I was saying very loudly and in no uncertain 
terms that Brenner was wrong to make competition the explanatorily 
fundamental variable; that fraticidal competition, break down of 
co-respective competition had to be explained in terms of 
difficulties in the production of surplus value for capital as a 
whole for that is what would slow down the rate of accumulation and 
therewith effective demand such that there would be violently 
competitively exclusive attempts to realize the surplus value that 
had been produced. Competition was result, not cause.

I said then that Brenner had no theory of why effective demand had 
proven insufficient for the realization of commodities at value. He 
won't take the underconsumption line from Bauer to Sweezy to Robinson 
to Devine.I (unsurprisingly) took a straight Grossmann line. Tony 
Smith recognized the force of such an argument a year later in 
Historical Materialism. Even Glick and Dumenil who had in their 
earlier work taken competition to be explanatorily fundmanetal found 
themselves challenging Brenner. Bonefeld, Lebowitz and many others 
have recognized the same problem.



>  As I say,I'm lazy and illiterate and careless when I do read, so 
>I'm going to go on thinking that until something large hits me on 
>the head.

How will you know when you have been so hit?

RB

Re: Re: : Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>From: Rakesh Bhandari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:22469] Re: : Value talk
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:46:46 -0800
>
>Justin writes:
>
>>. Or (2) (as Rakesh suggests) there is athe moral deprecaition line,
>>the idea that value explains crisis.
>
>
>Crisis is  explained on the basis of the law of value, not by
>reference to moral depreciation at all. In fact I did not suggest
>that moral depreciation explains crisis at all. I underlined that it
>helped to explain why machinery has not seemed to fufill its task of
>reducing the torment of labor. You simply are not reading carefully.
>And you haven't yet proposed an alternative set of concepts by which
>to understand moral depreciation.

No doubt I am careless and illiterate, also lazy and stupid. I do see how 
moral depreciation offers a theory of crisis. I don't seewhat value talk 
adds to it.


>
>
>>As I have shown here by restating the argument without reference to
>>value, and as Brenner has shown in greater length, value does no
>>work in this story.
>
>Have you followed any of the criticism of Brenner's theory?

No. I have a full time nonacademic job and a family. Value theory, and 
indeed crisis theory, is a distinct sideline interest for me. I'd rather 
think about legal positivism, democracy, or, closer to home, judicial 
admissions under a 12(b)96) motion to dismiss. There may be problems with 
Brenner's view, and it no doubt doesn't explain everything. same with many 
views of Marx or anyone else. Still, I think it is basically right. As I 
say,I'm lazy and illiterate and careless when I do read, so I'm going to go 
on thinking that until something large hits me on the head. Fortunately, you 
are here to keep the rest of the world on track.

jks

>>


_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: : Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Justin writes:

>. Or (2) (as Rakesh suggests) there is athe moral deprecaition line, 
>the idea that value explains crisis.


Crisis is  explained on the basis of the law of value, not by 
reference to moral depreciation at all. In fact I did not suggest 
that moral depreciation explains crisis at all. I underlined that it 
helped to explain why machinery has not seemed to fufill its task of 
reducing the torment of labor. You simply are not reading carefully. 
And you haven't yet proposed an alternative set of concepts by which 
to understand moral depreciation.


>As I have shown here by restating the argument without reference to 
>value, and as Brenner has shown in greater length, value does no 
>work in this story.

Have you followed any of the criticism of Brenner's theory?

There may be a great loss in moving from value theory's explanatory 
focus on the vertical relations of production, the relation of dead 
to living labor in the abode of production, to a focus on the 
horizontal relations among capitals in the realm of circulation;

there have been questions whether Brenner's repudiation of the wage 
squeeze explanation is consistent with his Okishio-inspired argument 
that a falling rate of profit does in fact require an increase in the 
real wage;

it's not clear that Brenner has been able to explain why 
overcompetition reduced mark ups more than costs;

it's not explained why effective demand becomes too weak for all 
commodities to be realized at value (again it seems to me that 
Brenner is implying that as a result of international competition the 
commodities of weaker capitals could not be realized at value, which 
seems to point in the way of protectionism, not workers' revolution; 
and leaves open the question of whether there are limits to 
accumulation even on the assumption that all commodities can be 
realized at value);

it's not sufficiently elaborated why the exit of inefficient capitals 
has been so prolonged ; the US competitive position--especially in 
those industries that James Galbraith defines as high value, that is 
a high ratio of profits, wages, and salaries to worker--was 
maintained or regained with the dollar picking up and wages high 
(especially in those high value industries), so there are empirical 
problems with Brenner's account of the sources of the renewed 
strength of US capital in particular.

This is just what I remember from our previous exchanges. I am not 
even looking at the file I have on this second Brenner debate.


rb

Re: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>Justin writes in regard to moral depreciation:
>
>>. I don't see why the LTV has to be true to explain this. I have
>>never denied, nor does the the most orthodox bourgeois economist,
>>that if you can save labor costs by adopting a new production
>>technique, that people who have sunk costs in onld labor intensive
>>production techniques are going to have trouble making money. But we
>>don't have to talk about value, least of do we have to say that
>>value is a quantity measured by SNALT.
>>
>>
>
>But you just described the whole loss from moral depreciation in
>terms of labor, though not SNALT.

This is short hand. What capitalists pay for in labor costs is (as Marx 
showed) labor power expended over a period of time. They seek to reduce the 
amount of time by technological improvement and enhance theactual labor 
output from the laobor power they purchase by increasing exploitation. I 
don't think, apart from the use of the word "exploitation," that Friedman or 
Hayek or Samuelson would raise an eyebrow at this formulation. And why does 
it concede the LTV to say this?

jks



_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>Karl: Dountlessly Justin can say what he likes. However that is neither 
>here nor there and of no political or ideological significance. That Justin 
>thinks otherwise is neither here nor there too.  . . . >It is not enough to 
>claim that capitalism is exploitative. It must be explained how it is 
>exploitative. Marx did just that. By establishing the limits of the value 
>form itself and the value form in the specific form of capital he made a 
>great contribution to the development of communism.
>

I agree, but he didn't need to use value to do it, or, if he did, that is a 
ladder we can now kick away (and should). We should because, as I have 
explained, value is a fifth wheel, we can say that cap is exploitative, 
i.e., explain why, without using the LTV, and, moreover, we cannot really 
explain why it is using the LTV, because of the well-known problems with 
that theory.

The defenses I have seen here mainly amount to two sorts: either (1) acking 
off from the specific quantitative commits and saying that the LTV is just a 
way of reminding us that commodities are the products of labor. That is true 
and important, but we don't needto posit a quantity that (on this approach) 
has no determinate value (i.e., value in the sense of being able to put a 
number on it) to say say this. Or (2) (as Rakesh suggests) there is athe 
moral deprecaition line, the idea that value explains crisis. As I have 
shown here by restating the argument without reference to value, and as 
Brenner has shown in greater length, value does no work in this story.

It is of course of no political significance what I say. Nor you, Karl 
Carlile, nor any of us, singlely. Many stones can build an arch, singlely 
none, singlely none.

jks

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[miyachi]

on 2/6/02 04:02 AM, Karl Carlile at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> JKS: Rubbish. We can say, as I do, that capitalsim is exploitative, unfair,
> and 
> unnecessary, and needs to be replaced, without adiopting a value framework.
> Not adopting that framework does not stuck us with demanding only higher
> wages.
> 
> Karl: Dountlessly Justin can say what he likes. However that is neither here
> nor there and of no political or ideological significance. That Justin thinks
> otherwise is neither here nor there too. Marx through the value form was able
> to establish the historical limits of capital and the historical need for
> communism. Capital is an exposition of the historical obsolesence of
> capitalism. It is this that means the conditions for communism exist. With
> Capital Marx demonstrated the objective necessity of capitalims. He
> demonstrated that the struggle for communism is not a merely subjective
> crusade based on subjectivist ethics and morality.
> 
> It is not enough to claim that capitalism is exploitative. It must be
> explained how it is exploitative. Marx did just that. By establishing the
> limits of the value form itself and the value form in the specific form of
> capital he made a great contribution to the development of communism.
> 
> Regards
> Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group)
> Be free to join our communism mailing list
> at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/


> Sir Karl Carlile


MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre.
JAPAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Marx proved not only exploitative, but also ability of working class to
abolish civil society. exploitation existed every times. But in capitalist
exploitation, characteristic is growing opposite power to build.
Below is from "Capital" In this line, later Marx overcame "crisis theory"
and became close to ongoing social movements itself.
"How it is exploitative" is not problem. It was already explained in capital
production. 


"This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of
capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One
capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this
expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending
scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical
application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the
transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only
usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as
means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all
peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international
character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing
number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages
of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression,
slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of
the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined,
united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist
production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of
production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it.
Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last
reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist
integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist
private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.
"
And In Capital?

$B!I(JThis surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value
exists as a surplus-product. Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed
over and above the given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist
as well as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form
and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite
quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and
by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in
keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population,
which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one
of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in
a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development
of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements
for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery,
serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which
coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material
and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the
other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and
embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to
combine this surplus-labour with a greater redu

Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Justin writes in regard to moral depreciation:

>. I don't see why the LTV has to be true to explain this. I have 
>never denied, nor does the the most orthodox bourgeois economist, 
>that if you can save labor costs by adopting a new production 
>technique, that people who have sunk costs in onld labor intensive 
>production techniques are going to have trouble making money. But we 
>don't have to talk about value, least of do we have to say that 
>value is a quantity measured by SNALT.
>
>

But you just described the whole loss from moral depreciation in 
terms of labor, though not SNALT. The question is not whether the 
phenomenon is recognized but the adequacy of concepts to grasp it. I 
don't understand your alternative.

As a result of moral depreciation, the older means of production as 
use values have not changed; nor has the concrete labor embodied 
therein changed. What changes is the the aliquot of homogeneous, 
social, and abstract labor time represented by those means. The key 
here is the duality of labor--Marx's key discovery.

So here is one answer as to why the means of production are in fact 
not merely use values or physical inputs but values.

Let me  say as a side note that Marx begins with inputs as neither 
physical goods nor values. He begins with invested money capital, the 
money invested as constant and variable capital, and refers to that 
monetary sum as the cost prices of commodities. Marx's theory is thus 
closer to Keynes' monetary theory of production than it is to 
Sraffa's technical input-output matrix.

  Shane Mage, Paul Mattick Jr, Guglielmo Carchedi and Fred M all point 
out that it's a misconception that Marx's inputs are in the form of 
values; the c and v columns in his transformation tables indicate 
invested sums of money capital which needs to be valorized.  Again: 
for Marx a given precondition in his transformation tables are  the 
very cost prices that indicate a sum of money that has already been 
laid out. It makes no less to call for the transformation of a sum of 
money that has already been laid out. The idea that Marx's 
transformation tables have to be completed is based on a 
misconception of what the given precondition is in the circuit of 
capital--which is of course the initial M.  Which is not to say that 
there isn't a mistake in Marx's transformation tables, but it's not 
that sum of money invested as constant and variable capital has to be 
(or could conceivably be) retroactively transformed.

Rakesh

Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Karl Carlile]

JKS: Rubbish. We can say, as I do, that capitalsim is exploitative, unfair, and 
unnecessary, and needs to be replaced, without adiopting a value framework. 
Not adopting that framework does not stuck us with demanding only higher 
wages.

Karl: Dountlessly Justin can say what he likes. However that is neither here nor there 
and of no political or ideological significance. That Justin thinks otherwise is 
neither here nor there too. Marx through the value form was able to establish the 
historical limits of capital and the historical need for communism. Capital is an 
exposition of the historical obsolesence of capitalism. It is this that means the 
conditions for communism exist. With Capital Marx demonstrated the objective necessity 
of capitalims. He demonstrated that the struggle for communism is not a merely 
subjective crusade based on subjectivist ethics and morality. 

It is not enough to claim that capitalism is exploitative. It must be explained how it 
is exploitative. Marx did just that. By establishing the limits of the value form 
itself and the value form in the specific form of capital he made a great contribution 
to the development of communism.

Regards
Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group)
Be free to join our communism mailing list 
at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>>I thought I was pretty mild.
>
>Referring to your interlocutor as desperate and inward turning is
>clearly not mild,

I refereed to the theory that way, and not to any of its advocates.

but I suspect that I shall be blamed for the
>rancor
>on the list as I was supposed to take the heat for Paul Phillips'
>explosion.

Far as I can tell everyone's being uncommonly civil.

>>note that I raised the question whether and how any
>>>theory
>>>other than labor value makes sense of moral depreciation and the
>>>paradoxes to which it gives rise. You give no reply.
>>
>>Haven't really thought about it.
>
>but this was my reply to your query.

Well, I still haven't thought about it.

Yes of course the input means
>of
>production
>can be said to embody/represent indirect and direct labor time, you
>concede, but why does this make them values, you seemed to ask.
>
>And my reply was that their character as values is revealed by the
>threat that they will undergo moral depreciation, i.e., come to
>represent less socially necessary abstract labor time, and the
>compulsion the ruling class puts on the working class to consume them
>before they are morally depreciated.

Ah, I guess I have thought about it, not under that description. I don't see 
why the LTV has to be true to explain this. I have never denied, nor does 
the the most orthodox bourgeois economist, that if you can save labor costs 
by adopting a new production technique, that people who have sunk costs in 
onld labor intensive production techniques are going to have trouble making 
money. But we don't have to talk about value, least of do we have to say 
that value is a quantity measured by SNALT.


>>Does Brenner agree that he does not use value theory? As far as I
>can
>see, he is in part saying that the full value of commodities could
>not be realized due to international competition. But Marx's crisis
>theory is able to explain the onset of crisis even when demand is
>strong enough for commodities to be realized at their full value.
>
>

Why don;y you ask him? But read him! If he does use it, it's well-hideen. 
This supports my view that value is a fifth wheel.

jks

_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>
>I thought I was pretty mild.

Referring to your interlocutor as desperate and inward turning is 
clearly not mild, but I suspect that I shall be blamed for the rancor 
on the list as I was supposed to take the heat for Paul Phillips' 
explosion.


>
>>
>>Moreover, note that I raised the question whether and how any theory
>>other than labor value makes sense of moral depreciation and the
>>paradoxes to which it gives rise. You give no reply.
>
>Haven't really thought about it.

but this was my reply to your query. Yes of course the input means of 
production
can be said to embody/represent indirect and direct labor time, you 
concede, but why does this make them values, you seemed to ask.

And my reply was that their character as values is revealed by the 
threat that they will undergo moral depreciation, i.e., come to 
represent less socially necessary abstract labor time, and the 
compulsion the ruling class puts on the working class to consume them 
before they are morally depreciated.

This is how Marx explains what puzzled JS Mill:  the best tools for 
the reduction of labor become unfailing means for the prolongation 
and intensification of the working day. Marx explains this puzzle by 
understanding these means of production as values-in-process, not 
simply given technical conditions of production.


>>
>
>A fallacy: Your theory preducts that there will crises. The theory 
>posits X. There are crises. So X exists. I have argued, however, 
>that the main lines of the theoey can be reconstituted without X and 
>still give us the same results.

You're not reading carefully. The theory explains both the recurrence 
of general, protracted crises and the means by which they are 
overcome. The law of value thus pits so called orthodox Marxists 
against underconsumptionist social democrats.



>  Also, I note that Marxisn crisis theory is highly underdeveloped, 
>and IMHO the best version of it, Brenner's, does not use value 
>theory. Anyway, I'm plum tuckered out.

Does Brenner agree that he does not use value theory? As far as I can 
see, he is in part saying that the full value of commodities could 
not be realized due to international competition. But Marx's crisis 
theory is able to explain the onset of crisis even when demand is 
strong enough for commodities to be realized at their full value.

rb

Value talk

[Charles Brown]

 Value talk
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 15:30 UTC  

R, I think we have reached the point of diminishing marginal returns. I 
agree with Fred Guy: the work on the LTV for a century has been a  
desperate, inward-turning attempt tos how that it can be made coherent in 
the face of increasing masses of fatal objections, and it's not doing real 
work. It's at most a heuristic for--and not exaplantrion of--the importsnt 
points you make, that commodities are the products of labor, and that any 
society has to make large scale decsiions about hwo to divide up its 
socially necessary labor. But I think we have a stand off here, and probably 
should move on. jks

^^

CB: This sounds like a parting shot in the form of a religious incantation that is not 
supported by the evidence of the last century:  "LTV no work. LTV no work. LTV no 
work..."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>Justin, you expect us to move on after you characterize my attempts
>as inward turning--this is exactly what the Marxian law of value is
>not!

Well, I'm out of energy, anyway.

And these are not the points I am after, as should be clear to
>you after years of debate. There is a willful ignorance on your part
>that is disturbing to say the least. You are trivializing what the
>law of value is meant to explain so that you can walk away from it
>without loss. This is in fact dishonest.

So shoot me.

>
>And please do not use the hot and heavy rhetoric

I thought I was pretty mild.

unless you can
>explicitly name the fatal objection.  We were dealing with the
>redundancy charge which even if true is not by any means a fatal
>objection, for all it shows in itself is that calculation by value is
>inconvenient and derivative.

A degenerating research program often doesn't have a single fatal flaw. It 
just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal 
problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I 
think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian 
value theory over the last century.

>
>Or do you really think GA Cohen's piece on the labor theory of value
>is definitive?

I think it's a perfect disaster. his absolute worst piece, showing 
inexplicable and appalling ignorance of fundamental issues.

>
>Moreover, note that I raised the question whether and how any theory
>other than labor value makes sense of moral depreciation and the
>paradoxes to which it gives rise. You give no reply.

Haven't really thought about it.

>
>And we need to be clear yet another thing. Freudianism and Marxism
>would clearly be falsifiable if people were not to act irrationally
>and capitalist development were to crisis free, respectively.

? Anyway, falsifiability is not my thing. I'm a pragmatist, not a Popperian. 
Fruitfulness is my thing. The LTV isn't fruitful.

>
>As Grossmann demonstrated, the law of value finds its confirmation
>not only in the recurrence of general, protracted crises but in its
>accurate prediction of (and specification of) the kinds of
>techno-organizational changes that are needed by both individual
>capitals and the capitalist class-as-a-whole for an exit from crises
>of a general and protracted type.
>
>The law of value which was applied by Mattick Sr to the accumulation
>of fictitious capital in the form of govt debt was confirmed by mixed
>economy going up in stagflationary ashes and  by the limits of
>Keynesian intervention since then.
>
>The law of value is not confirmed at the level of exchange ratios but
>rather more like the law of gravity is confirmed when a house falls
>on one's head.
>

A fallacy: Your theory preducts that there will crises. The theory posits X. 
There are crises. So X exists. I have argued, however, that the main lines 
of the theoey can be reconstituted without X and still give us the same 
results. Also, I note that Marxisn crisis theory is highly underdeveloped, 
and IMHO the best version of it, Brenner's, does not use value theory. 
Anyway, I'm plum tuckered out.

jks

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>R, I think we have reached the point of diminishing marginal 
>returns. I agree with Fred Guy: the work on the LTV for a century 
>has been a  desperate, inward-turning attempt tos how that it can be 
>made coherent in the face of increasing masses of fatal objections, 
>and it's not doing real work. It's at most a heuristic for--and not 
>exaplantrion of--the importsnt points you make, that commodities are 
>the products of labor, and that any society has to make large scale 
>decsiions about hwo to divide up its socially necessary labor. But I 
>think we have a stand off here, and probably should move on. jks

Justin, you expect us to move on after you characterize my attempts 
as inward turning--this is exactly what the Marxian law of value is 
not! And these are not the points I am after, as should be clear to 
you after years of debate. There is a willful ignorance on your part 
that is disturbing to say the least. You are trivializing what the 
law of value is meant to explain so that you can walk away from it 
without loss. This is in fact dishonest.

And please do not use the hot and heavy rhetoric unless you can 
explicitly name the fatal objection.  We were dealing with the 
redundancy charge which even if true is not by any means a fatal 
objection, for all it shows in itself is that calculation by value is 
inconvenient and derivative. Even Sen doesn't think much of the 
charge on which you seem focused.  You have yourself killed no thing 
in this discussion.

Or do you really think GA Cohen's piece on the labor theory of value 
is definitive?

Moreover, note that I raised the question whether and how any theory 
other than labor value makes sense of moral depreciation and the 
paradoxes to which it gives rise. You give no reply.

And we need to be clear yet another thing. Freudianism and Marxism 
would clearly be falsifiable if people were not to act irrationally 
and capitalist development were to crisis free, respectively.

As Grossmann demonstrated, the law of value finds its confirmation 
not only in the recurrence of general, protracted crises but in its 
accurate prediction of (and specification of) the kinds of 
techno-organizational changes that are needed by both individual 
capitals and the capitalist class-as-a-whole for an exit from crises 
of a general and protracted type.

The law of value which was applied by Mattick Sr to the accumulation 
of fictitious capital in the form of govt debt was confirmed by mixed 
economy going up in stagflationary ashes and  by the limits of 
Keynesian intervention since then.

The law of value is not confirmed at the level of exchange ratios but 
rather more like the law of gravity is confirmed when a house falls 
on one's head.

Rakesh

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

R, I think we have reached the point of diminishing marginal returns. I 
agree with Fred Guy: the work on the LTV for a century has been a  
desperate, inward-turning attempt tos how that it can be made coherent in 
the face of increasing masses of fatal objections, and it's not doing real 
work. It's at most a heuristic for--and not exaplantrion of--the importsnt 
points you make, that commodities are the products of labor, and that any 
society has to make large scale decsiions about hwo to divide up its 
socially necessary labor. But I think we have a stand off here, and probably 
should move on. jks

>
>Justin,
>a short reply.
>
>  the disallowing of qualitative change in outputs and inputs and
>setting them equal in price by assumption seems to make analysis
>inherently static. This is why these assumptions are hotly contested.
>
>>>
>>
>>As far as I can tell, this is just a way of reminding us that any
>>commodities out there are the product of labor, an important point,
>>but npt necessarily one concerning value.
>
>yes Shaikh is reminding us that inputs do not magically become
>outputs without the toil and misery of real labor. There is no
>production of things by things. There are outputs because labor has
>been materialized therein. And the outputs that we have both in
>variety and quantity are those that have proven to be socially
>necessary in and through exchange wherein the expansion of value is
>culminated. The technical conditions of production do not themselves
>yield a surplus and the technical conditions are themselves
>determined socially:  Value--socially necessary labor
>time--determines the technical conditions of production
>
>
>
>>
>>Thus both 'inputs' and 'outputs' are the
>>>use forms of materialized value, and we can they say that in the
>>>*real* process it is values that determine the physical production
>>>data...
>>
>>That's very fast. Why are these "determined" by "value," SNALT,
>>merely because they are produced by labor over a period of time?
>
>
>The input means of production are not values simply because they were
>produced by labor-- my home cooked pooris are not values. The input
>mop are values because they proved to have represented socially
>necessary abstract labor time in that they  ex-changed for money at
>the commencement of the circuit of capital.
>
>
>  Yet though values, the means of production do not automatically
>transfer their value to the output; any idle time  threatens the
>moral depreciation of those means of production--such that they will
>represent a lesser quantity of socially necessary abstract labor
>time. The very threat of moral depreciation underlines that we are
>not dealing with a technical process, plain and simple, but a social
>process in and through which socially necessary labor time is
>determined.
>
>As John Ernst recently pointed out, it is the ongoing threat of moral
>depreciation--that is, the loss of the value of the means of
>production--that compels capitalists to agonise the working class;
>the most powerful means for the reduction of toil and trouble become
>the surest way of prolonging and intensifying the working day.
>
>Without the theory of value we are are not conceptually prepared to
>understand the most disturbing paradoxes of capitalist development.
>
>Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Pearson after all thought that he could develop a purely
>>>descriptive/phenomenalist theory of heredity by making linking the
>>>character of an individual through regression equations to the
>>>average character of each ancestral generation.
>>
>>I don't knwo what Sraffa had in mine, but that isn't my interest.
>>However the quanities I want to posit should exist and be useful.
>>
>>>
>>>Similarly I am saying that the physical production data do not
>>>themselves determine the profit rate, though they can be used to
>>>calculate it.
>>
>>But you, and Shaikh, have shown that SNALT does determine it.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do we need references to genes when we can quantitatively link
>>>generations with data of ancentral heredity? Why do we need labor
>>>value when we can calculate the profit rate with data of physical
>>>production alone?
>>>
>>>It is in the interests of realistically grasping the actual process
>>>that our theories should refer to genes and labor value.
>>>
>>>Justin, I would think then that your commitment to realism (at least
>>>at levels above the subatomic one) would have you argue in favor the
>>>theory of labor value?
>>>
>>
>>Well, I'll even be a quantum realist if someone shows us how. Maybe
>>the many worlds interpretation is true. But my realism is a
>>Arthur-Finean, case-by-case, pragmatic realism; I'll quantify over
>>whatever our best science says there is. I'm not convinced that our
>>best science says the LTV is true, or that SNALT by itself
>>determines prices and profits.
>>
>>jks
>>
>>_
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
>>http://e

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Justin,
a short reply.

  the disallowing of qualitative change in outputs and inputs and 
setting them equal in price by assumption seems to make analysis 
inherently static. This is why these assumptions are hotly contested.

>>
>
>As far as I can tell, this is just a way of reminding us that any 
>commodities out there are the product of labor, an important point, 
>but npt necessarily one concerning value.

yes Shaikh is reminding us that inputs do not magically become 
outputs without the toil and misery of real labor. There is no 
production of things by things. There are outputs because labor has 
been materialized therein. And the outputs that we have both in 
variety and quantity are those that have proven to be socially 
necessary in and through exchange wherein the expansion of value is 
culminated. The technical conditions of production do not themselves 
yield a surplus and the technical conditions are themselves 
determined socially:  Value--socially necessary labor 
time--determines the technical conditions of production



>
>Thus both 'inputs' and 'outputs' are the
>>use forms of materialized value, and we can they say that in the
>>*real* process it is values that determine the physical production
>>data...
>
>That's very fast. Why are these "determined" by "value," SNALT, 
>merely because they are produced by labor over a period of time?


The input means of production are not values simply because they were 
produced by labor-- my home cooked pooris are not values. The input 
mop are values because they proved to have represented socially 
necessary abstract labor time in that they  ex-changed for money at 
the commencement of the circuit of capital.


  Yet though values, the means of production do not automatically 
transfer their value to the output; any idle time  threatens the 
moral depreciation of those means of production--such that they will 
represent a lesser quantity of socially necessary abstract labor 
time. The very threat of moral depreciation underlines that we are 
not dealing with a technical process, plain and simple, but a social 
process in and through which socially necessary labor time is 
determined.

As John Ernst recently pointed out, it is the ongoing threat of moral 
depreciation--that is, the loss of the value of the means of 
production--that compels capitalists to agonise the working class; 
the most powerful means for the reduction of toil and trouble become 
the surest way of prolonging and intensifying the working day.

Without the theory of value we are are not conceptually prepared to 
understand the most disturbing paradoxes of capitalist development.

Rakesh





>
>>
>>
>>Pearson after all thought that he could develop a purely
>>descriptive/phenomenalist theory of heredity by making linking the
>>character of an individual through regression equations to the
>>average character of each ancestral generation.
>
>I don't knwo what Sraffa had in mine, but that isn't my interest. 
>However the quanities I want to posit should exist and be useful.
>
>>
>>Similarly I am saying that the physical production data do not
>>themselves determine the profit rate, though they can be used to
>>calculate it.
>
>But you, and Shaikh, have shown that SNALT does determine it.
>
>>
>>
>>Why do we need references to genes when we can quantitatively link
>>generations with data of ancentral heredity? Why do we need labor
>>value when we can calculate the profit rate with data of physical
>>production alone?
>>
>>It is in the interests of realistically grasping the actual process
>>that our theories should refer to genes and labor value.
>>
>>Justin, I would think then that your commitment to realism (at least
>>at levels above the subatomic one) would have you argue in favor the
>>theory of labor value?
>>
>
>Well, I'll even be a quantum realist if someone shows us how. Maybe 
>the many worlds interpretation is true. But my realism is a 
>Arthur-Finean, case-by-case, pragmatic realism; I'll quantify over 
>whatever our best science says there is. I'm not convinced that our 
>best science says the LTV is true, or that SNALT by itself 
>determines prices and profits.
>
>jks
>
>_
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>Justin,
>
>Let me leave aside problems with this alternative neo Ricardian
>method, e.g., it assumes no qualitative differences between output
>and inputs and no adverse natural shock to gross output (bad harvest)

Why aren't these routine simplifications?


>so that the assumption of input prices=output prices can be safely
>made and the number of equations thereby reduced to the number of
>unknowns, though this puts the whole system in the straightjacket of
>inherently static linear equations as  John Ernst, Alan Freeman,
>Paolo Giusanni have argued.

However, instead better, more dynamic equations, some of the proponebts of 
Marxiana value theory here have been offering us a "holsitic approach" in 
which value plays some sory of central definition role. Thats' an 
improvement?

>
>But let's leave that aside, and let us say that we can work from the
>data of physical production and the real wage.
>
>Now we are told that it is possible to calculate an equilibrium
>profit rate and a equilibrium, uniform profit rate from that data
>alone without making mention, much less giving centrality, to labor
>value. And in carrying out these calculations we will find that
>(a)the concept of the productivity of capital is incoherent, thereby
>fatally undermining the justification of non labor income and (b)that
>the system cannot be solved and closed unless the class struggle over
>income distribution is determined exogeneously--that is, through
>political struggle.

Yes, and?
>
>
>While the gains of Marxist theory are thereby preserved, the
>advantages of doing without labor value are presumably
>
>(i) anti metaphysical--no reference to labor value that cannot be
>seen underneath prices and physical production data (though the idea
>that social labor time is meta-physical would surely not occur to
>those who engage in it)
>
>(ii) parsimony--why needlessly multiply the number of entities used in a 
>theory
>
>(iii) anti obscurantism--ability to move beyond presumably
>obscrurantist defenses of Marx's transformation procedure which is
>indeed hopelessly flawed except in the most bizarre cases--identical
>compositions for all all capitals, the economy is on the von Neumann
>ray, etc.
>
>In short, the theory of labor value is excess baggage which the
>working class can no longer afford to carry.

Nicely put.

>
>Now let us say that we can calculate prices and profits from data of
>physical production alone.
>
>But again I think you are mixing up calculation with determination.
>
>
>Let me requote Shaikh since you may have missed this passage in the
>barrage of criticism that you have received:
>
>
>
>"Notice how often the word 'determines' crops up: the physical
>production data *determine* values, and in conjunction with the real
>wage, also *determine* prices of production. but what determiens the
>physical production data. In Marx, the answer is clear : it is the
>labor process. It is human productive activity, the actual
>performance of labour, that transforms 'inputs' into 'outputs', and
>it is only when labor is sucessful at all that we have any 'physical
>production data' at all. Moreover, if the labour process is a process
>of producing commodities, then it one in which value is materialized
>in the form of use values.

As far as I can tell, this is just a way of reminding us that any 
commodities out there are the product of labor, an important point, but npt 
necessarily one concerning value.

Thus both 'inputs' and 'outputs' are the
>use forms of materialized value, and we can they say that in the
>*real* process it is values that determine the physical production
>data...

That's very fast. Why are these "determined" by "value," SNALT, merely 
because they are produced by labor over a period of time?

>
>
>Pearson after all thought that he could develop a purely
>descriptive/phenomenalist theory of heredity by making linking the
>character of an individual through regression equations to the
>average character of each ancestral generation.

I don't knwo what Sraffa had in mine, but that isn't my interest. However 
the quanities I want to posit should exist and be useful.

>
>Similarly I am saying that the physical production data do not
>themselves determine the profit rate, though they can be used to
>calculate it.

But you, and Shaikh, have shown that SNALT does determine it.

>
>
>Why do we need references to genes when we can quantitatively link
>generations with data of ancentral heredity? Why do we need labor
>value when we can calculate the profit rate with data of physical
>production alone?
>
>It is in the interests of realistically grasping the actual process
>that our theories should refer to genes and labor value.
>
>Justin, I would think then that your commitment to realism (at least
>at levels above the subatomic one) would have you argue in favor the
>theory of labor value?
>

Well, I'll even be a quantum realist if someone shows us how. Maybe the many 
worlds interpretation is true. But 

Re: Re: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

thinking in terms of value allows us to discover the objective
>basis.
>
>Karl: Yes. This is precisely the problem with the radical left on the
>Argentinian crisis. They confine politics to the limits of price and
>wages. Instead transcending those bourgeois limits to the real limits
>that entail critique they steadfastly confine themselves to the level of
>reformism which reflects itself in their vulgar political economy: more
>wages and more money. Value relations is the only basis for critique of
>capitalism. >

Rubbish. We can say, as I do, that capitalsim is exploitative, unfair, and 
unnecessary, and needs to be replaced, without adiopting a value framework. 
Not adopting that framework does not stuck us with demanding only higher 
wages.

jks

_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Re: Value Talk

[Justin Schwartz]

>" ... if you want to point out that there's exploitation going on. you
>don't need the
>  LTV to do this"
>
>
>I'm not entirely sure why one would merely want to point out that
>exploitation
>is going on in capitalist society.

Because it's true?

 > In theory, it seems to me that this is
>a static
>approach to reality.   In practice, most people who work would say--Fine.
>Exploit me.
>But I'll  settle for a steady job with good pay.

It's an old joke that the only think that is worse in capitalist society 
than being exploited is not being exploited. But I think there is a lot of 
political dynamite in the charge that exploitation is going on, that the 
capitalists take what workers produce and give nothing in return. Marx 
thought so too, or he wouldn't have made the point at such length.
>
>What Marx attempts  . . . >Thus, workers are never offered that steady job 
>with good pay.
>


This is important too, although workers also knwo that they lack job 
security. Anyway, as Brenner shows, you can also restate Marxian crisis 
theory without value talk.

jks


_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: Re: Re: Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>
>A reasonable objection. Actually I don't think it's uninteresting, 
>but I don't think the way it gets deployed in Capital is ultimately 
>useful or necessary. I do think that it plays an important role, but 
>not an exclusive one, in explaining the dynamics of market 
>economies; Marx treated the centarlity of value so understood as 
>definitional. I think this use is undermined not only by the fact 
>that (as ANrx acknowledges) this is a very extreme idealization 
>useful for a particular purpose at best, but more importantly by the 
>fact that you can do what needs to be done without it, and sticking 
>to the definition leads you into the sterile debates about how toi 
>save theexclusivity and centrality of value that have haunted 
>Marxisn political economy ever since.

Justin,

Let me leave aside problems with this alternative neo Ricardian 
method, e.g., it assumes no qualitative differences between output 
and inputs and no adverse natural shock to gross output (bad harvest) 
so that the assumption of input prices=output prices can be safely 
made and the number of equations thereby reduced to the number of 
unknowns, though this puts the whole system in the straightjacket of 
inherently static linear equations as  John Ernst, Alan Freeman, 
Paolo Giusanni have argued.

But let's leave that aside, and let us say that we can work from the 
data of physical production and the real wage.

Now we are told that it is possible to calculate an equilibrium 
profit rate and a equilibrium, uniform profit rate from that data 
alone without making mention, much less giving centrality, to labor 
value. And in carrying out these calculations we will find that 
(a)the concept of the productivity of capital is incoherent, thereby 
fatally undermining the justification of non labor income and (b)that 
the system cannot be solved and closed unless the class struggle over 
income distribution is determined exogeneously--that is, through 
political struggle.


While the gains of Marxist theory are thereby preserved, the 
advantages of doing without labor value are presumably

(i) anti metaphysical--no reference to labor value that cannot be 
seen underneath prices and physical production data (though the idea 
that social labor time is meta-physical would surely not occur to 
those who engage in it)

(ii) parsimony--why needlessly multiply the number of entities used in a theory

(iii) anti obscurantism--ability to move beyond presumably 
obscrurantist defenses of Marx's transformation procedure which is 
indeed hopelessly flawed except in the most bizarre cases--identical 
compositions for all all capitals, the economy is on the von Neumann 
ray, etc.

In short, the theory of labor value is excess baggage which the 
working class can no longer afford to carry.

Now let us say that we can calculate prices and profits from data of 
physical production alone.

But again I think you are mixing up calculation with determination.


Let me requote Shaikh since you may have missed this passage in the 
barrage of criticism that you have received:



"Notice how often the word 'determines' crops up: the physical 
production data *determine* values, and in conjunction with the real 
wage, also *determine* prices of production. but what determiens the 
physical production data. In Marx, the answer is clear : it is the 
labor process. It is human productive activity, the actual 
performance of labour, that transforms 'inputs' into 'outputs', and 
it is only when labor is sucessful at all that we have any 'physical 
production data' at all. Moreover, if the labour process is a process 
of producing commodities, then it one in which value is materialized 
in the form of use values. Thus both 'inputs' and 'outputs' are the 
use forms of materialized value, and we can they say that in the 
*real* process it is values that determine the physical production 
data...The physical *data* are then a conceptual summary of the real 
determination, and if we then use the data to conceptually 
*calculate* values, we only capture in thought their real magnitudes. 
Such a calculation no more determines these values than does the 
calculation of the mass of the earth determine determine either the 
earth or its mass. It merely recognizes what already exists. This is 
a fundamental point in a a materialist view of the world, and the 80 
year failure of the neo Ricardians to distinguish real and conceputal 
determination reveals their long attachment to the idealist method" 
p. 280-1 the Value Controversy, ed. Steedman.

This may now turn out at all, but this reminds me a bit of the 
argument between Pearsonians and Mendelians.


Pearson after all thought that he could develop a purely 
descriptive/phenomenalist theory of heredity by making linking the 
character of an individual through regression equations to the 
average character of each ancestral generation.

Once the coefficients had been empirically established, a Pearson 
could calculate

Value Talk

[John Ernst]

" ... if you want to point out that there's exploitation going on. you
don't need the
 LTV to do this"


I'm not entirely sure why one would merely want to point out that
exploitation 
is going on in capitalist society.  In theory, it seems to me that this is
a static 
approach to reality.   In practice, most people who work would say--Fine.
Exploit me.
But I'll  settle for a steady job with good pay.

What Marx attempts  to show is that in the process of creating new value,
already 
existing value in the form of  fixed  capital is destroyed.   It is this
destruction 
of value that makes increasing the degree of exploration a capitalist
imperative.  
If a capitalist can make a 20% return using a new machine, then those with
older 
machines making, say 15%, can only minimize the amount they must  write-off
by 
exploiting their workers more efficiently.   At the same time, the 20%
fellows 
can't rest easy as their machines may face the same fate in the not so
distant future.  
Thus, workers are never offered that steady job with good pay.  

Re: Value talk

[Karl Carlile]

Yoshie: I agree with Rakesh.  One of the points of thinking in terms of
value
is, I think, to overcome the limit of economism.  That is, thinking
in terms of prices & wages alone can only tell us how one segment of
workers fare in comparison to others, as well as whether the
purchasing power of individual workers _as consumers_ is going up or
down.  Thought in terms of prices & wages, lower wages for other
segments of workers may seem good to you, as they allow your segment
to command more products & services created by them.  Thought in
terms of value, however, lower wages for other segments of workers
essentially cheapen the value of your segment's labor power.  Thus,
even though your real wages as well as nominal wages are going up,
you may be still losing out to the class that exploit you.  Thought
only in terms of wages & prices (terms of market competition), there
is no objective basis for solidarity across barriers (occupational
categories, national borders, productive vs. unproductive labor,
races, genders, etc.) that separate different segments of workers,
but thinking in terms of value allows us to discover the objective
basis.

Karl: Yes. This is precisely the problem with the radical left on the
Argentinian crisis. They confine politics to the limits of price and
wages. Instead transcending those bourgeois limits to the real limits
that entail critique they steadfastly confine themselves to the level of
reformism which reflects itself in their vulgar political economy: more
wages and more money. Value relations is the only basis for critique of
capitalism. Value relations is the theoretical basis for revolutionary
communist programmatic action --not prices and wages.

Regards
Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group)
Be free to join our communism mailing list
at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/

Re: Re: Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

Why? The question is, what work does this alleged quantity do?
>>>
>>>Are you saying social labor time is alleged quantity like centaurs?
>>>Or are you asking me what does labor in fact do?
>>>
>>
>>No, the quantity exists, but so does the quantity that consists of
>>the average ifference between the heights of all red haired malew
>>orkers and all blue eyed women bosses. The latter quantity is not
>>theoretically interesting.
>
>so social labor time would be so trivial to whom exactly?

A reasonable objection. Actually I don't think it's uninteresting, but I 
don't think the way it gets deployed in Capital is ultimately useful or 
necessary. I do think that it plays an important role, but not an exclusive 
one, in explaining the dynamics of market economies; Marx treated the 
centarlity of value so understood as definitional. I think this use is 
undermined not only by the fact that (as ANrx acknowledges) this is a very 
extreme idealization useful for a particular purpose at best, but more 
importantly by the fact that you can do what needs to be done without it, 
and sticking to the definition leads you into the sterile debates about how 
toi save theexclusivity and centrality of value that have haunted Marxisn 
political economy ever since.
>
>>  It does no real theoretical work. .
>
>Of course value and value form do real theoretical work by
>
>
>(1) keeping our focus on social, cooperative labor and its
>specifically bourgeois form;

But do we need the LTV for this purpose? I don't deny that at certain level 
of abstraction it's a useful hueristic. Butif you want to point out that 
there's exploitation going on. you don't need the LTV to do this,

>
>
>(2)giving descriptive focus to the laboring activity of the working
>class and the class relation of who labors for whom (who but a
>technocrat would care that it may be more convenient for him to
>calculate prices and profit rates from the technical conditions
>alone, and even if this is possible, it does not mean that it is not
>meaningful to say that so called equilibrium prices and profit rates
>are not determined by labor simply because the use of labor
>magnitudes may not be needed to *calculate* them given available
>technical data, but what or who other than labor--Shaikh has
>asked--has determined and put in place the supposedly given technical
>conditions which allow for the direct calculation of prices and
>profits?

This is a big sentence and I am not sure I understand it. Sure, labor 
creates the technical conditions. Sure, whatever useful things trade as 
commodities are created by labor. Is your point, though, that we don't want 
to say that capital is productive? This point can be made without the LTV: 
David Schweickart (who tells me he believes in the LTV) shows one very 
effective way in the first chapter of Against Capital, pointing out that 
capital is jsut a relation of ownership,a nd owning something doesn't make 
it priductive.

After all, Marx's critique of the political economy is not
>meant for technocrats working in linear programming or businessmen
>interested in the movement of prices but for a revolutionary  working
>class which in resisting this social order needs to understand it and
>its place in it);

Yes, so the point is that there's exploitation going ona nd we don't need 
capitalists. These points can be made very powerfully and effectively 
without the LTV.

>
>(3) by revealing the contradiction or inverse movement of use value
>and unit value which is the key to Marx's dynamics; and
>

This is too compressed for me.

>
>(4)by allowing for the development of a theory of money which
>overcomes an apparent syllogistic fallacy such as all commodities
>potentially *have* value; money is (or was) a commodity; commodity
>money does not have but *is* itself value.
>
>  Money must thus be at once both a kind of and not a kind of commodity.
>
>Marx tries to explain how this paradox arises out of the
>contradiction within the commodity between use value and *value*.
>
>Whatever the hell money is (or was in Marx's time) it is (or was)
>neither the standard commodity nor a numeraire plain and simple.
>

Well, I haven't thought as much about money (that way) as I should have.

jks

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: Value talk

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Rakesh writes:

>>It does no real theoretical work. Whatw ork does labor value do, if 
>>virtualy the entire apparatus ofg Marxism theory can be restated 
>>without it? Moreover, and more crucially, whatw ork has it done? 
>>People haves pent overa  century trying topatch up the theory. But 
>>there have been no interesting developments or applications, just 
>>ways of saving the true religion as stated in die heilige Schrift.
>
>Of course value and value form do real theoretical work by
>
>(1) keeping our focus on social, cooperative labor and its 
>specifically bourgeois form;
>
>(2)giving descriptive focus to the laboring activity of the working 
>class and the class relation of who labors for whom


I agree with Rakesh.  One of the points of thinking in terms of value 
is, I think, to overcome the limit of economism.  That is, thinking 
in terms of prices & wages alone can only tell us how one segment of 
workers fare in comparison to others, as well as whether the 
purchasing power of individual workers _as consumers_ is going up or 
down.  Thought in terms of prices & wages, lower wages for other 
segments of workers may seem good to you, as they allow your segment 
to command more products & services created by them.  Thought in 
terms of value, however, lower wages for other segments of workers 
essentially cheapen the value of your segment's labor power.  Thus, 
even though your real wages as well as nominal wages are going up, 
you may be still losing out to the class that exploit you.  Thought 
only in terms of wages & prices (terms of market competition), there 
is no objective basis for solidarity across barriers (occupational 
categories, national borders, productive vs. unproductive labor, 
races, genders, etc.) that separate different segments of workers, 
but thinking in terms of value allows us to discover the objective 
basis.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 

* Anti-War Activist Resources: 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 

Re: Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Justin writes:



>  It does no real theoretical work. Whatw ork does labor value do, if 
>virtualy the entire apparatus ofg Marxism theory can be restated 
>without it?


Now yes Steedman argues that one can go straight from the physical 
production data and a uniform real wage to the determination of 
prices and profits without the so called detour of value.

I have found persuasive Shaikh's criticism of the redundancy charge 
in the Value Controversy, ed. Steedman.

"Notice how often the word 'determines' crops up: the physical 
production data *determine* values, and in conjunction with the real 
wage, also *determine* prices of production. but what determiens the 
physical production data. In Marx, the answer is clear : it is the 
labor process. It is human productive activity, the actual 
performance of labour, that transforms 'inputs' into 'outputs', and 
it is only when labor is sucessful at all that we have any 'physical 
production data' at all. Moreover, if the labour process is a process 
of producing commodities, then it one in which value is materialized 
in the form of use values. Thus both 'inputs' and 'outputs' are the 
use forms of materialized value, and we can they say that in the 
*real* process it is values that determine the physical production 
data...The physical *data* rae then a conceptual summary of the real 
determination, and if we then use the data to conceptually 
*calculate* values, we only capture in thought their real magnitudes. 
Such a calculation no more determines these values than does the 
calculation of the mass of the earth determine determine either the 
earth or its mass. It merely recognizes what already exists. This is 
a fundamental point in a a materialist view of the world, and the 80 
year failure of the neo Ricardians to distinguish real and conceputal 
determination reveals their long attachment to the idealist method" 
p. 280-1

Suffice to say, the charge of Platonism can be returned. The problem 
of course as Shaikh underlines here and Michael Lebowitz before him 
is that the neo Ricardians tend to think in high 
Stalino-techno-bureaucratic fashion of the production as a technical 
process, as physical data, instead of a labor process in which human 
labor is objectified in use values (p.281).

Re: Value talk

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Justin writes:

>
>>>Why? The question is, what work does this alleged quantity do?
>>
>>Are you saying social labor time is alleged quantity like centaurs?
>>Or are you asking me what does labor in fact do?
>>
>
>No, the quantity exists, but so does the quantity that consists of 
>the average ifference between the heights of all red haired malew 
>orkers and all blue eyed women bosses. The latter quantity is not 
>theoretically interesting.

so social labor time would be so trivial to whom exactly?



>  It does no real theoretical work. Whatw ork does labor value do, if 
>virtualy the entire apparatus ofg Marxism theory can be restated 
>without it? Moreover, and more crucially, whatw ork has it done? 
>People haves pent overa  century trying topatch up the theory. But 
>there have been no interesting developments or applications, just 
>ways of saving the true religion as stated in die heilige Schrift.

Of course value and value form do real theoretical work by


(1) keeping our focus on social, cooperative labor and its 
specifically bourgeois form;


(2)giving descriptive focus to the laboring activity of the working 
class and the class relation of who labors for whom (who but a 
technocrat would care that it may be more convenient for him to 
calculate prices and profit rates from the technical conditions 
alone, and even if this is possible, it does not mean that it is not 
meaningful to say that so called equilibrium prices and profit rates 
are not determined by labor simply because the use of labor 
magnitudes may not be needed to *calculate* them given available 
technical data, but what or who other than labor--Shaikh has 
asked--has determined and put in place the supposedly given technical 
conditions which allow for the direct calculation of prices and 
profits? After all, Marx's critique of the political economy is not 
meant for technocrats working in linear programming or businessmen 
interested in the movement of prices but for a revolutionary  working 
class which in resisting this social order needs to understand it and 
its place in it);

(3) by revealing the contradiction or inverse movement of use value 
and unit value which is the key to Marx's dynamics; and


(4)by allowing for the development of a theory of money which 
overcomes an apparent syllogistic fallacy such as all commodities 
potentially *have* value; money is (or was) a commodity; commodity 
money does not have but *is* itself value.

  Money must thus be at once both a kind of and not a kind of commodity.

Marx tries to explain how this paradox arises out of the 
contradiction within the commodity between use value and *value*.

Whatever the hell money is (or was in Marx's time) it is (or was) 
neither the standard commodity nor a numeraire plain and simple.


Rakesh

Value talk

[Justin Schwartz]

This is partial; I actually do have have wage labor to perfoem here.

>let's be clear that even Roemer is ultimately
>interested in the appropriation of labor by one class of another.
>

At least5 he used to be. Though he'dsay he was interested in unjust 
inequality between the classes.

>
I said:

not only was Marx wrong on practical grounds to
>>disclaim writing recipes for the cookshops of the future, he was
>>wrong on theoretical grounds: he can't even say that capitalsim is
>>exploitative unless there is a better alternative. Unless there is a
>>better alterntive, it ios not exploitative.
>
>the better alternative is an unwritten book, a book that can only be
>written by a revolutionary working class in the act of creating a
>socialist society in order overcome the immiseration, degradation and
>slavery visited by this one on them.

Ultimately, yes, but if we can't sketch a plausible model now, we cannot be 
justified in saying that the misery and degradation we see are anything but 
necesasry and not exploitative.

>
>Marx could not be clearer that the distinction between abstract and
>concrete labor is one of the great accomplishments of his book, and
>the key to the critical conception. One simply cannot be making an
>interpretation of Marx in good faith without trying to understand
>what he meant by this distinction. Which of course is to say that
>there is a lot of shoddy interpretation of Marx.

No doubt, but I understand the point. I believe, However, the point about 
abstract labor applies to the measure of value, not its source.
>
>
>Do you mean that value only exists (and potentially at that) as labor
>objectified in a commodity?

Yes.


>Yes there is a relation. Drawing from Ricardo, Marx says that changes
>in value is the best explanation for changes in relative prices over
>time; however he does not say that price is proportional to value at
>any one time.
>

This is what I was trying to say to Jim, but you put it better.


>

The idea of a uniform
>real
>wage in terms of an identical basket of commodities for all workers
>seems a very questionable assumption to make.

Less so than, say, constant returns to scale and noalternative production 
methods, assumptions you need to get the Bortk-Sweezy reply to the 
transformation problem off the ground.

And no neo Ricardian
>has ever responded carefully to Shaikh and the others in the Freeman
>and Mandel volume. I think Shaikh's response to the redundancy charge
>is marvelous as is Amartya Sen's.

Can't recall it.



>>Why? The question is, what work does this alleged quantity do?
>
>Are you saying social labor time is alleged quantity like centaurs?
>Or are you asking me what does labor in fact do?
>

No, the quantity exists, but so does the quantity that consists of the 
average ifference between the heights of all red haired malew orkers and all 
blue eyed women bosses. The latter quantity is not theoretically 
interesting. It does no real theoretical work. Whatw ork does labor value 
do, if virtualy the entire apparatus ofg Marxism theory can be restated 
without it? Moreover, and more crucially, whatw ork has it done? People 
haves pent overa  century trying topatch up the theory. But there have been 
no interesting developments or applications, just ways of saving the true 
religion as stated in die heilige Schrift.


>I do not share this estimation of analytical Marxists who have
>dropped the ball in responding to many of their critics, and now seem
>to have walked away from the debate.

Well, maybe they are creeps or turncoats, although Wright has stayed and 
fought, and even Cohen; and there's Brenner and Carling, and the people who 
published in Hist Mat, etc. But suppose they are utter vile dreck, 
Reagab-Buhsie apologists for evil now, does taht mean that the standards of 
their earlier wotk were lacking?

>
>So you do agree that even if scientifically true, historical material
>is not guaranteed survival in some strong healthy form?
>

Yes. I actually rather doubt that it will survive. It will probably wither 
as Marxism has, and have to be rediscovered under another name.

jks

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

war talk

[Andrew Hagen]

Bush vows to "rid the world of evil." What does that entail? The first
mission is homeland defense. To that end he will call up 50,000
reservists. The impending war will result in many deaths of American
soldiers, and further strikes against Americans at home.  The situation
is useful to the President, however. "This nation is peaceful, but
fierce when stirred to anger.'' Bush declares he has a "war mentality."
Congress has now passed two important pieces of legislation. The first
condemns the attacks. The second gives Bush $40 billion in funding to
fight the terrorists, and to clean up after the attacks. The third and
fourth are discussed later in this message.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010914/ts/terrorist_attacks_27.html

Bush has declared a state of emergency, as Macdonald Stainsby just
posted. I don't think it gives the President the power to suspend civil
liberties or anything. I think it's more of a power that gives the
President the ability to hurry administrative decisions along. Please
correct me if I'm wrong.

A Defense Department official now says that military aircraft were in a
position to shoot down United Airlines 93, the plane that crashed in
Pennsylvania. The DoD has not changed its earlier position that they
did not shoot 
down.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010914/ts/attack_pennsylvania_military
_dc_1.html

The Taliban charge d'affaires in the United Arab Emirates has said that
while the Afghan government does not extradite criminals, Osama bin
Laden is free to leave Afghanistan of his o
volition.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010914/ts/attack_afghan_diplomat_dc_1.
html

The leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, is a recluse. Recently
he stated that to give up bin Laden would be to betray Islam. A
Guardian article speculates that this position is guided by the
Taliban's need to appease the foreign "guests" that are playing a key
role in the Taliban military campaign against the Afghan rebels. This
foreign legion includes as many as 6,000 nationals of Uzbekistan and
Pakistan, and residents of the Chechnya region. As an inspirational
leader and a foreigner to Afghanistan himself, bin Laden might be
regarded by the Taliban as their only hope of standing fast against the
rebels.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552097,00.html

Afghan officials say they will resist a US attack, and will have their
revenge after successfully doing so. From the AP: "We have suffered so
much. Every night so many children go to bed hungry,'' said Zalmai, a
teacher who like many Afghans uses only one name. "What do we have to
live for? Let the rockets come and set this whole country on fire once
and for all.''

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010914/ts/attacks_afghanistan_4.html

The Afghan people seem to have learned that the US is angry with them.
Despite the exhortations of their leaders to stand up to the Americans,
many Afghans are fleeing the cities. Foreigners are all leaving,
except, presumably, for the ones in the Talib
army.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010914/ts
 /attack_afghan_dc.html

Eighty percent of Americans say they support military action. Seventy
percent say they support military action even if it results in a
longer, broader war, and costs many American lives.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010914/ts/attacks_polls_2.html

Colin Powell is attempting to put together a global alliance to fight
terrorism. (What was that mission again? Let's try to avoid mission
creep here.) The mission is to attack those who attacked the United
States. Who are they again?  This will be another grand alliance in the
tradition of "41," Bush the Elder. Powell has asked Pakistan to let US
planes fly overhead, but they haven't responded. A country of 140
million Muslims, Pakistan has its own fundamentalist movement to deal
with. The Pakistani government can't appear soft on America. Not
mentioned below, however, is the possibility that if hundreds of
Pakistani nationals are among the WTC dead, that could give the
leadership a good excuse to cooperate. In the end, the global alliance
could be less important militarily than it is politically. If enough
Arab states join it, Pakistan can, too. Although it is not an Arab
state, Powell has not ruled out inviting Iran to join. The subtext of
all this, by the way, is if Pakistan does not join or at least remain
neutral, they could be dragged into the conflict against the USS,
unless the US uses only the Russian and Tajikist
bases.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international/attack-usa-alliance.h
tml

Powell has sent diplomatic messages that, in the future, American
benevolence is contingent on opposition to terrorism.

http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1198062270

In later reports, Pakistan will allow the US to use its air space, but
could not guarantee the safety of US troops in Pakistan, due to
potential civil unrest by radical Muslims. Pakistan's conservative
groups 

GEORGE WRIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE U.S. RULING CLASS AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SAC.

[Seth Sandronsky]

September 7, 2001   For more information:
News ReleaseCall John Rowntree (916) 446-1758



GEORGE WRIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE U.S. RULING CLASS AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF 
SACRAMENTO

George Wright, professor of political science at California State 
University, Chico and author of several books on American foreign policy, 
will deliver a talk “Is There a Ruling Class in the U.S.?” on Thursday, 
September 20 at 7 p.m. in the Green Room at the Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th 
Street, Sacramento.

Wright’s talk will launch the second year of the Point of View: Challenging 
Perspectives on Current Issues speaker series sponsored by The Marxist 
School of Sacramento.

“The Bush administration serves the powerful few in America,” said Wright.  
“His election revealed some of their class conflicts.”

He will discuss Marxist theories of the state, the role of the U.S. and 
scenarios for social change.  There will be a question-and-answer period 
after Wright’s lecture.

This event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more 
information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758.

###






















_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

my talk

[Jim Devine]

See http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/talks/LMU-econ071701.htm to see the 
notes on the talk I gave yesterday on the state of the US economy. Comments 
are welcome.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

ELIZABETH MARTINEZ TALK ON UNITY & PEOPLE OF COLOR-MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

[Seth Sandronsky]

Hi Penners:

FYI.

Seth

April 8, 2001  For more information call:
News Release   John Rowntree 916-446-1758

ELIZABETH MARTINEZ TO TALK ABOUT BUILDING UNITY AMONG PEOPLE OF COLOR AT THE 
MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

Elizabeth Martinez, director of the Institute for Multi-Racial Justice, will 
deliver a talk “The Quest for Unity Among People of Color” on Thursday, 
April 19, at 7 p.m. in the Green Room, Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, 
Sacramento.

Martinez’s talk is part of the Point of View speaker series sponsored by the 
Marxist School of Sacramento.

Martinez will focus on the unique opportunity for educating and organizing 
people of color for social justice.

“For Seattle’s promise of a new movement against imperialist globalization 
to come true, people of color must be mobilized across America,” Martinez 
says.

There will be a question-and-answer period after Martinez’s talk.  This free 
event is open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more information 
call John Rowntree at 916-446-1758.

###






_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING INEQUALITY AT MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

[Ken Hanly]

What sort of inequality at the Marxist School of Sacramento is he talking
about? Gender or race imbalance among faculty? Isn't it time for action and
not talk. Marxist schools should set a good example :)
   Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: Seth Sandronsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 7:43 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4146] CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING INEQUALITY AT
MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO


November 8, 2000 For more information:
News Release Call John Rowntree (916)446-1758

CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING 30 YEARS OF INEQUALITY AT THE MARXIST
SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

Charles Andrews, a Bay Area activist and the author of two books, will
deliver a talk titled "Thirty Years of Inequality: How Can We End It?" on
Thursday, November 16, at 7 p.m. in the Green Room, Sierra 2 Center, 2791
24th Street, Sacramento.
Andrews' talk continues the Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on
Current Issues, a speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of
Sacramento.
Andrews will focus on the growing economic inequality during these
so-called "boom" times in America.
"Compared to 1973, most families today work more hours for lower real
wages while the rich keep getting richer," says Andrews.  "Our struggle for
progress and justice must face this situation."
Andrews will also consider what people need to understand and do in this
context.  His insights draw on Marxist economic theory to suggest new
directions for challenging capitalism today.
There will be a question-and-answer period after Andrews' talk.  This
event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more
information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758.

  ###


_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING INEQUALITY AT MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

[Seth Sandronsky]

November 8, 2000For more information:
News ReleaseCall John Rowntree (916)446-1758

CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING 30 YEARS OF INEQUALITY AT THE MARXIST 
SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

Charles Andrews, a Bay Area activist and the author of two books, will 
deliver a talk titled “Thirty Years of Inequality: How Can We End It?” on 
Thursday, November 16, at 7 p.m. in the Green Room, Sierra 2 Center, 2791 
24th Street, Sacramento.
Andrews’ talk continues the Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on 
Current Issues, a speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of 
Sacramento.
Andrews will focus on the growing economic inequality during these 
so-called "boom" times in America.
"Compared to 1973, most families today work more hours for lower real 
wages while the rich keep getting richer," says Andrews.  “Our struggle for 
progress and justice must face this situation."
Andrews will also consider what people need to understand and do in this 
context.  His insights draw on Marxist economic theory to suggest new 
directions for challenging capitalism today.
There will be a question-and-answer period after Andrews’ talk.  This 
event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more 
information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758.

  ###


_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

Bill Fletcher talk in Sacramento

[Seth Sandronsky]

Capitalist globalization is bad news for most of us.  People fighting for 
power held by the moneyed few is a way to turn this around, Bill Fletcher 
told about 50 people on October 13 at the Oak Park Community Center in 
Sacramento.

Fletcher, Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO and co-founder of the 
Black Radical Congress, called for people to keep translating radical ideas 
into action.  One example he praised was the Seattle anti-WTO protests last 
year.

As capitalist globalization lowers living and working standards, politicians 
blame one group of people as the cause of another group’s problems, noted 
Fletcher.  Fascist politics in Europe and genocide in the Third World as a 
way to solve social problems should serve as warning to Americans, no 
strangers to the rot of racism, he said.

Interestingly, Fletcher supports Democratic Vice President Gore for 
president.  His support of Gore instead of Green Party presidential 
candidate Ralph Nader was discussed during the question-and-answer period.

Fletcher’s talk was sponsored by the Marxist School of Sacramento.

Seth Sandronsky
Sacramento
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

FRANCES BEAL TALK ABOUT GLOBALIZATION & RACIAL POLITICS AT MARXIST SCHOOL OF SAC

[Seth Sandronsky]

October 12, 2000For more information:
News ReleaseCall John Rowntree (916) 446-1758

FRANCES BEAL TO TALK ABOUT GLOBALIZATION AND RACIAL POLITICS AT THE MARXIST 
SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

Frances M. Beal, the National Secretary of the Black Radical Congress and a 
peace and justice activist and writer who has focused on Black women and 
African American politics for three decades, will deliver a talk entitled 
“Globalization and Racial Politics: Challenges for the U.S. Progressive 
Movement,” on Thursday, October 19 at 7 p.m. in the Green Room in the Sierra 
2 Center, 2791-24th Street, Sacramento, CA.
Beal’s talk continues the Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on Current 
Issues, a speaker series sponsored by the Marxist School of Sacramento.
“Racial politics plays a pivotal role in shaping both the global capitalist 
system and the new multi-racial labor and community challenges to it,” Beal 
said.
There will be a question-and-answer period after Beal’s talk.
This event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more 
information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758.

 ###


_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

BILL FLETCHER, JR. TO TALK AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

[Seth Sandronsky]

September 27, 2000  For more information:
News ReleaseCall John Rowntree 916-446-1758

BILL FLETCHER, JR. TO TALK ABOUT THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN THE NEW MILLENIUM AT 
THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO

Bill Fletcher, Jr., Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO and co-founder 
of the Black Radical Congress, will deliver a talk entitled “The Challenges 
of Labor in the New Millennium,” on Friday, October 13 at 7 p.m. at the Oak 
Park Community Center, 3425 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Sacramento, 
CA.
Fletcher’s talk continues the Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on 
Current Issues, a speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of 
Sacramento.
“The American people need to build a labor movement that can challenge our 
economic system and the social inequities it creates,” said Fletcher.
Fletcher will share strategies and organizing techniques for raising working 
class consciousness, connecting labor activism to broader struggles against 
racism, linking labor and community activism and building a class conscious 
labor movement.
There will be a question-and-answer period after Fletcher’s talk.
This event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more 
information call John Rowntree at 916-446-1758.

 ###



_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

MICHAEL PERELMAN TO TALK ABOUT THE INFORMATION AGE AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACR

[Seth Sandronsky]

September 6, 2000   For more information:
News ReleaseCall John Rowntree 916-446-1758

MICHAEL PERELMAN TO TALK ABOUT THE INFORMATION AGE AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF 
SACRAMENTO

Michael Perelman, professor of economics at California State University, 
Chico and author of 12 books, will deliver a talk on “The Information Age: 
New Technologies, Same Old Capitalism,” on Wednesday, September 20 at 7 p.m. 
at the Green Room in the Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, Sacramento, CA.
Perelman’s talk will launch Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on 
Current Issues, a speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of 
Sacramento.
“Despite the overblown hype about the so-called new economy, the way that 
the capitalist market is exploiting high technology will mean deeper 
divisions between classes, a more intrusive state, and a slowdown in the 
rate of technical change,” said Perelman.
He will show how the optimal development of high technology is incompatible 
with a market economy.  There will be a question-and-answer period after 
Perelman’s lecture.
This event is free and open to the public.  Donations are welcome.  For more 
information call John Rowntree at 446-1758

   ###

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

Re: [[Fwd: [CrashList-talk] re: FT: Israel completes along goodbye]] (fwd)] (fwd)

[md7148]

I got it. I was not strongly aware of those divisions before. Thanks for
the clarification.. 

revolutionary greetings!

Mine

>Dear Mine! 

>Actually the Amal movement was formed back during the Lebanese Civil War
and
is totally independent of Hizb Allah.  In fact there are areas in South
Lebanon where the two groups are not so friendly rivals for village
authority.

>Amal was created among the Shi'i Lebanese, but its leader, Nabih Barri,
always
rejected the idea of an Islamic state.  One can't say they are totally secular
especially since the predominantly Shi'i south of Lebanon was originally a
hot-bed of support for the Communist party and then Amal won much of that
away.  Still, they are not the same in their aspirations as Hizb Allah.  Nabih
Barri, by the way, is the "third president" in Lebanon's ruling troika, with
Emil Lahud (Maronite Christian, president of the republic), Salim al-Huss
(Sunni Muslim, prime minister) and Nabih Barri (Shi'i Muslim, speaker of
parliament).  At the end of the Lebanese Civil War when a solution was
thrashed out, it was not yet possible to dismantle the sectarian system,
although the Left always pushed for that.  But the final settlement that gave
Lebanon its current form of government was signed in al-Ta'if, Saudi Arabia,
so that tells you something.

>As to Hizb Allah, I don't think the Lebanese Hizb Allah have anything to
do
with the Turkish Hizb Allah.  The Lebanese are Shi'i and really preoccupied
with Lebanon.  I have read that Iran has been inciting Islamic activism in
Turkey, so maybe the Lebanese Hizb Allah is not toally innocent of this; I
don't know, but I would think that is minor for them.

>Of course religion is used to divide the people of Lebanon (and
elsewhere) and
all these religious movements serve that purpose. But at the same time, they
also remind us in the Left that sometimes we have proved unable to communicate
with the masses effectively.  How many Leftist writers write tracts that even
college graduates can't read, let alone textile workers or shoe-shine boys?! 
Meanwhile the religious people talk about Zulm (oppression) and everybody
understands (even though the ideology of the religious people is vague and
unscientific).

>At present the anti-Zionist front does include Islamists, Arab
Nationalists,
and Marxists.  It's true that all have different perspectives on the future,
but all are agreed on fighting the Zionists and imperialism and that is what
the masses are looking for.  Basically they support whoever seems most
effective at doing that.  These days it's the religious people.  I think at
the moment, it's impossible for the religious groups to wipe out the Left, or
for the Left to wipe out the religious groups, so, despite their differences
they are trying to work together for the current aims they share.  It's not
easy or uncomplicated, but it's the reality we must work with.

>With revolutionary anti-imperialist greetings!

>Abu Nasr



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Abu-Nasr, Comrade, your knowledge of the communist activism in the Arab
world is more profound than mine. I don't know the sects in details
since they are very much related to other factors such as religion
(Shiite vesus Sunni) and ethnicity.. Is Amal, the Communist Party, part of
Hizb Allah? To my knowledge, Hizb Allah must be Shiite Islamic
fundamentalist group, fighting against both secular nationalists and
communist intrusion in the Middle East. Imperialist
powers  in the region (US and Isreal) have tolerated them in the past to
set off communists, and recently, for example, to curb Kurdish ethnic
resistance (socialist PKK) as well as Palestinian nationalism. As you
know, when the civil war was going on in the Southern part
of Turkey between the Turkish government and Kurds (PKK), Hizb Allah
guarillas were effectively mobilizing support among Kurds in order to
establish an Islamic based Kurdish movement as opposed to PKK who was
still following a socialist brand of kurdish nationalism. Furthermore,
Islamic Republic of Iran had always wanted to co-opt Kurds (Sunni Muslims,
majority) by strategically mobilizing Hizb Allah within and outside Iran.
For example, when many times Turkish and Kurdish leftists and
secularists were assasinated by Hizb Allah, the turkish government put the
blame on PKK to weaken the popularity of the movement among Kurds. Now it
is playing the same strategy with Hizb Allah after the Kurds are defeated.
It seems to me that what is going on in the region is more a like rule and
divide strategy among imperialist powers. This strategy aims to maintain
islam within _limits_ but to butress socialism more strongly since the
latter is still perceived to be a more dangerous enemy than religion.

Is Amal an effective faction within Hizb Allah? Shiite radicals tolerating
communists or communists becoming shiite radicals? (yes, in the begining
of 

[Fwd: [CrashList-talk] re: FT: Israel completes a longgoodbye]] (fwd)

[md7148]

btw, Carrol, thanks for posting Nasr's views here.. 

Mine

-- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:08:49
-0500 From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:19586] [Fwd: [CrashList-talk]
re:  FT: Israel completes a long goodbye]]



-Original Message-
From:   Abu Nasr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   25 May 2000 16:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [[CrashList] FT: Israel completes a long goodbye]

Dear Comrades!

I've been conscious of the outrageous biases openly expressed by the
imperialist media since I was in my early teens, if not before (and,
given
my age, that is now several decades, I'm afraid) but I have not yet
become
accustomed to this.

Here we have the most epic act of tossing out a hated imperialist
occupation
force since the last US helicopter left Saigon, and the global(-ist)
press
responds with concern for the security of the borders of "Israel"!  For
22
years the Zionists had no respect for Lebanon's borders and the Western
press took that in stride.

The Israeli leadership, we are told in the first article, don't want to
rule
other countries any more.  Well, I'm sure the entire population of
Palestine
will welcome that resolve, if and when the Zionists ever make it;
they've
been ruling over another country ever since "Israel" was proclaimed in
1948.
Meanwhile the Financial Times speaks of the "disarray" in the puppet
"South
Lebanon Army" ranks!  Amazing!  As soon as they were left without the
protection of the Israelis this so-called Army broke and ran at the
first
sight not of Hizb Allah fighters, but in village after village, they
panicked at the sight of caravans of unarmed villagers heading back to
the
homes and towns they had been driven out of by the invaders!
On the 23rd, just a couple days ago, it was 500 unarmed villagers who
stormed the notorious Khiyam prison camp, beat and kicked the doors down
and
freed the 144 prisoners.  At the sight of the advancing villagers, the
SLA
torturers and guards had panicked, jumped into one half-track and 40
private
cars and sped off to "Israel" where they knew they would be safe and
their
talents would be valued.

At a time when the conventional wisdom is that revolution is hopeless,
that
the US runs the world and "Israel" runs the Middle East and the only
thing
one can do is accommodate oneself to this reality as best he or she can,
we
see the Lebanese massively rally around their armed resistance-the
government as well as nearly all the people.  We see the various
factions of
the armed resistance-Hizb Allah, Amal, the Communist Party (yes, the CPL
had
a proud role in the armed resistance over the years) -- cooperate
smoothly
together against the invader.  Coming from a country that just a few
years
ago was synonymous with brutal factionalism and civil war, this is a
fantastic, almost miraculous feat!

Obviously there is good reason for the imperialist media to play down
this
victory, to view it from the standpoint of the occupier.  I hope,
however,
that such propaganda is not all that reaches the people around the
world.
With revolutionary greetings!

Abu Nasr

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By Judy Dempsey in Metulla, on the Israeli-Lebanese border
Published: May 24 2000 17:27GMT | Last Updated: May 24 2000 20:16GMT


It was done quickly. Quietly. Without ceremony.

[Fwd: [CrashList-talk] re: FT: Israel completes a longgoodbye]] (fwd)

[md7148]

Abu-Nasr, Comrade, your knowledge of the communist activism in the Arab
world is more profound than mine. I don't know the sects in details
since they are very much related to other factors such as religion
(Shiite vesus Sunni) and ethnicity.. Is Amal, the Communist Party, part of
Hizb Allah? To my knowledge, Hizb Allah must be Shiite Islamic
fundamentalist group, fighting against both secular nationalists and
communist intrusion in the Middle East. Imperialist
powers  in the region (US and Isreal) have tolerated them in the past to
set off communists, and recently, for example, to curb Kurdish ethnic
resistance (socialist PKK) as well as Palestinian nationalism. As you
know, when the civil war was going on in the Southern part
of Turkey between the Turkish government and Kurds (PKK), Hizb Allah
guarillas were effectively mobilizing support among Kurds in order to
establish an Islamic based Kurdish movement as opposed to PKK who was
still following a socialist brand of kurdish nationalism. Furthermore,
Islamic Republic of Iran had always wanted to co-opt Kurds (Sunni Muslims,
majority) by strategically mobilizing Hizb Allah within and outside Iran.
For example, when many times Turkish and Kurdish leftists and
secularists were assasinated by Hizb Allah, the turkish government put the
blame on PKK to weaken the popularity of the movement among Kurds. Now it
is playing the same strategy with Hizb Allah after the Kurds are defeated.
It seems to me that what is going on in the region is more a like rule and
divide strategy among imperialist powers. This strategy aims to maintain
islam within _limits_ but to butress socialism more strongly since the
latter is still perceived to be a more dangerous enemy than religion.

Is Amal an effective faction within Hizb Allah? Shiite radicals tolerating
communists or communists becoming shiite radicals? (yes, in the begining
of the Iranian revolution that was the case, but then Islamists turned out
to be the strongest faction, unfortunately). 

anti-imperialist greetings! 

Mine Doyran


Nasr wrote: 

>government as well as nearly all the people.  We see the various factions
>of the armed resistance-Hizb Allah, Amal, the Communist Party (yes, the
>CPL had a proud role in the armed resistance over the years) -- cooperate
>smoothly together against the invader. 

Re: [Fwd: [CrashList-talk] re: FT: Israel completes a long goodbye]]

[Jim Devine]

At 04:08 PM 5/25/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Meanwhile the Financial Times speaks of the "disarray" in the puppet 
>"South Lebanon Army" ranks!

did anyone notice that in the official US media (or at least its left wing, 
NPR), this army suddenly started being referred to as "Israel's proxy." (Is 
that true of the rest of the official US media?) In fact, on NPR I heard 
them interviewing a woman in Lebanon. She was _translated_ as saying 
something about the "proxy" army, even though I think it's a little absurd 
for someone in Lebanon to use such a term ("puppet," on the other hand, 
seems to fit).

Amazingly, "proxy" is very similar in meaning to "puppet." But it has a 
neutral-academic feel to it, which makes it okay for NPR.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

[Fwd: [CrashList-talk] re: FT: Israel completes a long goodbye]]

[Carrol Cox]

-Original Message-
From:   Abu Nasr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   25 May 2000 16:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [[CrashList] FT: Israel completes a long goodbye]

Dear Comrades!

I've been conscious of the outrageous biases openly expressed by the
imperialist media since I was in my early teens, if not before (and,
given
my age, that is now several decades, I'm afraid) but I have not yet
become
accustomed to this.

Here we have the most epic act of tossing out a hated imperialist
occupation
force since the last US helicopter left Saigon, and the global(-ist)
press
responds with concern for the security of the borders of "Israel"!  For
22
years the Zionists had no respect for Lebanon's borders and the Western
press took that in stride.

The Israeli leadership, we are told in the first article, don't want to
rule
other countries any more.  Well, I'm sure the entire population of
Palestine
will welcome that resolve, if and when the Zionists ever make it;
they've
been ruling over another country ever since "Israel" was proclaimed in
1948.
Meanwhile the Financial Times speaks of the "disarray" in the puppet
"South
Lebanon Army" ranks!  Amazing!  As soon as they were left without the
protection of the Israelis this so-called Army broke and ran at the
first
sight not of Hizb Allah fighters, but in village after village, they
panicked at the sight of caravans of unarmed villagers heading back to
the
homes and towns they had been driven out of by the invaders!
On the 23rd, just a couple days ago, it was 500 unarmed villagers who
stormed the notorious Khiyam prison camp, beat and kicked the doors down
and
freed the 144 prisoners.  At the sight of the advancing villagers, the
SLA
torturers and guards had panicked, jumped into one half-track and 40
private
cars and sped off to "Israel" where they knew they would be safe and
their
talents would be valued.

At a time when the conventional wisdom is that revolution is hopeless,
that
the US runs the world and "Israel" runs the Middle East and the only
thing
one can do is accommodate oneself to this reality as best he or she can,
we
see the Lebanese massively rally around their armed resistance-the
government as well as nearly all the people.  We see the various
factions of
the armed resistance-Hizb Allah, Amal, the Communist Party (yes, the CPL
had
a proud role in the armed resistance over the years) -- cooperate
smoothly
together against the invader.  Coming from a country that just a few
years
ago was synonymous with brutal factionalism and civil war, this is a
fantastic, almost miraculous feat!

Obviously there is good reason for the imperialist media to play down
this
victory, to view it from the standpoint of the occupier.  I hope,
however,
that such propaganda is not all that reaches the people around the
world.
With revolutionary greetings!

Abu Nasr

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By Judy Dempsey in Metulla, on the Israeli-Lebanese border
Published: May 24 2000 17:27GMT | Last Updated: May 24 2000 20:16GMT


It was done quickly. Quietly. Without ceremony.

Re: Kargalitsky on NLR (posted by D. Henwood to LBO-Talk)

[Jim Devine]

Boris K. wrote:
>According to Anderson, the old project of transforming the world, the 
>project which inspired the founders of NLR in earlier times, has been 
>exhausted. Not because the world has changed, but because there is nothing 
>that can be done about neo-liberalism and capitalism. All attempts at 
>bringing about fundamental change have failed.

I much prefer Paul Sweezy's oft-stated perspective, that it might take 100 
years before socialism overthrows capitalism (though I remember that many 
radical economists didn't like it when he said this in the 1970s). How 
could someone with half a historical perspective _simply give up_? Nothing 
is permanent.

Further, the sad fact that the Capitalist Consensus has seemingly swallowed 
Anderson is a sign that the contradictions of neo-Liberal capitalism are 
soon to be revealed. When even the intelligent critics of the system get 
swallowed up in complacency, it's like a rash of assertions that the 
business cycle is dead and that we've reached a "permanently high plateau" 
(to quote Irving Fisher from a different context).

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Kargalitsky on NLR (posted by D. Henwood to LBO-Talk)

[Louis Proyect]

The Suicide of New Left Review 
by Boris Kagarlitsky 

For forty years, New Left Review was a symbol for the radical
intelligentsia throughout the world. The articles carried in it were more
successful or less so, and the points of view presented in it were
astonishing for their superficial radicalism or for their toothless
moderation. Nevertheless, for all leftists who read English, the journal
remained a source of information on contemporary Marxism. New names
appeared on its pages, and discussions of fundamental importance revolved
around views expressed there. Although NLR was published in Britain, and
most of its authors were based there or in the US, it was not only open to
writers from other countries, but in its essence, approach, structure and
ideology, constitued an international publication. Now, this journal is no
more. There is another journal which bears the same name, but this latter
periodical is fundamentally different, based on a diametrically opposite
concept. 

>From January 2000, New Left Review changed its editor, design and
numbering. Before us we have number one, a little exercise-book formated in
post-modernist style. The sub-head "Second Series" seems to presume that
the journal will survive for another forty years, and that there will
perhaps be a third and fourth series. The change of concept is declared in
a foreword by Perry Anderson, under the expressive heading "Renewals".
Perry Anderson, who succeeds Robin Blackburn as editor, is not someone new
to NLR. He was present at the very birth of the journal. The makeup of the
editorial board is also practically unchanged. We are not talking about an
infusion of fresh blood; quite the reverse. Before us we have the same old
collective, who have decided to change their program and ideology. It is no
accident that the word "new" has come into fashion along with the rise of
politicians such as Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder. In the 1960s the "new
left" had a very clear system of principles that distinguished it from the
"old left", embodied in social democracy and communism. Meanwhile, this
political definition served to make clear that the new and old left had
something in common. 

At the turn of the twenty-first century, the situation has changed. The
idea of the new is used as a substitute for all other ideas, as a symbolic
replacement for any positive identification and as an incantation freeing
those who utter it from responsibility before the past and future (and at
times, from their consciences as well). Anything whatever is justified on
the basis of its novelty. To be new, however, does not mean to be better.
Moreover, and much more important, "new" does not signify "final". The new
becomes the old, and the old, once it has been thoroughly forgotten,
becomes the new. References to a "new" program and "new" ideas are featured
precisely when people lack the intellectual and political courage to
declare openly just what this program and these ideas consist of (or when
both program and ideas are lacking). It is quite clear that Perry Anderson
is not a supporter of Tony Blair, as he prudently forewarns us in his
preface. In Anderson's view, Blairism differs little from neo-liberalism.
Precisely for this reason, the victory of Blair, Schroeder and similar "new
social democrats" is proof of the complete and final triumph of
neo-liberalism on a global scale. 

According to Anderson, the old project of transforming the world, the
project which inspired the founders of NLR in earlier times, has been
exhausted. Not because the world has changed, but because there is nothing
that can be done about neo-liberalism and capitalism. All attempts at
bringing about fundamental change have failed. Society has undergone a
consolidation. All that remains for the left is to observe this and to take
pleasure in thinking critically about it. Consequently, NLR as well has to
renounce the old traditions and renew itself, adapting to the circumstances
that have arisen. Perry Anderson, a sophisticated British gentleman, sits
in his cosy office at no. 6 Meard Street and limply discusses the collapse
of the left project. He has enough intellectual honesty not to repudiate
his radical past or the ideals of his youth, but he is impassive enough not
to lament their collapse. Despite Anderson's readiness to bury the left
project of the 1960s, and along with it the first-series NLR, his foreword
contains not a paragraph or even a sentence devoted to political
self-criticism. 

Everything was fine. Both when Perry together with other young radicals
tried to revolutionise social thinking and political life in Britain, and
now, when he no longer proposes to overturn anything whatever. And what, in
reality, has happened? What particular suffering has beset these people?
Have Western intellectuals really lost anything, apart from their
principles? No-one has been thrown in prison or put in front of a firing
squad. Their homes have not been blown up, nor their cit

HK Film Industry (was Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.)

[Michael Hoover]

> Though the Hong Kong movie industry folks had been anxious about the return
> of Hong Kong to China, apparently the HK movie industry has lately fallen
> into dire straits not because of nominal communism of China but because of
> enterprising pirate video makers.   Meanwhile, Hollywood has increased its
> HK market share, taking advantage of the decline of the HK production.
> *   The Toronto Star
> May 16, 1999, Sunday, Edition 1
> HEADLINE: PIRATES CHOP HONG KONG FILM INDUSTRY
> Here in the heart of unregulated capitalism, video piracy has reached
> epidemic proportions. 
> Pirated VCDs have been affectionately dubbed ''People's Heads Pictures'' -
> a reference to the heads of members of the audience that turn up in pirated
> videos shot directly off cinema screens. The bobbing heads appear less and
> less on new bootleg copies. Industry insiders say organized crime
> syndicates are now getting prints directly from labs and are striking
> cleaner discs.
> Hong Kong films have relied on martial arts, fighting and
> inventive stunts instead of the computerized special effects of American
> movies.
> The trick, Chung believes, is to add some Hollywood glitz. If there's no
> value added, kids will opt for cheap grainy pirated discs.
> Chung's latest movie, Gen-X Cops, scheduled to be released this summer,
> promises to be a little more Hollywood and a little less Hong Kong. The
> usual stunt people are taking a back seat to a California company that
> specializes in digital effects.
> Yoshie

bit of an update...

New legislation making piracy more serious criminal offense went into
effect at beginning of 2000.  Includes having cops assigned to 'movie
theater' patrol to confiscate video cams from movie goers.  But as
above article points out, fewer bootleg videos are made this way.
Cheung Yuen-ting & Alex Law's late-1998 release, *City of Glass*, may 
have been first major HK film to be counterfeited via 'inside job' 
during post-production process

HK film industry has had some box office success in last couple of years.  
Andrew Lau Wai-keung scored big with high-tech special effects fantasy-
actioners *Storm Riders* and *A Man Called Hero*.  Above mentioned 
*Gen-X Cops* (an HK *Mod Squad*) also drew folks into theaters.

Current hopes for rebound appear linked to HK-Hollywood joint ventures.
Tsui Hark's new film *Time and Tide* was financed by Columbia Pictures.
Yim Ho's *Pavilion of Women* (featuring Willem Dafoe) was also an
'international' production (as such films are being called).  Miramax,
20th Century Fox & Warner Bros. have all set up shop in Hong Kong.

Eventual 'prize?'  Potential access to the Mainland.  Hollywood co-ventures 
with HK companies are looking to then co-venture with Mainland (either 
state-run or one of several private) companies in order to circumvent 
restrictions on film imports that limit number to about 20 per year (up 
from 10 a few years ago).  Michael Hoover

Notes on a talk I will give on Wed. (fwd)

[md7148]

of course, US vulgar movies are strongly penetrating into the markets of
other countries, rapidly taking control over their film industry through
cultural imperialism. It is difficult to escape this given that film
industry is a capitalist sector everywhere. But, for sure, we had better
movies once, and still many in the margins though film producers are
having extereme difficulty to compete with american movies.I
remember once that there was a hot debate among turkish film
producers and directors about who is responsible for the declining
signifigance of the turkish movies after the 1980s (to many, decline of
the left)--american movies or our technological backwardness and
resistence to deny western forms of entertainment? These are typical
"modernity" debates in a semi- peripheral country like ours. Should we
take the technology or should we take the content? What if we take the
first and reject the latter? What if we reject both?,and similar ongoing
dabates like these. Whatever you say,audience goes to "Cocktails",
"Rainmans" and "Terminators", systematically denying to see alternative
visions. I can hundred percent guarantee you that even in the worst
financial and technological period of the turkish film industry, we still
had better movies than those above.Yilmaz Guney movies can never be
forgatten, in terms of class issues, and male-femele thing content wise.
Thus, producers are facing two fold situation now: either americanize your
movies or stay as you are!!! Another solution are dramatized and
over-romanticized popular movies.


Mine

New York Times piece:

>The success of some recent films in markets outside the United States is
>striking. As big a hit as the film ''Fatal Attraction'' was in the United
>States, it has made even more money at the box office overseas. So has
>last
>year's winner of the Oscar for best film, ''Rain Man.'' Even
>''Cocktail,''
>with the all-American actor Tom Cruise playing the lead role of a
>bartender, has done better at the box office abroad. 

soc. scholars talk

[Michael Yates]

s are lost in a swamp of
consumerism and meaningless leisure.  Their dissatisfactions lead them
into the arms of the purveyors of the snake oils of religious
fundamentalism, white supremacy, talk show punditry, and militias. 
Unions are so invisible in our culture that all too many workers do not
think of them as a real possibility.

We might argue that the revitalization of the labor movement is bound
to take time and if the economic expansion continues, labor will regain
its old glory.  Unfortunately the problem is much deeper than just
thinned ranks.  The tragedy is that organized labor squandered its
potential during the long boom, entering into a deal with employers and
the state.  In return for employer recognition and regular wage and
benefit increases, labor's leaders agreed to cede control of the
workplace to management.  Employers then were free to make changes in
work rules, introduce technology, and open plants in areas in which
unions were absent.  In return for legitimacy in the eyes of the
corporations and the government, labor's leaders expelled the left-led
unions and thousands of individual leftists.  Given that the left was
the driving force of the CIO, pushing it to fight against racism, to
organized the unorganized, to condemn imperialism, and to champion union
democracy, its expulsion allowed control of the unions and the AFL-CIO
itself to be seized by conservative (and liberal) anti-communists
without much interest in any of these things.  And as these issues were
ignored, organized labor was completely coopted into a nationalist and
imperialist ideology.  Unions came to stand for very little, other than
protecting the privileges of the bureaucrats and their white, male base.

As long as prosperity continued and the United States completely
dominated so many major markets, the underside of the
labor-management-government "accord" remained hidden.  But all hell
broke loose when the long economic stagnation began in the early 1970s. 
Organized labor found itself on the defensive but without the vision and
the tactics to fight back.  Meany and then Kirkland (whose praises by
the way, were sung by John Sweeney when Kirkland died) kept hoping that
their "friends" would bail them out and things would get back to
"normal."  Needless to say they did not, and the labor movement teetered
on the verge of collapse.

The trouble today is that, while the current AFL-CIO leadership is
doing many good things, deserving of our support, to increase
membership, it shows few signs of seeing the need to abandon the old
nationalist, imperialist ideology and develop a class ideology and
practice.  The notions that members should actually control their own
unions, that labor education ought to focus upon the ways in which this
economic system destroys the capacities of working people, that
competition in whatever form is antithetical to the practices of a labor
movement, that a labor movement cannot thrive unless other progressive
social movements thrive as well, that the South and Southwest in this
country cannot be organized without a commitment to the empowerment of
Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans in these regions, that solidarity
with workers in the rest of the world requires an admission that much of
what the AFL-CIO condemns overseas exists here and that U.S. military
power is the root cause of the difficulties facing workers in much of
the world, and that both political parties in the United States stand
for all that is bad for working people–these are not the notions that
dominate the thinking of today's labor leaders.  So, if the boom
continues, here is no guarantee that we will see a rebirth of the labor
movement. And even if union membership increases, this does not mean
that organized labor will not repeat the mistakes of the last period of
extended prosperity.

If the difficulties facing organized labor are daunting even if the
present economic boom turns into a long steady economic expansion, these
problems might be multiplied a hundred-fold if the boom ends in a
serious recession and the continuation of stagnation.  The desperation
that will then face millions of workers will provide fertile grounds for
a resurgence of racism, sexism, jingoistic nationalism, and disdain for
foreigners.  Employers will be in position to continue the tightening of
the screws which have been loosened only slightly during the past two
years of expansion. There will be nothing like the ferment of the Great
Depression because there will be no left wing to guide it.

The best hope that, come what may economically, working people will
advance themselves both in terms of compensation and political power is
if the labor movement moves in the direction of what has been called
"social movement unionism."  Such a unionism sees organizing not as the
ultimate goal of the labor movement but as a necessary component of
something m

Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Louis Proyect]

>With regard to cinema -- I am far from an expert -- the best cinema usually
>comes from countries that have government sponsorship.  Where is the
Australian
>cinema now that the government does not support it?  Even the Soviets under
>Stalin produced some excellent films.
>--
>
>Michael Perelman

The New York Times, March 7, 1990, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final 

When World Raves, Studios Jump 

By GERALDINE FABRIKANT 

A rapidly growing market for American films abroad is encouraging American
studios to pay closer attention to foreign moviegoers. 

The success of some recent films in markets outside the United States is
striking. As big a hit as the film ''Fatal Attraction'' was in the United
States, it has made even more money at the box office overseas. So has last
year's winner of the Oscar for best film, ''Rain Man.'' Even ''Cocktail,''
with the all-American actor Tom Cruise playing the lead role of a
bartender, has done better at the box office abroad. 

American movies have for decades attracted larger international audiences
than those of any other nation. American film exports exceed film imports
by $3 billion annually, said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture
Association of America. Last year foreign revenues constituted about 38
percent of total industry revenues, up from 30 percent in 1980, said Fritz
Attaway, the association's senior vice president for government relations.
   More Overseas Theaters 

Most industry experts agree that in the coming decade the percentage of
foreign revenues will grow further as more theaters are built abroad and
secondary markets like cable and broadcast television are expanded. Just
yesterday, Time Warner Inc. announced joint venture with the Soviet film
industry for the construction of a movie theaters in Moscow and Leningrad.
[Page D8.] A result of the growth overseas is that an increasing number of
films are being made with some consideration of their appeal abroad. Stars
like Sean Connery, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Eddie Murphy are able to
command huge salaries in part because of the certainty that their presence
in a movie will give it greater appeal around the world. 

(clip)

===

The Guardian (London), October 2, 1992 

FROM RUSSIA WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY;  Ideology is out, commercialism in. But
the bucks stop here. Moscow film school, the world's oldest - set up by
Lenin in 1919 and set free by the collapse of the Soviet system last year -
is finding capitalism's comforts rather cold, says Erin Cotter 

By ERIN COTTER 

SERGEI and Alexander throw themselves against opposite walls and somersault
upright again, their arms raised high and fists clenched. Sergei kicks Alex
in the face. He falls to the floor cradling his nose. "Good," says the
instructor, "now the other way around." 

Sergei and Alex are actors practising stunts at the Moscow film school -
now known as VGIK. It is a new part of their syllabus, created to
accommodate changing Russian tastes and to compete with popular western
action and adventure movies. 

Opened in 1919, VGIK is the oldest film school in the world. Its grand
facade befits its international reputation and status. The interior,
however, is conspicuously empty of furniture and equipment. 

In the office of Tatiana Storchak, vice-rector of VGIK, a smell of cabbage
and fat wafts from the canteen. "One thing we have here is constant
warmth," she says. "That is, until they deregulate power, as Yeltsin
threatens to do." Storchak is the school's international coordinator. She
puts her students' films into festivals and helps them understand the
capitalist approach to film making. 

We are constantly interrupted by students: What does going to tender mean?
What is copyright? Who shall I approach for sponsorship? 

"Can you imagine, our producers spent five years learning how to make a
film within the old Soviet system," Storchak explains. "Now it is
meaningless. They must be totally re-educated to understand commercial film
making." 

This change stems from the collapse two years ago of the Soviet film
ministry, created in August 1919 by Lenin, who believed "cinema for us is
the most important of all the arts". Throughout its existence, the ministry
funded VGIK with the profits of the Soviet film industry, over which it
exercised effective political control. 

Initially, film makers and students were euphoric when the demise of the
ministry freed them to make the films they wanted. Today many question that
judgment: production costs have soared and the open market is being swamped
with films from the West. VGIK is struggling to survive. 

(clip)


Louis Proyect

(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)

Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Michael Perelman]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

>
> Perhaps this may be, besides being a political dialectic between
> competition & monopoly, an example of contradiction between the impulse to
> privatize anything & everything and the need to sustain the conditions for
> systemic reproduction of capitalism.

Absolutely.  I have a section that I call, Eating Our Seed Corn to discuss the
privatization of science.

> On one hand, a capitalist dream may
> be to wholly privatize the products of intellectual labor through patent;
> on the other hand, wholly patented knowledge production is not just
> inefficient but impossible.

yup.

> Capitalists benefit from the existence of
> spheres of non-capitalist production of knowledge (e.g. research at
> universities, working-class cultural innovations like music, indigenous
> peoples' knowledge of medicinal plants, working-class learning by doing on
> the job, etc.); if most products of knowledge production got privatized,
> there would be less commonly available means for further innovations.

yup.

With regard to cinema -- I am far from an expert -- the best cinema usually
comes from countries that have government sponsorship.  Where is the Australian
cinema now that the government does not support it?  Even the Soviets under
Stalin produced some excellent films.
--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Michael Perelman wrote:

>If the production of knowledge is left to the profit maximizing
>corporations, then
>they probably need something like a patent in order to induce them to do
>anything.

Perhaps this may be, besides being a political dialectic between
competition & monopoly, an example of contradiction between the impulse to
privatize anything & everything and the need to sustain the conditions for
systemic reproduction of capitalism.  On one hand, a capitalist dream may
be to wholly privatize the products of intellectual labor through patent;
on the other hand, wholly patented knowledge production is not just
inefficient but impossible.  Capitalists benefit from the existence of
spheres of non-capitalist production of knowledge (e.g. research at
universities, working-class cultural innovations like music, indigenous
peoples' knowledge of medicinal plants, working-class learning by doing on
the job, etc.); if most products of knowledge production got privatized,
there would be less commonly available means for further innovations.

>However, knowledge and information are inappropriate candidates for
>commodity status because of the difficulty of enforcing profit rights.  As
>Kenneth
>Arrow, among others, has shown, the idea of markets implies some
>rationality, but
>rationality implies that consumers are informed.  But to be informed about
>information is equivalent to owning that information.

Though the Hong Kong movie industry folks had been anxious about the return
of Hong Kong to China, apparently the HK movie industry has lately fallen
into dire straits not because of nominal communism of China but because of
enterprising pirate video makers.   Meanwhile, Hollywood has increased its
HK market share, taking advantage of the decline of the HK production.
Decentralization at the same time as centralization.  The same might go for
other genres of information.

*   The Toronto Star
May 16, 1999, Sunday, Edition 1
SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT
HEADLINE: PIRATES CHOP HONG KONG FILM INDUSTRY

Bootleg video compact discs are even threatening the success of power
players like Jackie Chan

HONG KONG

Jackie Chan, who defeats the mob in all his movies, is being trounced by
the triads of Hong Kong.

Here in the heart of unregulated capitalism, video piracy has reached
epidemic proportions. Now, everyone in the local film industry - even power
players like Chan - are losing money.

Chan recently announced that his film Rush Hour lost at least $5 million
worldwide last year because of declining attendance at cinemas and reduced
home video sales.

The irony is that the demise of Hong Kong cinema comes just as stars like
Jackie Chan and Jet Li are being embraced by Hollywood.

Determined to fight back, Chan recently took to the streets of Hong Kong
with more than 1,000 other actors and directors to protest the rise of
bootleg video compact discs (VCDs).

Clad in black leather and sporting dark shades, Chan signed autographs for
fans who came to gawk at their favourite action star.

His loyal fans, however, have increasingly become disloyal buyers.

In the crowded streets of Kowloon, across the harbour from the island of
Hong Kong, stalls and tiny shops are filled with pirated VCDs. The grainy
cover sleeves and amateur artwork are dead giveaways.

Most films - like Chan's recent Gorgeous - are on the streets even before
they debut at the movie theatres.

''Why pay $12 to line up and see a new movie when you can pay $4 and watch
it at home?'' says a teenage shopper browsing along the crowded stands of
Tung Choi St.

Why indeed? Especially since the quality of counterfeit discs continues to
improve.

Pirated VCDs have been affectionately dubbed ''People's Heads Pictures'' -
a reference to the heads of members of the audience that turn up in pirated
videos shot directly off cinema screens. The bobbing heads appear less and
less on new bootleg copies. Industry insiders say organized crime
syndicates are now getting prints directly from labs and are striking
cleaner discs.

Although this spells good news for consumers, pirate operations are
changing the face of the Hong Kong film industry.

''Piracy is not only hurting the film industry, it is destroying it,'' says
Woody Tsung, chief executive of the Motion Pictures Industries Association
in Hong Kong. The proof is in declining box-office revenues, says Tsung.


Hong Kong's overall theatrical receipts dropped from $168 million at its
peak in 1993, when it was the third largest film production capital in the
world, to $54 million in 1998. The motion picture industry contends that 95
per cent of that drop is from piracy.

The big winner has been Hollywood. Until five years ago, American films had
just 30 per cent of the theatrical market. Today, they enjoy almost 50 per
cent.

''It's become a vicious cycle,'' says Rita Lau, deputy secretary of
Information Technology and Broadcasting Bureau.

''The incentive to put money into film production has dampened. It will be
th

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on

[michael]

Yes, the idea of a use agreement for seeds strikes me as odd.
> 
> 
> An interesting post. It is only in the case of MonsantoGM
> seeds sold with a TUA (Technology Use Agreement) that
> the analogy with licencing applies. Even at that there are
> important differences. Seeds are discrete objects and are
> consumed in production of the plant. Programs can be used
> over and over, seeds only once. They cannot be copied as can
> programs. Of course the mature plant produces further seeds
> and as part of the agreement these may not be saved or sold
> to another buyer. Ordinary seeds are owned by the farmer who
> buys them and the same it true of certain sorts of GM seeds
> as well, such as GM seed potatoes. Even without TUA
> contracts though, more and more contractual arrangements
> bind farmer with elevator companies, fertilizer, seed, and
> pesticide manufacturers. Farmers see these as reducing risk,
> and obtaining favorable prices for inputs even though they
> are bound to sell to a certain buyer and use certain inputs.
> Manufacturers see the contracts as assuring use of their
> products and delivery to their facilities.
>   Cheers, Ken Hanly 
> Michael Perelman wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > S
> > 
> > No.  You do not own the program.  You have a license to use it.  Just as farmers 
>do not own Monsanto seeds.  They have a license to use it.
> > --
> > 
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Chico, CA 95929
> > 530-898-5321
> > fax 530-898-5901
> 
> 


-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Ken Hanly]

An interesting post. It is only in the case of MonsantoGM
seeds sold with a TUA (Technology Use Agreement) that
the analogy with licencing applies. Even at that there are
important differences. Seeds are discrete objects and are
consumed in production of the plant. Programs can be used
over and over, seeds only once. They cannot be copied as can
programs. Of course the mature plant produces further seeds
and as part of the agreement these may not be saved or sold
to another buyer. Ordinary seeds are owned by the farmer who
buys them and the same it true of certain sorts of GM seeds
as well, such as GM seed potatoes. Even without TUA
contracts though, more and more contractual arrangements
bind farmer with elevator companies, fertilizer, seed, and
pesticide manufacturers. Farmers see these as reducing risk,
and obtaining favorable prices for inputs even though they
are bound to sell to a certain buyer and use certain inputs.
Manufacturers see the contracts as assuring use of their
products and delivery to their facilities.
  Cheers, Ken Hanly 
Michael Perelman wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > S
> 
> No.  You do not own the program.  You have a license to use it.  Just as farmers do 
>not own Monsanto seeds.  They have a license to use it.
> --
> 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901

Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated Mon, 3 Apr 2000  1:53:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Michael Perelman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

<< Perhaps you expect too much.

The history is interesting, and no doubt the extent to which ideas are treated as 
property varies withthe political winds, like everything else.

> Oh, yeah? Let me introduce you to some patent lawyers I know. The standards are no 
>fuzzier than those that establish property rights in real estate or tangible personal 
>property.

> Oh, but they are.  I covered this in my Class Warfare in the Information Age book.  
>They certainly are fuzzy and billions of dollars are being expended in litigating 
>this stuff.
>

I didn't say they were not fuzzy, just that they were not fuzzier than a lot of law. 
Billions of dollars may be spent on litigation, but billions are also spend on 
litigating contracts and for that matter, in state court, plain old tangible property 
claims.

> So, if I am informed that Microsoft has a program that will do, which I want to do, 
>I own the program?

>No.  You do not own the program.  You have a license to use it.  Just as farmers do 
>not own Monsanto seeds.  They have a license to use it.

I am not expressing myself clearly. I only have a license if I buy a license. But I do 
not need to have ownership or a license or knowledge of how Microsoft's program does 
what I want, and the "how" is the property, to know _that_ MS has a program that 
somehow or another does what I want.

--jks

Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.(fwd)

[Charles Brown]

Mine, 

Yes, I didn't mean to endorse Hayek.

Charles

>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/03/00 03:44PM >>>

Hello Charles. I totally agree with your interpretation of Rand, but, hey
look Hayek is no less bourgeois than Rand. Since I did not know enough
about Rand, I was commenting on Hayek. Hayekian postulates about free
market economy are totally inconsistent with socialism or any form of
social democracy even (just a note).

thanks,

Mine


 Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/02/00 09:34PM >>>
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:

>> michael, i thought intellectual property rights were central to the
>> principles of the free market.

>Not really.  People, such as Hayek, were against intellectual property
>rights,
>since they granted a monopoly to the supposed owner.  Although here is
>Ayn Rand

>125: "Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the
   base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his
   mind."?
>128: "Today, patents are the special target of the collectivists'
   attacks -- directly and indirectly, through such issues as the
   proposed abolition of trademarks, brand names, etc.  While the so-
   called "conservatives" look at those attacks indifferently or, at
   times, approvingly, the collectivists seem to realize that patents
   are the heart and core of property rights, and that once they are
   destroyed, the destruction of all ocher rights will follow
   automatically, as a brief postscript."?

Charles wrote:
__

>CB: Seems to me that these quotes from Rand make clear how bourgeois
>ideology is necessarily idealist ( and working class ideology
>materialist).  By making predominantly mental labor which result in
>designs, ideas, the "heart and core of (private) property rights, and
>impliedly the main source of value, as opposed to predominantly physical
>labor , the bourgeoisie ideologist Rand has prepared the ground for
>claiming that the capitalist, the CEO, the Lee Iacocca or Bill Gates'
>work is infinitely more valuable than that of the mass of individual
>workers, thus justifying the gargantuan differential in pays,. This is
>the diametrical opposite of Marx's theory , which does differentiate
>between the rate of value produced by different levels of skill, but
>makes no special differentiation between mental and physical labor. In
>general , an hour's worth of thinking is worth the same as an hour's
>worth of hammering in Marx's scheme.

Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed. (fwd)

[md7148]

Hello Charles. I totally agree with your interpretation of Rand, but, hey
look Hayek is no less bourgeois than Rand. Since I did not know enough
about Rand, I was commenting on Hayek. Hayekian postulates about free
market economy are totally inconsistent with socialism or any form of
social democracy even (just a note).

thanks,

Mine


 Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/02/00 09:34PM >>>
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:

>> michael, i thought intellectual property rights were central to the
>> principles of the free market.

>Not really.  People, such as Hayek, were against intellectual property
>rights,
>since they granted a monopoly to the supposed owner.  Although here is
>Ayn Rand

>125: "Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the
   base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his
   mind."?
>128: "Today, patents are the special target of the collectivists'
   attacks -- directly and indirectly, through such issues as the
   proposed abolition of trademarks, brand names, etc.  While the so-
   called "conservatives" look at those attacks indifferently or, at
   times, approvingly, the collectivists seem to realize that patents
   are the heart and core of property rights, and that once they are
   destroyed, the destruction of all ocher rights will follow
   automatically, as a brief postscript."?

Charles wrote:
__

>CB: Seems to me that these quotes from Rand make clear how bourgeois
>ideology is necessarily idealist ( and working class ideology
>materialist).  By making predominantly mental labor which result in
>designs, ideas, the "heart and core of (private) property rights, and
>impliedly the main source of value, as opposed to predominantly physical
>labor , the bourgeoisie ideologist Rand has prepared the ground for
>claiming that the capitalist, the CEO, the Lee Iacocca or Bill Gates'
>work is infinitely more valuable than that of the mass of individual
>workers, thus justifying the gargantuan differential in pays,. This is
>the diametrical opposite of Marx's theory , which does differentiate
>between the rate of value produced by different levels of skill, but
>makes no special differentiation between mental and physical labor. In
>general , an hour's worth of thinking is worth the same as an hour's
>worth of hammering in Marx's scheme.

Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Charles Brown]

>>> Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/03/00 01:26PM >>>
Yes and no. Property rights in general are essential but specific property rights not 
so. 



CB: Essential and definitional to capitalism is private property in the basic means of 
production.  So, I agree with you. 

I think it is important to say PRIVATE property rights. Private property is not the 
only form of property or organizing control of ownership. There is public or social 
property. There will still be property in socialism in the sense of organized 
relationship of people to things.

_


Capitalism is notorious for protecting the "property" of some but not that of others. 
There are few property rights in jobs. I could claim a property right on an idea, but 
not on my lungs. All sorts of air borne pollutants enter my lungs, but I can't not
charge the producers of those pollutants with trepassing.

_

CB: Agree. Capitalism is notorious and defined by private property in the basic means 
of production.

And they even run a hoax on the issue you are talking about. Here in the U.S. the 
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, says life, liberty and property cannot be taken 
without due process or just compensation. But personal property of regular people, or 
life , as with your lungs, is not given the protection the private property in basic 
means of production is. And the Constitution does not even theoretically apply to 
PRIVATE entities ripping off people, only to the government in relation to people So, 
it is a bit of a hoax. 

CB

___


So Friedman is in no contradiction when he argues against property rights in ideas, 
but maintains it in other spheres. The argument for supporters of property rights is 
not about whether property rights will exist. It is about What property rights will 
exist.

Rod

Charles Brown wrote:

> >>> Mine Aysen Doyran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/02/00 09:19PM >>>
> Michael Parelman wrote:
>
> > >Today, United States depends on the sale of goods protected >from
> > >competition by intellectual property rights.  Not surprisingly, >three of
> >
> > >the four richest people in this country are associated with one >of these
> >
> > >companies.  Intellectual property rights, however, are >monopolies that
> > >violate the principles of the free market.
> >
>
> michael, i thought intellectual property rights were central to the
> principles of the free market.  what makes capitalism capitalism is the
> recognition of property rights as inalienable individual rights, the notion
> of private possession, so to speak. Am i wrong?
>
> 
>
> Hello Mine. I think you are right. But more specifically private property rights are 
>central to the principles of the free market. "Intellectual property" rights are 
>private property in specific types of commodities such as a design for making 
>something ( patent), a symbol ( trademark) or intellectual product like a book ( 
>copyright), I think.
>
> Charles
>
> _
>
> i don't see how they
> constitute a monopoly in the free market or violate the principles of the
> free market. well, capitalism is a monopoly regime of property owners to
> begin with.  what is equally interesting is that monopoly seems to be
> intrinsic to capitalism, rather than accidental.
>
> there are capitalist regimes without intellectual property rights fully
> established or somewhat established, like those economies in the periphery
> or semi periphery of the world system (i.e.., Turkey). they are nonetheless
> still capitalist by virtue of their integration into the world capitalist
> system. The state often justifies monopolies on the grounds that they are
> necessary for achieving economics of scale  in order to privilege corporate
> interests, i.e, private sector monopoly or public sector monopoly.
>
> how does this differ in the US? In addition to the "formal freedom" market,
> is there a monopoly capitalism?
>
> > --
> > >Michael Perelman
> > >Economics Department
> > >California State University
> > >Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > >Tel. 530-898-5321
> > >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
> --
>
> Mine Aysen Doyran
> PhD Student
> Department of Political Science
> SUNY at Albany
> Nelson A. Rockefeller College
> 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
> Albany, NY 1

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html 
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Michael Perelman]

Perhaps you expect too much.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Michael, I expect better from you.

Here is a section from my book in progress -- minus good formatting:

Despite the present acclaim for intellectual property, critical
   analysis of this subject is not particularly new.  Patents were
   especially controversial in England, France, Germany, Holland, and
   Switzerland during the period 1850 to 1875, particularly among
   those who believed in free-trade and laissez-faire (Machlup and
   Penrose 1950, p. 1).  According to two distinguished scholars of
   intellectual property, Fritz Machlup and Edith Penrose:  "At the
   end of the 1860s the cause of patent protection seemed completely
   lost (Machlup and Penrose 1950, p. 5).  But then, the world
   economy entered a period of prolonged crisis.  Machlup and Penrose
   concluded, "The idea of patent protection regained its public
   appeal when, after the crisis of 1873, protectionists won out over
   free traders."  Thus, market failure directly contributed to the
   rise of patent rights in one of the two senses mentioned above.
The changing nature of corporate research also had a substantial
   effect on intellectual property rights.  Prior to the crisis of
   1873, most large firms were consumers, rather than producers of
   technology.  They depended upon the work of the independent
   inventors, whom the patent system was intended to protect.
Consider the behavior of the railroads that dominated the economy
   of the time.  These huge corporations routinely ignored the patent
   rights of independent inventors.  When the inventors did receive
   compensation, it was limited because the railroads were so
   powerful (Usselman 1999, pp. 68 and 70).
At first, the courts sympathized with the rights of the
   independent inventors.  When companies rode roughshod over the
   work of independent inventors, the courts awarded the the owners
   of these patent rights three times the amount of money that the
   invention was estimated to have saved the firm.  In the early 1870
   in response to the violation of patent rights for braking systems,
   the federal courts in Illinois twice affixed damages of several
   hundred dollars per car for each year of service (Usselman 1999,
   p. 71).
The railroads appealed the judgement.  The Supreme Court ruled in
   their favor in October 1878 in the Tanner case.  The court based
   its ruling on the arguments that the industry provided.  Justice
   Bradley confidently wrote, "Like almost all other inventions, that
   of double brakes came when, in the progress of mechanical
   improvement, it was needed; and being sought by many minds, it is
   not wonderful that it was developed in different and independent
   forms."  Expressing a philosophy of technical change in which the
   railroads and others who employed patented technologies could find
   great comfort, he continued, "[I]f the advance towards the thing
  desired is gradual, and proceeds step by step, so that no one can
  claim the complete whole, then each is entitled only to the
  specific form of device which he produces" (Usselman 1999, p. 73-
  4).
Later, as the major corporations developed their own research
  capacities, they became more appreciative of intellectual property
  rights.  In addition, with the passage of the Sherman Antitrust
  Act in 1890, the giant corporations discovered that intellectual
  property rights represented a powerful tool to limit competition
  without violating the provisions of that law.  I shall return to
  the use of patents as a way of circumventing the antitrust laws
  later.


>
> Patents are a lot older than that, of course, and are protected in the Constitution.

I know that.

> Oh, yeah? Let me introduce you to some patent lawyers I know. The standards are no 
>fuzzier than those that establish property rights in real estate or tangible personal 
>property.

Oh, but they are.  I covered this in my Class Warfare in the Information Age book.  
They certainly are fuzzy and billions of dollars are being expended in litigating this 
stuff.

>
> So, if I am informed that Microsoft has a program that will do, which I want to do, 
>I own the program?

No.  You do not own the program.  You have a license to use it.  Just as farmers do 
not own Monsanto seeds.  They have a license to use it.
--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Re: Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[JKSCHW]

Michael, I expect better from you. 

<< Ken,

If the production of knowledge is left to the profit maximizing corporations, then
they probably need something like a patent in order to induce them to do
anything. 

Patents are a lot older than that, of course, and are protected in the Constitution.

> However, knowledge and information are inappropriate candidates for
commodity status because of the difficulty of enforcing profit rights.  

Oh, yeah? Let me introduce you to some patent lawyers I know. The standards are no 
fuzzier than those that establish property rights in real estate or tangible personal 
property.

>As Kenneth
Arrow, among others, has shown, the idea of markets implies some rationality, but
rationality implies that consumers are informed.  But to be informed about
information is equivalent to owning that information.

So, if I am informed that Microsoft has a program that will do, which I want to do, I 
own the program? 

--jks

Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Rod Hay]

Yes and no. Property rights in general are essential but specific property rights not 
so. Capitalism is notorious for protecting the "property" of some but not that of 
others. There are few property rights in jobs. I could claim a property right on an 
idea, but not on my lungs. All sorts of air borne pollutants enter my lungs, but I 
can't not
charge the producers of those pollutants with trepassing.

So Friedman is in no contradiction when he argues against property rights in ideas, 
but maintains it in other spheres. The argument for supporters of property rights is 
not about whether property rights will exist. It is about What property rights will 
exist.

Rod

Charles Brown wrote:

> >>> Mine Aysen Doyran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/02/00 09:19PM >>>
> Michael Parelman wrote:
>
> > >Today, United States depends on the sale of goods protected >from
> > >competition by intellectual property rights.  Not surprisingly, >three of
> >
> > >the four richest people in this country are associated with one >of these
> >
> > >companies.  Intellectual property rights, however, are >monopolies that
> > >violate the principles of the free market.
> >
>
> michael, i thought intellectual property rights were central to the
> principles of the free market.  what makes capitalism capitalism is the
> recognition of property rights as inalienable individual rights, the notion
> of private possession, so to speak. Am i wrong?
>
> 
>
> Hello Mine. I think you are right. But more specifically private property rights are 
>central to the principles of the free market. "Intellectual property" rights are 
>private property in specific types of commodities such as a design for making 
>something ( patent), a symbol ( trademark) or intellectual product like a book ( 
>copyright), I think.
>
> Charles
>
> _
>
> i don't see how they
> constitute a monopoly in the free market or violate the principles of the
> free market. well, capitalism is a monopoly regime of property owners to
> begin with.  what is equally interesting is that monopoly seems to be
> intrinsic to capitalism, rather than accidental.
>
> there are capitalist regimes without intellectual property rights fully
> established or somewhat established, like those economies in the periphery
> or semi periphery of the world system (i.e.., Turkey). they are nonetheless
> still capitalist by virtue of their integration into the world capitalist
> system. The state often justifies monopolies on the grounds that they are
> necessary for achieving economics of scale  in order to privilege corporate
> interests, i.e, private sector monopoly or public sector monopoly.
>
> how does this differ in the US? In addition to the "formal freedom" market,
> is there a monopoly capitalism?
>
> > --
> > >Michael Perelman
> > >Economics Department
> > >California State University
> > >Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > >Tel. 530-898-5321
> > >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
>
> Mine Aysen Doyran
> PhD Student
> Department of Political Science
> SUNY at Albany
> Nelson A. Rockefeller College
> 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
> Albany, NY 1

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on

[michael]

The proposal came from Michael Kremer.  It makes some sense, but it has
limits too.  Here is the short mention of Kremer in my book on
intellectual property, which is about 60% done.

Michael Kremer has suggested an interesting procedure to reward
   the production of intellectual property while avoiding the some of
   the distortions associated with treating intellectual property as
   a monopoly (Kremer 1998).  He proposed that patents be put up an
   auction.  The winning bidders would be allowed keep some of the
   patents, but the state would purchase the majority for the price
   of the winning bid, plus a premium.  The state would then put its
   auctions in the private domain.

Kremer's method seems superior to the situation as it exists
   today.  Some of the patents would still remain as private
   monopolies.  More important, this procedure would still privatize
   the rewards from scientific research, leading to the secrecy that
   threatens the scientific process.
[

Jim Devine wrote:

> 
> I posted an article to pen-l awhile back where the author argued that 
> instead of giving a patent-type monopoly to the patent-holder, the latter 
> should be rewarded according to an auction process. It was more complicated 
> than that, but the idea was quite capitalist in intention, to create the 
> incentive to invest in inventions while opening up the flow of information. 
> If you want, I'll look for it.
> 


-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Jim Devine]

Michael wrote:
>If the production of knowledge is left to the profit maximizing 
>corporations, then
>they probably need something like a patent in order to induce them to do
>anything.

I posted an article to pen-l awhile back where the author argued that 
instead of giving a patent-type monopoly to the patent-holder, the latter 
should be rewarded according to an auction process. It was more complicated 
than that, but the idea was quite capitalist in intention, to create the 
incentive to invest in inventions while opening up the flow of information. 
If you want, I'll look for it.

>However, knowledge and information are inappropriate candidates for 
>commodity status because of the difficulty of enforcing profit rights.  As 
>Kenneth Arrow, among others, has shown, the idea of markets implies some 
>rationality, but rationality implies that consumers are informed.  But to 
>be informed about information is equivalent to owning that information.

In the case of the patenting of an industrial process or of the inner 
mechanisms of some mechanical device, it doesn't do the consumers any good 
to know the content of the patent, since they lack the capital to put the 
knowledge into practice. (There are   other cases like this, no?) Instead, 
the patent protects the patent-holder against its competitors, who might 
have sufficient capital.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine