The thing about you Mine, is you are just so SMART!
Steve
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes, it is interesting to follow the "orientation" of discussion
taking place in this list. The intellectual ranks of _Analytical Marxism_
include people like Cohen,
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20535] Entertaining Dogma (was Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel)
Greetings Economists,
An interesting reply from Yoshie. First I want to somehow convey how much I appreciate your thoughts Yoshie on so many subjects. Especially what you wrote not to me but to jks,
Yoshie,
At 08:59 21/06/00 +, you wrote:
The shadowy think-tank Stratfor also made this
analysis and threw China into the mix. Some of this seems plausible in
light of the Nato bombing of the Chinese embassy.
Amusing to here you call Stratfor a shadowy think-tank as it really is
neither.
Good that people like Boris Kagarlitsky is checking in with PEN-L but only
if the rest of us have an interest in the detail of developments in Russia
will this be helpful.
The dramatic news this week of Gusinky's arrest is important. I see from
the International Herald Tribune that he has
...and the jabs keep coming. I wish more folks would take time out to
realise that the personal insult is more damaging to communication than it
is corrective of behaviour. A little self- (read ego-) sacrificial, I mean
modest, questioning -- even if it only poses as modest -- would be far
At 08:33 PM 06/21/2000 -0700, you wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
If growth is democratically planned, then it's hard to imagine that
growth of "output" would be the only criterion. There would be much more
attention to issues of quality -- and issues such as the definition of
what in heck is
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
history.
Rod
_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and
At 08:20 PM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
history.
Rod
_The
_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
I have to agree, Brad. And all gorgeously written, too.
And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more
Steuart published his book in 1767, although much of it was written decades
before -- possibly lifted from Cantillon. The term, political economy, was first
used by Montechretian in the 17th C. The idea was that term economy, concerned
the management of an estate. Political economy meant that
_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
I have to agree, Brad. And all gorgeously written, too.
From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative
Not my assessment, but Marx's. And he was referring to the Principles of
Political Economy, not to the works you list. I happen to like J.S. Mill although
I have an aversion to his father.
Rod
Brad De Long wrote:
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
She spent her weekends with her husband and JSM. I recall that she often could
not walk, except when it was time for their vacation in France -- but I could be
mistaken on that.
Brad De Long wrote:
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
simply because
Subject:
The American Labor Movement
Date:
Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:36:38 -0400
From:
Tom Lehman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization:
USWA
To:
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I
C'mon Yoshie,
You wouldn't have to bust a gut to find a bit of (almost unavoidable, in the
1850s) eurocentrism in Marx's writings. Some of that Asiatic Mode of
Production stuff, is a little simplistic, no? And then there's his 'The
Future Results of British Rule in India' - stuff like :
And, having said all that, it was a lot easier being a JSM than a KM, too.
Ya gotta watch the implicit individualism your education has been stuffing
into you all these years, mate - these blokes lived in very different
contexts.
Cheers,
Rob.
Very true...
Brad DeLong
At 08:20 PM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
history.
Rod
_The
Hi Rob:
Forget "Eurocentrism" of Mill Marx for a moment -- my intention was
to _confirm_ Brad's claim: Mill's writings "still stand up pretty
well." _Considerations of Representative Government_, read (against
the grain) as description of liberal democracy and not as an apologia
of it,
I wrote:
and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of
Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name.
Brad queries:
I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the
morning re-reading it...
unfortunately, this is something I
In one of his prefaces J.S. Mill thanks Harriet Taylor profusely and says
that because he discussed the material with her so thoroughly, she should be
considered a co-author. This has been taken by some and transferred into
statements similar to those that Jim repeated.
Rod
Jim Devine wrote:
Don't confuse functionalISM, the doctrine maintained by the likes of Talcott Parsons,
which says that all im,portant features of society are "functional," with functional
EXPLANATION, a pattern of explanation used in biology and the social sciences, and
applicable to some phenomena but biy
I said:
The style of orthodox Marxism is of course a guarantee that no one will
talk to you who is not already a true believer.
Doyle
That turn of phrase I recall from the old days of the sixties from the
philosopher, Eric Hoffer. Where Hoffer theorized the Marxist left as being
"true
Justin:
Louis Proyect is a proud defender of this pattern of behavior; he also
regards me as beneath contempt, a filthy right wing renegade, a nasty
social democratic turncoat, a class traitor and enemy of the people, who
ought to crawl back to the Heritage Foundation and stop exposing innocent
You too can be a much-reviled pundit.
On June 8 the House repealed the Federal
Estate and Gift Tax, our most progressive
tax. Repeal is now up for consideration in
the Senate. Everything you need to know
aobut it is in the links included herein.
Any questions, feel free to drop me a
line.
and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of Women_
but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
I think there is more to above. Harriet Taylor wrote essay entitled
*The Emancipation
Brad De Long wrote:
If this Republican tide does sweep over the land, there will still
be a country called "America." But that country will lack much of
what made America special, and lovely.
Just when was it that the U.S. was not a place where inherited wealth
mattered a lot? I thought U.S.
I don't view Marxian dialectical method as a neutral "toolkit," nor did I
say I did.
Who said anything about "neutral"? Not moi. I assume that if you ask questions about
class and exploitation, you do so because you have answered the question in your mind,
which side am I on? But my point
This essay had little to do with India. Marx wrote it to undermine the
influence of Henry Carey, who was sabotaging Marx's relationship at the Tribune
and gaining a great deal of influence with the workers movement in Germany by
way of the Duehring. I had a chapter telling this story in my Marx
In one of his prefaces J.S. Mill thanks Harriet Taylor profusely and says
that because he discussed the material with her so thoroughly, she should be
considered a co-author. This has been taken by some and transferred into
statements similar to those that Jim repeated.
Rod
Rod means the
Brad De Long wrote:
If this Republican tide does sweep over the land, there will still
be a country called "America." But that country will lack much of
what made America special, and lovely.
Just when was it that the U.S. was not a place where inherited
wealth mattered a lot? I thought U.S.
well." _Considerations of Representative Government_, read (against
the grain) as description of liberal democracy and not as an apologia
of it, beautifully summarizes what it is.
Yoshie
good point Yoshie, but this is what "liberal democracy" is all about, so
_Considerations of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. But I did mean to attack dogmatic Marxists, who of course will deny thatthey are
being dogmatic, but who respond to any criticism of Marx, engels, Lenin, and
sometimes Trotsky with a porcupine response,
I really don't understand something. You, Doug, others on
Carrol Cox wrote:
I really don't understand something. You, Doug, others on this list are
forceful writers, well read, widely knowledgeable, quite capable of
carrying out a principled argument on most topics. So why then are you
so fucking lazy intellectually? Do you really need this crutch of
Doug Henwood wrote:
"Childish," "slovenl[y]," "fucking lazy." Thank god those aren't
labels, just mere descriptions.
Both. Dogmatism, when it occurs, is a political and/or intellectual
error. The habit of replacing principled argument with charges of
dogmatism or sectarianism (which,
There's an article in Aijaz Ahmad's "In Theory: Classes, Nations and
Literatures" titled "Marx on India: a Clarification" that was written as a
reply to Edward Said. Said had included Marx as a "Eurocentric" in his
polemic against Orientalism. The problem is that the articles that figure
in
And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny
von
Westphalen...
No use pretending Marx was as sensitive a feminist as Mill (although the
former was well ahead of the pack in this regard),
Rob.
J. S. Mill and Harriet Taylor are the architects of what came to be
known as
Perhaps you meant something else, but the following passage sure sounded like
functionalism--not functional adaption-- to me.
Joel Blau
Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare
is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in damping
social unrest, stabilizing the
Doug is probably correct, but I think that the question should revolve
around the chance for social mobility. I suspect that it was higher --
No, I don't have the data -- in the 1820's than today. Foner's image of
the free labor ideal was not entirely a fantasy for white men. Land,
even though
Here in Pittsburgh a group of leftists and progresive unionists have
proposed to the Central Labor Council the formation of an education
group. We met today with the president of the Council with our
proposal. He responded very favorably. One of the things we proposed
was the development of
Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.
Joel Blau
Michael Perelman wrote:
Doug is probably correct, but I think that the question should revolve
around the chance for social mobility. I suspect that it was
Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.
Joel Blau
That's my household from 1983 to 1988. But that *ain't*
socio-economic mobility in any *real* sense... that's finishing
graduate school.
Brad deLong
My question has to do with the trends in this statistic. Is it worse today
than in earlier times?
Joel Blau wrote:
Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody
rising from the bottom to the middle quintile.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California
Well, perhaps not quite a graduate student who is going to be tenured some
day, but it is certainly not intergenerational. On that score, my memory is
that if your family is in the bottom fifth, you have about a 40% chance of
rising to the middle (sorry, without rumaging around a lot, I can't
I think so. My sense is that there has been a petrification of the U.S. class
structure, one which may allow some movement between the lower quintiles, but
simply on a numerical basis, offers less probability of sling-shotting yourself
from the bottom to the top.
Joel Blau
Michael Perelman
Nailing GW for this murder is easy. He mocked Carla Fay Tucker and
vetoed legislation to make a strong defense easier for indigent
defendents. Yet, looking at Texas from Cal., I see that our own
"liberal" governor has allowed equally questionable executions. He has
also tried to put law and
Michael Perelman wrote:
My question has to do with the trends in this statistic. Is it worse today
than in earlier times?
Joel Blau wrote:
I think so. My sense is that there has been a petrification of the U.S. class
structure, one which may allow some movement between the lower quintiles,
At 03:16 PM 6/22/00 -0700, you wrote:
Now, that the Death Penalty is becoming less popular, you can bet that
some people will opportunistically jump on the band wagon. The whole
system is disgusting.
In the recent issue of the NATION, Hitchens argues that it's not the
Democrats who are
"By 2000, the machines will be producing so much that everyone in the U.S.
will, in effect, be independently wealthy. With government benefits, even
nonworking families will have, by one estimate, an annual income of
$30,000-$40,000 (in 1966 dollars). How to use leisure meaningfully will be
a
Jim Devine wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
My question has to do with the trends in this statistic. Is it worse today
than in earlier times?
Hence the drive to reopen the frontier, through imperial expansion. If you want to
push this argument a little farther, you could even correlate
In this genre, there is also the 1967 Fortune magazine prediction that by 2000,
wages would rise another 150%.
Joel Blau
Jim Devine wrote:
"By 2000, the machines will be producing so much that everyone in the U.S.
will, in effect, be independently wealthy. With government benefits, even
Michael Perelman wrote:
My question has to do with the trends in this statistic. Is it worse today
than in earlier times?
Studies of mobility over the last several decades come up with
conflicting results. And that's with pretty good data. Anything that
purported to measure 19th century
Max Sawicky wrote:
Not necessarily, Jimbo. The DP is not much less
popular than ever.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr000224.asp
POLL RELEASES
February 24, 2000
Support for Death Penalty Drops to Lowest Level in 19 Years, Although
Still High at 66%
Widespread agreement, even among
Michael Perelman wrote:
My question has to do with the trends in this statistic. Is it worse today
than in earlier times?
Studies of mobility over the last several decades come up with
conflicting results. And that's with pretty good data. Anything that
purported to measure 19th century
At 03:16 PM 6/22/00 -0700, you wrote:
Now, that the Death Penalty is becoming less popular, you can bet that
some people will opportunistically jump on the band wagon. The whole
system is disgusting.
In the recent issue of the NATION, Hitchens argues that it's not the
Democrats who are
Brad, you were listed in the acknowledgments of the Williamson - O'Rourke book.
Their idea is that the migration from Ireland would limit mobility in the U.S.
and maybe raise it in Ireland. Most of what I have read about the end of
slavery, seems to suggest that upward mobility for freed slaves
I said:
. I think Cohen was right that
historical materialism is basically functional explanation,a nd I approve of
historical materialism.
Jim responds
Cohen's version of historical materialism . . . is a bunch of
transhistorical and
thus unhistorical abstractions that say little or
Dear Doyle,
Those jerks deserve more than I said, but I just felt like not throwing
gas to the fire any longer. As always, I am very much appreciated by your
supportive remarks and sincere comments, and will continue the struggle
against those unjustly attacking people!
in solidarity,
Mine
O.K. It's less popular than ever, but still popular
enough to carry the day, in the absence of strong
counter-vailing arguments.
mbs
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2000 4:21 PM
Subject:
I think that a market environment encourages individualism, but the
application of rat choice came first with Smith, not Marx.
Who said Marx was first? Hell, Smith wasn't first. Hobbes was earlier and HE
wasn't first.
And Marx, unlike
the rat choice types, saw "preferences" as
I apologize for this private correspondence. I really thought I sent this
to Doyle's address, and somehow it mistakenly went to the list.
sorry again..
Doyle sorry! I did not do it on purpose...
Mine Doyran
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:28:52 EDT
From:
In a message dated 6/22/00 1:06:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I get to play an "Orthodox Marxist" perhaps
only in the minds of posters on LBO-talk PEN-L. :)
Given my views on sex, gender, sexuality, and many other topics, I
couldn't have been called
In a message dated 6/22/00 11:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative
Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a
sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism.
And it seems to me
In a message dated 6/22/00 1:54:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rad queries:
I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the
morning re-reading it...
unfortunately, this is something I picked up in a philosophy class taken
many years ago,
In a message dated 6/22/00 3:52:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The habit of replacing principled argument with charges of
dogmatism or sectarianism (which, properly used, are always
self-criticisms) is a character flaw.
Carrol
I know, people complain, but I
In a message dated 6/22/00 4:11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Radical feminists do not find them perfect either. That being said,
however, they were the ones who first raised the question of Women in
Marxism.
What about August Bebel, whose Woman Under Socialism is
In a message dated 6/22/00 4:19:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Perhaps you meant something else, but the following passage sure sounded
like functionalism--not functional adaption-- to me.
Joel Blau
Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare
is
Once again, all I can say before I get on a 20 some hour flight with long
connections just to catch some jass in Montreal is, wow Mine, you're so
smart you can talk to Justin Schwartz like he's so dumb...wish I were that
smart...
Mine wrote:
I don't have time because I have sepent with this
Don't be too hard on Mine. We all remember when we were in graduate school and
knew everything before we had read it. I just wish that the internet was
around when I was there. I could have gone on and bashed professors without
any fear of reprisals. Unfortunately I had to do it in the Graduate
I wasn't sure if Justin had earlier told Mine to hit the books. His
language was ambiguous. In any case, we are in trouble when one of us
becomes the subject of our conversations. I have asked Mine to cool it,
and so far she has, except in this case where she may/may not have been
the
--- Sponsor's Message --
Knowledge is power, but at AllPredict its also cash
and prizes! Test how knowledgeable you are and get
rewarded for making accurate predictions.
Lets AllPredict the future at:
Michael Yates wrote:
Not long ago, on one of these lists, there was a post about the
rejuvenation of the NZ Labor Party and the reversal of some of the
anti-labor policies of previous Labor and National governments. Can
anyone in the know on these matters comment? Has the NZ Labor Party
(This is from a NY Times article by Raymond Bonner and Sara Rimer, dated
June 11, that deals with the incompetence of Gary Graham's (aka Shaka
Sankofa) court-appointed lawyer. Bonner is a fiercely courageous journalist
who was removed from his post in Central America in the 1980s by editor
A.M.
Not long ago, on one of these lists, there was a post about the
rejuvenation of the NZ Labor Party and the reversal of some of the
anti-labor policies of previous Labor and National governments. Can
anyone in the know on these matters comment? Has the NZ Labor Party
really moved left? Have the
No foreign epithets allowed. Only domestic.
Instead of w*, there is the perfectly good
U.S. term of pud-whacker.
mbs
Fair Trade Coalition
Greetings Economists,
Doug Henwood asks if I give my permission to use the word "Wanker". I
grant Doug Henwood permission to use the word Wanker. He
74 matches
Mail list logo
