I. CONGRATS PEN-L!
* Digest #177 was 411K!
* There were 87 posts in Digest #177!
II.
* One person wrote 18 posts yesterday!!!
This is insanity. Who has time to read this quantity of posts/day?
(Answer: only those without a life).
Given this volume and free-rider effect abuse,
Barkley writes -- imploring me to write more for PEN-L:
We are waiting.
You will have to continue to wait.
What PEN-L suffers from is not the absence of posts. Quite the reverse. It
is not uncommon for daily digests to be over 500K. I would guestimate that
digests have average over 250K in
An intelligent discussion would begin by reading the references that
Anwar Shaikh (NB: _not_ "Sheik") gives rather than spinning one's
wheels in ignorance.
Or is it too much to ask that one become familiar with a person's work
before passing judgment on it?
Jerry
PS1: As this same person has
spam.
Doug writes:
H-lp! LBO badly needs an intern snip
What did you say you were offering prospective candidates in terms of an
hourly wage and benefits?
Jerry
Reply to Michael P:
a) I did not re-raise this issue. Proyect did when he revealed his drunken
behavior, etc. at the "Rethinking Marxism" conference. Blame him.
b) There was nothing in my post that could fit any reasonable definition
of a flame.
c) The *reason* this issue won't go away is
Barkley asks:
Are you happy now, Jerry?
Not yet.
Had a published "review" of your book been authored by someone who
admitted (afterwards) that s/he only read the dust jacket, would your
response be so cavalier?
I doubt it.
What makes this fraud *more* important than the "Social Text affair"
Proyect on his participation at the December 1996 Rethinking Marxism
conference in Amherst:
At the opening night's reception, I downed 3 scotches in rapid
succession to put me in the proper frame of mind for the opening
session.
He then went on to make a comment in the discussion period at
Jim D wrote:
Scrooge represented the narrowest of the gasping capitalists, the
row-minded "philistines," at least to Dinkins.
that is only part of the story. Scrooge also was a symbol for Dinkins of
Christian redemption and charity.. Don't you remember how the story ends?
Jerry
I. For the benefit of Jim Craven's employers, who evidently are reading
PEN-L, let me explain what academic freedom means for someone teaching
economics. I'll make it real simple.
a) academic freedom gives instructors the right to talk about any subject
in the classroom that is in *any way*
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: J Poxon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
**
READ IT AND PASS IT ON:
SENATE PASSES BILL ON NO FUNDING FOR MINORITIES IN COLLEGE!!
A bill will be heard in Congress next week to prohibit
Jason wrote in [PEN-L:359]:
Boumol considers himself to be very "sympathetic" to Marx.
While one could argue that Boumol's 1970's _JEL_ article on the
"transformation problem" was "sympathetic" to Marx (especially in
comparison to Samuelson!), I have never heard it claimed before that
Boumol
Mark Jones wrote:
Michael has repeatedly asked for this absurd flaming to stop. Is it not
time to DO something to stop it?
The day before Mark Jones wrote (to Paul Zarembka):
This (i.e. those arresting Paul Z, JL) would be the men in flapping
white costs, presumably.
Is this what you had
Previously, I wrote:
Susan Flack wrote:
May only ye who hath no sin cast the 1st stone.
Does this mean that you think we should all stay silent in the presence
of homophobia, cop-baiting, etc.?
Michael answered:
Yes, by all means.
A few days ago someone on pen-l commented on the sad
Michael, quoting Rodney King, asked:
Can't we just get along?
No. There is too much at stake here.
Susan Flack wrote:
May only ye who hath no sin cast the 1st stone.
Does this mean that you think we should all stay silent in the presence of
homophobia, cop-baiting, etc.?
Jerry
in case
hiper that Proyect has entered into an unprincipled
combination with!
On to yesterday's post ...
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:37:16-0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Progressive Economics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: on the status of the pen-l list
Forwarded from a post by aut-op-sy moderator, Steve Wright
[EMAIL PROTECTED]. For more information on Toni's legal case,
see:
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~forks/TNmain.htm
--
Negri Update, 10 May 1998
Toni Negri remains
Proyect's post on this subject is chock full of inaccuracies and
distortions. And his contributions (what Ajit calls "Louis Proyectism")
have come to symbolize the downfall in the mode of discourse on pen-l.
When flames erupt on pen-l (and they erupt not infrequently), they often
begin with
J.M. Craven wrote:
[...] I see no difference between the "left-wing" anarchists and
right-wing libertarians except some of the rhetoric and nominalist
concepts of personal liberty/freedom. Historically they have wrecked
more social movements then they have ever contributed and historically
Jim Craven wrote:
Anarcho-Marxists? What's next? Communist Nazis or Nazi Communists?
The above sounds, whether intended or not, like an [ill-informed]
insult to anarchists. To begin with, anarchists are part of the Left and
the workers' movement (and should in no way be confused with Nazis
Doug has condemned Gillott and Kumar's book without reading it or even
seeing a copy. If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then
Doug should not object to others who have not read _Wall Street_ from
condemning it sight unseen. Perhaps Doug will now admit that his
"review" of
The Indians supported the reactionaries, so they got what they
deserved.
I don't recall anyone on pen-l making that assertion. Who was the
original author of the above?
Jerry
Doug Henwood wrote:
It might be a better use
of a Marxist's time to figure out how to organize to end this destructive
polarizing system than to devise elaborate theories of how it will do
itself in.
Name names.
Which contemporary Marxists have been devising "elaborate" theories for
how
++
A robot can build a car. But a robot cannot buy a car... The
explosion in the development of computer- and robotic-based
manufacturing is seeing the rapid expansion of laborless
production systems.
Robots can NOT (presently)
Colin Danby asked:
Has anyone got the reference context for K Marx's reported
denial that he was a Marxist?
See Joseph O'Malley and Keith Algozin ed. _Rubel on Karl Marx: Five
Essays_, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp. 19-22.
Jerry
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Yes, but Jerry you have to explain why you recommend that Doug
a) choose a liberal school that charges outrageous tution rates that most
working class students cannot afford instead of the Marxist School, which
is much cheaper and run by a group of admisitrators who
Louis Proyect wrote:
becoming a pro-management snitch).
Levy, I was going to ignore this as I used to ignore your ravings on the
Marxism-International mailing-list. I think most people on PEN-L are
starting to form the same sort of impression of you that people already
have on the
James Devine wrote:
Being Marx-informed and
Marx-friendly, his "superficial" or "empiricist" analyses in WALL STREET
takes for granted Marx's vol. I macro-analysis.
He has not "taken for granted" the distinction between productive and
unproductive labour and has indeed often explicitly
Ellen (anzalone/starbird) wrote:
Is it true that inmates incarcerated in prison are NOT counted as
households in your data?
To be counted as being employed or unemployed in the US data, one must
first be counted as being part of the labor force. But, the labor force is
defined in such a way
Stephen E Philion wrote:
This is the problem Jerry. You say you are critical of Malecki, yet you
have never spent any energy criticizing this guy,
Where do you get your information from? Just recently, I criticized him
publicly (and repeatedly).
Lou's sin was simple and he apologized for
James Devine wrote:
I can't believe that anyone could get so _excited_ about the issue of
unproductive vs. productive labor; it's a pretty academic issue that should
have no emotional content. Bitter criticism seems out of line.
I was simply pointing out that your claim re Henwood's
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Think of it like this. Maurce Dobb and Paul Sweezy had a very lively
debate in the 1950's. Their views were largely irreconcilable, yet
neither party ever sunk to telling the other one "to go back to school to
learn (fill in th eblank)..." Brenner and Wallerstein
Gil Skillman wrote:
And forget the New or Marxist Schools, my vote is that Doug should go to
SUNY--Stonybrook. For game theory. [Hah, that'll shake him up.]
Last time I checked, there were quite a few (mathematics) courses on game
theory at NYU (a short walk away from the New School). The
Gil wrote:
Jerry writes:
Look: you can't have it both ways: either value categories are important
or they are not...
Jerry, this seems uncharacteristically dogmatic of you.
There is nothing dogmatic in one's pointing out that someone has:
a) avoided repeatedly answering a question;
b)
Stephen E Philion wrote:
state and take a position. If it is really true that you "don't know the
answer to this", then you should consider either going back to school
Jerry is staking out a very elitist intellectual position here that only
in school do we learn anything.
You had to cut
Doug Henwood wrote:
To define productive and unproductive labour, don't you first have to
define surplus value?
Hey, I just got a copy of Tom Peters' latest tome - personally autographed
and by FedEx! - The Circle of Innovation: You Can't Shrink Your Way To
Greatness. Tom has a chapter
Doug Henwood wrote:
Why
is it "more important to determine the rate of exploitation through a
rejection of wage share" than to explore income polarlization? What does it
reveal?
You seem to be asking: "what does exploitation reveal?" [!]
In
general, "productive" workers are better paid
Doug Henwood wrote previously:
Value categories may be important for examining the inner dynamics of
capitalist economies,
which led me to note:
Well ... that's certainly a wishy-washy statement.
and then ask:
Are they important or are they not? If they are important, how are they
Doug Henwood wrote:
If having made up your mind about everything is a mark of sophistication,
then I think both knowledge and politics could do with a little more
naivete.
Amazing ... you haven't "made up your mind" yet about value theory, but
have just written a "Marxist" work claiming to
Doug Henwood wrote:
I asked because I really want to hear answers [...]
I agree: I want to hear answers as well. You can begin by answering the
following question:
Doug asserted that the "theoretical ground of Marxian PE ... has been a
bit overplowed". I wonder: "overplowed" by whom? ...
James Devine wrote:
BTW, I can't see how Doug Henwood is an empiricist. His recent book [...]
As I hinted before, Doug has claimed that the "intelligent use of
bourgeois statistics" can serve as a substitute for Marxian categories.
This prejudice against theoretical analysis informs much of
Doug Henwood wrote:
PS: Who suggested, in all seriousness, that the "intelligent use of
bourgeois statistics" could serve as a substitute for Marxian empirical
studies?
Henry Rollins?
Close but no cigar.
Perhaps the following will help refresh your memory: the above was
suggested on
Doug Henwood wrote:
OK, I have to confess. I've been posting to PEN-L and other lists under the
name Jerry Levy to provoke controversy, and with it attention. Because as
we say in the self-promotional trade, there's no such thing as bad
publicity.
OK, I have to confess as well. I've been
Doug Henwood wrote:
PS: Who suggested, in all seriousness, that the "intelligent use of
bourgeois statistics" could serve as a substitute for Marxian empirical
studies?
Henry Rollins?
Perhaps the following will help refresh your memory: the above was
suggested on the Internet on 10/25/87 by
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Gery, I think you are experiencing problems with reading comprehension.
Did Doug actually say that "everything's groovy" or was he being
facetious? I somehow suspect the latter. I would welcome any proof that
he was being anything but facetious.
Yes, Doug wrote
Doug Henwood wrote:
Never thought I'd see reasoning like that on PEN-L.
It's true: we have seen some weird reasoning on PEN-L recently. For
instance, just the other day someone wrote re Wall Street that
"everything's groovy"!
People should keep
their money in stocks because they have
I guess there must be something in V. 3 of Capital that explains
all this.
The particular issue that I raised ("investment" of savings by
working-class families in the stock market) wasn't considered by Marx.
However, Part 5 of V3, in particular the sections on credit and fictitious
capital,
Tom Walker wrote:
As Doug pointed out a while ago, many mutual fund
"investors" had come to expect annual increases of that magnitude as a
matter of course. To "recover most of the air pressure" would require not
only that recent losses be cancelled out but that something like the
previous
Tom Walker wrote:
But this does raise an interesting physics question: "How much hot
air does it take to reinflate a burst balloon?"
Why assume that the balloon has burst? Most of the air pressure that was
lost yesterday seems to have been recovered today. This, however, doesn't
mean that
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
The labor theory of value in its classical form is untenable.
Today science and technology play a greater role in the
creation of value than productive labor.
And who, pray tell, creates "science and technology"?
But Marx did not integrate these ideas into his
Robert Saute, CUNY Grad Center wrote:
Glick, an outspoken lesbian and generally independent Council Person, ran
a campaign in the lower half of Manhattan, i.e., the mostly white and
higher income half of Manhattan.
Comrade, you need a geography lesson! I assume you would include the
Lower
Michael P asked:
1. The Wall Street Journal says that part time jobs are not increasing?
Any thoughts.
Last time I looked at the numbers, part-time jobs were marginally
decreasing. BUT, if you compare figures for part-time jobs today to that
during the early 1980's then you see that there has
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sierra Leone IWW needs help
Sierra Leone Solidarity Bulletin #1
Support IWW unionists in West Africa!
June 13, 1997
Forced into
Doug Henwood wrote:
In fact, some of our most
prominent political theorists are still developing reasons why "unity" is a
bad thing.
Who are some of these naughty "prominent theorists" who think that
"'unity' is a bad thing"??? Jee, I don't recall any of "our most
prominent" saying that.
Walter Daum wrote:
Even more consistent with Marx's method, I think, would be to
read the Thesis as saying that one has to be changing the world
*in order to* analyze it.
... *and* in order to change the world, one must analyze it.
Of course, one *can* change the world without analyzing it
William S. Lear wrote:
Anyway, we have RI - DUI - DA (Radical Intellectuals produce
Democratically Useful Information, which will/can lead to Democratic
Action). But my little model misses something, RI - DTM - DUI -
DA, where DTM is the Democratic Transmission Mechanism. I'm curious,
D Shniad wrote:
This is true, ironically (perhaps especially true) of
many Marxist intellectuals, despite Marx's famous thesis on Feuerbach
about the need to stop analyzing and start changing the world.
The much-quoted XI "Theses on Fuerbach" ["The philosophers have only
*interpreted* the
Doug Henwood wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to humbly join *their* progressive projects
rather than to "recruit" them to your projects.
Which projects are those?
If you have to ask, then you're spending too much time in front of your
computer screen.
Jerry
D Shniad wrote:
You're absolutely correct in your interpretation, Jerry.
Cheers,
Sid
PS -- what are you doing to change the world?
If you are asking me how I am currently politically active, then the
answer (in part) is that I have been and continue to be a participant in
the squatters
Nobody has mentioned any documentaries yet. "Harlan County USA" should be
considered. There are also some good films on the United Farm Workers,
including a pretty good biography of Cesar Chavez that aired recently on
PBS. My vote would go, though, for a documentary on the role of the
"Women's
Bill Burgess wrote:
Sid S. wrote;
Are you serious about not seeing the difference between neoliberalism and
"good old [postwar] capitalism"?
Yes. Of course there are differences, but I don't see the *significant*
difference implied by a position that replaces a traditional
committment to
Doug Henwood wrote:
Elaine Bernard wrote:
Whose Politics Gerry? That was sarcasm. Specifically
it was a shot at what I view, as a long time pen-ler
who tends not to intervene very much (which by the
way is true of most of the women on the list --
god bless you Maggie for your stamina) as
elaine Bernard wrote:
I fear in these discussion on globalization or on
the EU, we tend to construct straw arguments and
then put them to the torch with much fast heat
and little light, and nothing enduring. But hey,
that's politics.
Whose politics? It is not in the interests of workers
Doug Henwood wrote:
My major objection to the globalization rhetoric is that by positing
some alleged epochal break in the nature of capitalism, everything has
changed. Some things have changed, yes, but not everything: unions still
matter, political parties still matter, state power still
Will this be [PEN-L:] all over again? 10,000 posts in
[approximately] the last 2 years? Is that right, Michael?
In PEN-L solidarity, Jerry
For European economists only: if you wish to endorse the following, please
contact Geert Reuten as directed below. /In solidarity, Jerry
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 22:07:24 GMT-1
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Endorse EMU appeal: urgent
rakesh bhandari wrote:
The Marxist position, as developed by Paul Mattick in his several writings,
is not against such improvements for the working class; the argument is
that while such solutions may provide temporary relief, they will not
eliminate the trade cycle and the eventual
By the way, isn't it important for Blair to identify himself as a member of
the collective that sponsored the Conference? This is highly scandalous
when people hide such information. Where's Jerry Levy when you need him?
Jerry, it's time for a crusade against Blair Sandler's dissembling before
By the way, isn't it important for Blair to identify himself as a member of
the collective that sponsored the Conference? This is highly scandalous
when people hide such information. Where's Jerry Levy when you need him?
Jerry, it's time for a crusade against Blair Sandler's dissembling before
"... recent technical innovations in communication and transportation are
of an incremental character and are therefore relatively insignificant."
I'm not exactly sure how "recent" is defined above, but wasn't the
development of the "chip", i.e. the microprocessor, something more than an
Michael Perelman wrote:
By the way, I was saddened to see the MRTA written off as pathetic losers
on pen-l.
Nonetheless, it was most revealing _about some Shining Path supporters_
that they actually _celebrated_ the death of the MRTA rebels ("another
obstacle out of the way" or words to that
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:24:19 +0100 (BST)
From: "S.Mohun" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Job openings at QMW
snip
Dear Colleague
Please find below an advertisement for at least 3 Lectureships which I would be
grateful if you would bring to the attention of
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Chris Johnston wrote:
Came through a while back...
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:22:04 -0800
From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip
29 August 1996
WHAT IS "NEO-LIBERALISM"?
A brief definition for activists
by Elizabeth Martinez
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:55:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dennis Grammenos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Graduate Employees Win at U. of Illinois!!!
Greetings,
It is my honor to announce to you that the Graduate Employees'
Organization (GEO) at the U.
Colin Danby wrote:
Needless confusion was sown when the Chilean economist Alejandro Foxley
published _Latin American Experiments in Neoconservative Economics_ in
1983; its Spanish version, of course, was _Experimentos neoliberales en
America Latina_. Foxley must have felt at the time that
Michael Perelman wrote:
I am trying to find a book to supplement the garbage texts that give
students an idea about what is going on. I have used Wallace Peterson's
The Silent Depression and before that Barlett and Steele.
Any suggestions?
You could check-out Michael Perelman's _The
The WSJ, March 20, contained a special section on Entertainment and
Technology. One article, "Where the Action is" (p. R19) about San
Francisco's SOMA (South of Market) "Multimedia Gulch," discussed the
development of interactive stories, and contained the following:
"One such story is an
Louis N Proyect wrote:
(I would urge people to shy away from Robin Hahnel's
work, however, since he is now revealed as an intellectual snob. Isn't it
funny how beneath the tie-dyed grooviness of a Z Magazine figure, there
lurks somebody who wants to rub your nose in their curricula vitae.)
James Michael Craven wrote:
I would not characterize this so-called "scandal" of having a
"biased" commentor commenting on this conference as a "scandal of
international proportions." In the global scheme of things, this
journal, this conference and even this "biased" commentator on this
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
If _Monthly Review_ were
to have an article written about a conference of Austrian
economists, would you insist that they have Greg Ransom do
it, or alternatively somebody utterly bland with no known
views on Austrian economics or anything else? I think
Doug Henwood wrote:
Jerry, I know you're trying to be constructive after your recent
personality crisis - focusing on the positive can be very therapeutic -
You certainly have a way of raising the quality of discussion, Doug.
Jerry
Doug Henwood, wrote:
Well, OK, if you insist. I've only spent a few hours reading through it
here there, but my impression so far is that it's a lot of theoretical
rehashing that doesn't really engage the present in any lively way.
Let us know when you've finished reading the book.
Parts
Hinrich Kuhls wrote:
Louis Proyect's brief report on the Rethinking Marxism Conference "Politics
and Languages of Contemporary Marxism" has been welcome as one of the
little bricks that are needed to end the ignorance regarding the issues
being discussed by the Left in different countries.
I have already outlined the nature of the "Sozialismus affair" briefly.
Here I consider its implications for the Left by comparing it to the
"Social Text affair":
(a) The _Social Text_ affair concerns a hoax played by Alan Sokal on
the anonymous reviewers and editors of that
Louis Proyect wrote:
There is a political
current emerging around journals such as Socialist Register, Monthly Review
and the German magazine "Socialismus" that will be more and more visible at
these sorts of venues.
The first couple of times I saw this misspelling I let it pass, thinking
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Heck, I'll butt in here. Louis P. asked me off list
to use my near minimal influence with Jerry to get him to
calm down. snip
Please calm down, Jerry.
Although Michael would prefer that I not continue this thread, I think a
reply is in order. To
Michael Perelman wrote:
Yes, Jerry, you are absolutely correct. Maybe Louis would be willing to
admit that his is unsympathetic to the RM and that he reviewed it. I
don't know. Even if he would 'fess up' to doing so, why would that
confession help us?
Whether you like Louis or vice versa
Quite typically, you avoided the substance of what I wrote. I.e. that it
was irresponsible for the editors of _Sozialismus_ to publish a review of
the Rethinking Marxism conference by someone who had already publicly
trashed that conference before he had even seen the entire schedule. In
Michael Perelman wrote:
Maybe we could redo the old sci-fi classic: invasion of the brain
snatchers.
Wasn't it invasion of the _body_ snatchers? Besides, there was a re-make
of the classic movie in the early '80's (?) with Donald Sutherland. The
original was better (although I liked the
Jim Devine wrote:
The actual development of working class
movements is much less predictable than the development of capital.
Yeah, but the prediction of the actual development of capital hasn't been
that easy either. Perhaps it would be better for Marxists if they got out
of the predictive
I am trying to get hold of a paper or book that Anwar Shaikh published
in 1978. It was called 'National Income Accounts and Marxian
Categories' - I believe it was published by the New School for Social
Research.
Gerry Cotterell
You would be better advised to obtain a copy of the more
Max Sawicky wrote,
Of course, when an asteroid exceeding
about 2 mi. in diameter hits the earth, it will
have paid to borrow after all, since much of the
consequent interest payments will be avoided.
You're taking the plot lines for recent made-for-tv movies a little too
much to heart.
Blair S wrote:
But Jerry, considering that most people see capitalism as "natural,"
indeed, the only way to fly, it seems to me that getting folks to see
capitalism as "odd" may be a way to get them to asking questions about
others of its characteristics.
For many, questioning the
DOUG ORR wrote:
One final question on this topic. I remember someone who has done a lot of
work on this topic is a woman named Cheryl P. Anyone would can help me
with her last name would be appreciated.
Payer
Jerry
Tom Walker wrote:
I wrote,
Probably no more
than one in twenty "marxian economists" would see commodity production as
odd. That doesn't mean it's _not_ odd.
And Max Sawicky replied
This gives an unexpected meaning to the word
'odd.'
It may be unexpected, but it's not original. The idea
Wendell W. Solomons wrote:
PEN bears the designation "progressive" and people with time on
their hands for other business should be encouraged to re-invest
man-hours at any of the other sites of their choice. The Web has
a well-financed Aryan site with Klansmen links. The Apostles of
Anders Schneiderman wrote:
Has anyone done any work in economics on the macroeconomics of
advertising--i.e., to what extent advertising shapes markets? I'm sure
nobody in mainstream economics has touched it, because it raises too many
issues they'd rather ignore, but have any of our lefty
To follow this continuing saga, subscribe to the new home of the undead:
marxism-international.
Send "subscribe marxism-international" message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Join m-int and have the honor of reading 3 rambling, accusatory, and
dogmatic posts per day by Louis N Proyect.
Although LNP
Firstly, I have too much respect for this list to answer Proyect, the
anti-labor snitch, here. There will be (more) flames, but it will be on
the undead list called marxism-international where it belongs.
Secondly, I respect and admire Michael P and, for that reason also, will
not burden this
Doug Henwood wrote:
Being the petty capitalist exploiter of youthful labor that I am (hi Jerry
Levy!) I'm in desperate need of a reporter/researcher/intern. $50 for 5-10
hours a week of work. Must be in NYC and have access to a good library.
Hi Doug! How generous of you to offer $5-10/hr.
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
