I don't see anything about Daitsman here.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 08:21:57AM -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote:
More dumping on Andy Daitsman?
I wrote Van Gosse of Radical History Review, a few weeks ago. He finds this
quite vicious polemicizing.
Michael Pugliese
- Original Message -
In what way is Petras ultraleft?
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 11:16:53AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
ps I take it you are referring to Maurice Zeitlin here. Do you have a direct
quotation with which we can nail this once and for all?
Maurice Zeitlin, like James Petras, is a revolutionary
Pugliese wrote:
More dumping on Andy Daitsman?
I don't dump on him. His own writing indicts him:
Popular support for Pinochet (which amounts to at least thirty percent of
the total population, and perhaps ten to fifteen percent of the working
class) comes from two sources. First, the depth of
Michael Perelman wrote:
In what way is Petras ultraleft?
In 1990 Daniel Ortega ran unsuccessfully against Violeta Chamorro under
conditions of total isolation internationally. The USA had just cut a deal
with the USSR to dump Nicaragua. The country had been devastated by over 5
years of contra
So what is to be done, now that the USSR is no more? If there was
little that could have been done then, does it mean nothing doing
now?
Yoshie
What is to be done is not a question that should be posed to individuals.
It is a question for a movement. Right now very profound changes are
8:44 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:12930] Re: Re: IMF/Dependency theory debate in Latin America
Pugliese wrote:
More dumping on Andy Daitsman?
I don't dump on him. His own writing indicts him:
Popular support for Pinochet (which amounts to at least thirty percent of
the total population, and perhaps
Mori pollster Bob Worcester on Labour's problem with a euro referendum: even
Blair probably cannot win it (others seem to think differently, however).
Mark
http://www.mori.co.uk/
Winners and Sinners
Robert M Worcester
MORI
The price of poker is going up.
A year ago I bet that
Here's one optimistic view about Britain entering the eurozone, from
longtime Labour Party euronation enthusiast, essayist and rightwinger, Roy
Hattersley, in today's Guardian.
I did like his phrase that It is not power, but failure and the prospect of
failure, which corrupts.
Mark
This piece from yesterday's Guardian neatly illustrates the degree of
self-inflicted electoral torpor and issue-avoidance in the current British
general election: Ian Aitken shows how the traditionally-Tory press are
ignoring key issues like Britain's deteriorating payments position. In 1970,
by
I made a mistake in an earlier post, when I said that the British referendum
on EC membership was held by Ted Heath's govt in 1974; it was not. Harold
Wilson's incoming Labour govt organised the referendum in 1975.
Mark
I don't know that I'd bother following this list if Brad weren't on it.
Not becuase I enjoy the fights, but because he offers an informed and
vigorous response to the knee-jerk statisim that otherwise dominates the
list. I call it statism rather than Marxism because I know of no other
forum
Fred Guy wrote:
... knee-jerk statisim that otherwise dominates the
list. I call it statism rather than Marxism because I know of no other
forum where the policies of Juan Peron, the South Korean government and
state media monopolies (monopolies, not the Beeb) could all get such
In my own way I wish to second Fred Guy. Brad DeLong has no
doubt overplayed the no-argument argument, which most be quite
irritating to someone like Keaney who has put forth serious, well
researched responses...
Back in the late 1970s I would have agreed with Keaney that the IMF's
advice to
At 19/05/01 07:42 -0700, you wrote:
Back in the late 1970s I would have agreed with Keaney that the IMF's
advice to Britain was counterproductive. But the fact that Mitterand and
Carter both tried a Keynesian expansionary approach, and that their
policies crashed and burned, has to make you
At 12:37 PM 05/19/2001 +0100, you wrote:
I don't know that I'd bother following this list if Brad weren't on it.
No-one has called for kicking him off, that I know of. I, for one, was
asking him to be polite.
Not becuase I enjoy the fights, but because he offers an informed and
vigorous
many
issues with all of us.
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 7:07 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11801] Re: Re: Re: IMF
Fred Guy wrote:
... knee-jerk statisim that otherwise dominates the
list. I call it statism rather
Jim Devine wrote:
There's a big difference between _attacking an individual_ (ad hominem) and
_attacking an argument_. The rules of Congress may encourage politeness,
but that's a democracy of the few, of the elite and powerful. We need to
put said democracy into context, which is what I
Back in the late 1970s I would have agreed with Keaney that the IMF's
advice to Britain was counterproductive. But the fact that Mitterand
and Carter both tried a Keynesian expansionary approach, and that
their policies crashed and burned, has to make you think again. In
retrospect, the
Duchesne says:
Devine complains DeLong does not answer; well, isn't there a point at
which one should ceased talking to a stalker?
this is flame-bait. I have in no way stalked Brad. Stalking involves
physical presence of some sort. It's also illegal, isn't it? Being willing
to argue with
Jim Devine wrote:
There's a big difference between _attacking an individual_ (ad hominem) and
_attacking an argument_. The rules of Congress may encourage politeness,
but that's a democracy of the few, of the elite and powerful. We need to
put said democracy into context, which is what
More importantly, I thought the whole point of the criticisms of the IMF was
precisely this: that it has treated the financial crises of Mexico and Asia
like they were crises of excess demand and exogenous shock for the developed
world in the 70's. Why would the remedy for one be similar to the
I have to leave in a moment, so I don't have time to respond in detail. You are
absolutely wrong, Brad. Maybe saying that Michael K. has no social skills may
seem to be a tit-for-tat strategy, but it only leads to escalating flame wars.
Why do you need to do that?
It is absolutely
Brad wrote:
For the record: Bullshit. Total bullshit.
language! Don Roper might kick us off the archive at csf.
and: People like Michael Keaney--people with no social skills whatsoever,
who never learned how to behave in any company, polite or not--ruined
USENET as a forum. In my view,
Apropos Brad's suggestion that legislative decorum might be a model
for PEN-L, this is from the Paul Keating Insults Page
http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/. Many of these gems were uttered
on the floor of the Australian parliament.
Doug
On former Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke:
Now
Jim Devine wrote:
)[re congress] Further, the scope of the debate is
severely limited, so that fundamental issues are hardly ever addressed
(while people are lambasted for using class struggle rhetoric if they make
obvious points about the regressivity of Bush's tax cuts). So the speech
At 07:59 AM 05/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
I object strongly, however, to repeated smart-ass intrusions by an allegedly
brilliant economist who deigns to spend time with the progressively
inclined...
Michael K.
As I said, if you had arguments to make, you would make them. You clearly
don't. So
I have criticized others for personalizing their attacks on Brad. I have not had
the time to read all of the posts today regarding the IMF. I did glance at Jim's
note. While it was harsh, him did make a point about the the way Brad debates.
Brad tends to frame the debate the way he wants,
Brad DeLongwrote:
The IMF loaned Callaghan a lot of money to use for exchange
rate management and to stretch out what would otherwise have been a
very sharp, short, nasty period of macroeconomic adjustment.
As a matter of historical fact, the IMF didn't lend HMG any money at
all. None of
At 09:44 AM 5/17/01 -0700, you wrote:
Jim Devine writes:
At 07:59 AM 05/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
I object strongly, however, to repeated smart-ass intrusions by an
allegedly
brilliant economist who deigns to spend time with the progressively
inclined...
Michael K.
As I said, if you had
Brad DeLongwrote:
The IMF loaned Callaghan a lot of money to use for exchange
rate management and to stretch out what would otherwise have been a
very sharp, short, nasty period of macroeconomic adjustment.
As a matter of historical fact, the IMF didn't lend HMG any money at all. None of
the
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:53:26 -0800
From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I always thought that successful industrial policies were built on
*subsidizing* exports. I've yet to understand why the hell *taxing*
Mozambique's exports is going to make anyone (except the owners
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:53:26 -0800
From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I always thought that successful industrial policies were built on
*subsidizing* exports. I've yet to understand why the hell *taxing*
Mozambique's exports is going to make anyone (except the
On 31 Jan 01, at 9:53, Brad DeLong wrote:
OK, now that the IMF and the World Bank have
admitted that they were wrong, will Krugman admit
that he was wrong?
-b
Robert Naiman
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Economic and Policy Research
I always thought that successful industrial
Patrick Bond wrote:
No, I would say a dramatic debt cancellation with no strings
attached -- qualitatively different than the WB/IMF/Clinton HIPC
schemes (including the $1 bn announced yesterday) -- could be a
profound non-reformist reform, in the spirit of the first 'graf above.
I always loved
On 22 Sep 99, at 8:36, Chris Burford wrote:
It is quite true that the reformatory strategies under consideration are in
themselves inadequate, partial and limited. Like all reforms they have a
dialectical dual aspect - they may help the onward process of change, or
they may restabilise the
I was away at the time and wanted to give Patrick's post, below, due
consideration.
I would point out under this thread title that the Economist has just
carried a detailed article on this theme. One of the additional points is
the intensified in-fighting between some officials of the World Bank
Patrick Bond wrote:
Agreed, Doug, that's exactly the point of this definition of what I
take to be a progressive *nationalism* (namely that the power to
regenerate national sovereignties will only be constituted to a
large extent through radical international and more precisely
anti-world-
Sorry, in a kind of preview of Y2k, most of South Africa was cut off from international emails and browsing from 16-20 September, allegedly due to the hurricane (so all our ISP claim). Here are three replies on the IMF-reform thread, which seem to be largely semantic at this stage...
On 17
Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/17/99 04:57PM
. . .
Question: do you think there can be progressive nationalism
for the U.S., and if so, what might it look like?
((
Charles: Honoring treaties with the Indigenous peoples.
CB
Max Sawicky wrote:
. . .
Question: do you think there can be progressive nationalism
for the U.S., and if so, what might it look like?
I couldn't say exactly what it would be but I know what its enemies
would call it: Isolationism. In fact that is what the WSJ always calls
any fragment of
. . .
c) a "progressive nationalism" (again, a PEN-L phrase) which, in
advocating WB/IMF defunding, takes heart and strength and
knowledge from the potential unity of the variety of particularistic
struggles against local forms of structural adjustment, malevolent
"development" projects and
Patrick Bond wrote:
a "progressive internationalism" (as it was termed on PEN-L a
few years ago) aimed at establishing a world-state
What about a progressive internationalism that doesn't focus on
creating a world state, but instead focuses on building links among
unions, NGOs (the good kind,
At 11:04 14/09/99 +0530, you wrote:
Rod Hay wrote:
Globalisation is a fact that lefties have to deal with. It is futile to
oppose it. Chris is pointing in the right direction but he is point at the
wrong path. Capitalism may have some room for progressive action. There are
still feudal
At 22:31 13/09/99 +, Patrick Bond wrote:
... Brown, a declared advocate of the
reform of international finances, on a key IMF committee.
That lackey of the City? Keep him OUT of reforming, please, Chris!
Really, this is an elementary responsibility of UK comrades.
That really is
Charles Brown wrote:
But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments,
really , anyway ?
"Who" is the IMF ?
"The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy
offshore." - MIT econ prof Rudi Dornbusch
Charles Brown wrote:
But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments,
really , anyway ?
"Who" is the IMF ?
Doug:
"The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy
offshore." - MIT econ prof Rudi
Yes, one of those honest statements that slips out now and again.
To press it a little further, using the old Marxist metphor, the U.S. government
-Presidency, including The Treasury, Congress, Judiciary, Military - is still sort of
the executive controlled by the Board of Directors (central
Rod Hay wrote:
Globalisation is a fact that lefties have to deal with. It is futile to
oppose it. Chris is pointing in the right direction but he is point at the
wrong path. Capitalism may have some room for progressive action. There are
still feudal institutional remnants around the world.
At 10:56 13/09/99 -0400, you wrote:
I can assure you that any proposal for the IMF to become more independent
of member governments will be DOA in Washington. That's a personal
guarantee. I doubt that IMF officials would dare to embrace such a
proposal, but I would be delighted if they did so:
At 11:19 12/09/99 -0700, Max wrote:
Most any time that communists have participated in important,
progressive historical events they have reflected the essential
soupcon of pragmatism typified by CB.
I would hope it is more than a soupcon. Some Marxists consider an analysis
of the balance
On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Ajit Sinha wrote:
Rod Hay wrote:
Globalisation is a fact that lefties have to deal with. It is futile to
oppose it. Chris is pointing in the right direction but he is point at the
wrong path. Capitalism may have some room for progressive action.
It is the
From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... Some Marxists consider an analysis
of the balance of forces essential.
Ok, so where is it?
What, in all of the chatter about the up-and-coming global state, are
you saying about Our Team's capacity to survive it, Chris?
... Brown, a
At 09:28 11/09/99 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
At 10:57 AM 09/11/1999 +0100, you wrote:
The International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies, Geneva, issued a
report yesterday calling for the IMF to be made independent of national
governments. This is a progressive demand, both in its political
Buford wrote:
The International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies, Geneva, issued a
report yesterday calling for the IMF to be made independent of national
governments. This is a progressive demand, both in its political
significance and in its rationality in meeting the developing needs of
Michael Perelman wrote:
Wasn't Laura Tyson's dissertation on Yugo?
Max Sawicky wrote:
We are interested in putting together a press release of sources on the
role of the IMF in contributing to the break-up of Yugoslavia and the
exacerbation of ethnic tensions there. (and perhaps also
Wasn't Laura Tyson's dissertation on Yugo?
Michael Perelman
can't answer above, but she wrote a monograph on Yugoslavian economic
performance in the 1970s and co-wrote one on 1980s performance...she
also wrote a book for RAND in the mid-80s on economic adjustment in
Eastern Europe...Michael
Wasn't Laura Tyson's dissertation on Yugo?
I don't know about her dissertation, but one of her fields was comparative
systems, and she published on Yugoslavia.
Max Sawicky wrote:
No I didn't.
We are interested in putting together a press release of
sources on the
role of the IMF in
Wasn't Laura Tyson's dissertation on Yugo?
Max Sawicky wrote:
We are interested in putting together a press release of sources on the
role of the IMF in contributing to the break-up of Yugoslavia and the
exacerbation of ethnic tensions there. (and perhaps also this pattern for
the IMF
58 matches
Mail list logo
