Title: RE: [PEN-L:33442] Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx new ref # 33417
Joanna writes:
But take my word for it, [in the US] there is a level of anxiety, of unrelenting fear and mistrust, the likes of which I have not encountered anywhere else on earth.
Michael Moore's BOWLING
At 05:27 PM 12/27/2002 -0800, you wrote:
I think emotional structure is key to making left organization. There is a
confusion about using text based tools to form emotional structure in left
groups. In my email 'Face Blindness' I give some of the crucial elements of
emotion structure that the
At 10:57 PM 12/25/2002 -0800, you wrote:
In regard to your remark about loneliness, the U.S. has a divided atomized
people, does that make them weird? How do you measure loneliness? Some
people are and some people aren't in the U.S. culture. Broad
generalizations easily become a vehicle for
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33297] Re: RE: The Economist considers Karl Marx
JKS says:Well, Southern Cal, that's where all the loose marbles go anyway . . . . Haven't you read Nathaniel West's Day of the Lucust?
who was it was said that it's as if the whole country had been tipped on its side, so
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's a logical impossibility. If there's no state, there's no property
or contract law, so no title to anything, and no sanctioned and
enforceable exchanges, so no markets.
A most rare and strange zone,
Peter Drucker proclaimed the United States the first truly
'Socialist' country, because workers, through their pension funds
own at least 25% of its equity capital, which is more than enough
for control. In Drucker's reckoning, socialism was introduced by
then head of General Motors Charles
In that case, the Economist and Peter Drucker won't mind if we abolish the wage relationship and private appropriation of returns on capital, turning the factories and offices and farms over to the workers and farmers, who will manage them themselves and collective appropriate the entire fruits of
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In that case, the Economist and Peter Drucker won't mind if we abolish
the wage relationship and private appropriation of returns on capital,
turning the factories and offices and farms over to the workers and
farmers,
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33272] Re: Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx
in common parlance, even among many economists, socialism refers to any government interference in the so-called free market. (For example, the economic historian Peter Temin referred to the rise of state intervention
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33279] Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx
Aren't governments unownable by definition? Sure some factions/classes
may think the government their personal property, but don't we deride
that as delusional?
officially, the Absolutist kings owned their states (l'état
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aren't governments unownable by definition? Sure some factions/classes
may think the government their personal property, but don't we deride
that as delusional?
officially, the Absolutist kings owned their states (l'état
Ian Murray wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[clip]
Markets couldn't exist without the state, but common mythology (shared
by many econo-dunderheads) has it that markets are natural.
Jim
===
Well, since we have no idea as to
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33281] Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx
Aren't governments unownable by definition? Sure some factions/classes
may think the government their personal property, but don't we deride
that as delusional?
I wrote:
officially, the Absolutist kings owned
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, since we have no idea as to what is non-natural, we can chalk
that
up to insufficient attention to language.
Natural takes up about 14 columns in the OED. I don't think we can
ground ths argument in linguistics or
At 03:59 PM 12/20/2002 -0600, you wrote:
I didn't pry into those 14 columns, but I bet they contain abundant
(respectable) sanction for the linguistic acceptability of the
proposition that Markets are natural.
The question is though Markets are natural to what?
Joanna
Ian Murray Aren't governments unownable by definition? Sure some factions/classesmay think the government their personal property, but don't we deridethat as delusional?
W once referred --as Dave Barry said, i am not making this up -- to his "investorsm er I mean my contributors."
Jim D: but just as the lunatics have taken over the asylum, the looney right wing has taken over the conciousness of much of the US citizenry (at least here in SoCal), along with taking over more and more of the judiciary every day.
Well, Southern Cal, that's where all the loose marbles go anyway
17 matches
Mail list logo
