At 21/10/01 14:00 -0400, you wrote:
>by Doug Henwood
>19 October 2001 23:32 UTC < < <
>
>
> >Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
>[Here's what Callinocos says (International Socialism #92, pp. 40-41)]
>
>Negri's reading of Marx involves in fact a systematic rewriting of
>some of his key propositions. Three e
by Doug Henwood
19 October 2001 23:32 UTC < < <
>Doug Henwood wrote:
[Here's what Callinocos says (International Socialism #92, pp. 40-41)]
Negri's reading of Marx involves in fact a systematic rewriting of
some of his key propositions. Three examples will suffice:
(1) The law of the tend
I don't see this. Why does it diminish my quality of living as a lover of
seminbars that there are opportunities as a listener to symphonies? And
while choosing may be hard, and and the hardness a disvalue, why is it an
improvement to say, No More Seminars? There, now you don't have to choose!
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 11:07AM >>>
Jon Elster made this sort of point. It's fair enough, but it just shows that
in rich society with a profusion of needs, we need to make choices. Is that
so bad?
((
CB: The claim is not that it is so bad. It is that there are diminishing retu
Jon Elster made this sort of point. It's fair enough, but it just shows that
in rich society with a profusion of needs, we need to make choices. Is that
so bad? It will be nice when the hard choice we must make is whether to
devote ourselves to the symphony or the seminar rather than to paying
You have made that clear. --jks
>
>At 09:34 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
>>entrepreneurship =df creation of new needsa nd ways to satisfy them.
>
>this is an unconventional definition of entrepreneurship, using an
>unconventional definition of needs. As I've said, unconventional
>definitions are
At 09:34 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
>entrepreneurship =df creation of new needsa nd ways to satisfy them.
this is an unconventional definition of entrepreneurship, using an
unconventional definition of needs. As I've said, unconventional
definitions are fine, as long as you make them clear. I
ECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:5528] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unmet needs
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:06:11 -0800
>
>At 07:50 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
>
>
>>>Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian)
>>>sense
>>>because he drop
At 07:50 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote:
>>Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian) sense
>>because he dropped Schumpeterian/Austrian view that "entrepreneurship"
>>involves aggressive profit-seeking (without telling us that he was doing so).
>
>That's just not true. I t
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/00 02:57PM >>>
Here, scare words for socialists: markets, boo! profits, yaaah! management,
eek! efficiency, arrrggh! entrepreneurship, yikes!
That's part of why we are in the fix we are in.
(((
CB: Scare words for Hayekians: planning hahahahhah. efficie
Oh, I see. The traditional revolutionary Marxist left is going from strength
to strength, buildinmg huge mass parties in the advanced countries, ruling
successfully in large parts of the third world, putting capitalsim to shame
and drawing millions of steely-eyed adherents. How foolish of me no
>Here, scare words for socialists: markets, boo! profits, yaaah! management,
>eek! efficiency, arrrggh! entrepreneurship, yikes!
>
>That's part of why we are in the fix we are in.
>
>--jks
What do you mean by "we", white man.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>CB: Yea ,the word for innovation with socialism should be "innovation", not
>entrepreneurship. Seeesh.
>
Not the same thing. In my lexicon, innovation is coming up with new
techniques or products, entrepreneurship is coming up with new needs.
Of course, the significance of my nonstan
>
>Justin, on the other hand, is using non-standard (non-Schumpeterian) sense
>because he dropped Schumpeterian/Austrian view that "entrepreneurship"
>involves aggressive profit-seeking (without telling us that he was doing
>so).
That's just not true. I told you REPEATEDLY. I am telling you NOW
At 01:35 PM 12/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
> Schumpeter may have "celebrated" entrepreneurship.
>But, he was the one who coined the phrase, "creative
>destruction." He fully understood that it was not an unmixed
>blessing...
yes, Schumpeter was better than the "Austrian school" (the vons, Mises
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5470] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unmet needs
>Michael P. wrote:
>>Paul, I did not mean to exclude the idea of innovation from
>>entrepreneurship. But I only meant to insist that the wor
It still flourishes.
Mikalac Norman S NSSC wrote:
> it would be instructive to know more about the eventual fate of the
> successful co-op cited below.
>
> norm
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 10:49 PM
> To:
Michael P. wrote:
>Paul, I did not mean to exclude the idea of innovation from
>entrepreneurship. But I only meant to insist that the word as it is used
>by most economists involves a profit making function. By using this term,
>in the sense that Justin does seems to cede too much ground to th
Hi Michael and Yoshie,
Not exactly right. The word entrepreneur may be a red flag to
some. To others, like me, the very idea that creating new needs can
be a good thing is anathema. Whether it's a cooperative venture or
a venture capitalist producing the new not-to-be-done-without item is of
n
Thank you, Paul! --jks
>
>There seems to me to be a huge gulf between what various
>members on the list mean by entrepreneurship. Michael et al
>seem to associate it with profit, Justin with innovations etc.
>
>Let me try to separate it out by suggesting the, in Schumpeter's
>world, the entrepr
it would be instructive to know more about the eventual fate of the
successful co-op cited below.
norm
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 10:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5405] unmet needs
When I first
Paul, I did not mean to exclude the idea of innovation from
entrepreneurship. But I only meant to insist that the word as it is used
by most economists involves a profit making function. By using this term,
in the sense that Justin does seems to cede too much ground to the free
market school. I
There seems to me to be a huge gulf between what various
members on the list mean by entrepreneurship. Michael et al
seem to associate it with profit, Justin with innovations etc.
Let me try to separate it out by suggesting the, in Schumpeter's
world, the entrepreneur is the innovator that
The function is the same. It's part of the key argument for socialism: that
there is nothing useful and productive that capitalists do that workers
cannot do for themselves. She we say there are sociaksi schmentrepreturs,
who do what capitalist entrepreneiers do, but under socialism the worker
Exactly right, Yoshi.
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 04:31:10PM -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> Justin, I hear you, but it seems to me that you and the rest are
> talking at cross-purposes here. While by an "entrepreneur" you name
> a function of creating & satisfying new needs -- the function pl
>>We did not have an entreprenuer to handle our needs, but we did it
>>collectively. The
>>idea of an entrepreneur -- as used in economics -- is deeply rooted
>>in a profit seeking
>>individualism.
>
>You were the entrepreneurs. What does an entrepreneur have to be
>some other person, an indiv
.>
>We did not have an entreprenuer to handle our needs, but we did it
>collectively. The
>idea of an entrepreneur -- as used in economics -- is deeply rooted in a
>profit seeking
>individualism.
You were the entrepreneurs. What does an entrepreneur have to be some other
person, an individual
27 matches
Mail list logo
