Re: Exotic genocide in early America
It is well documented that around half the indigenous population of Mexico was killed by diseases introduced (unintenionally) by Europeans. The case of what is now the U.S. is less clear but probably similar. See _The Invasion of America_ (I'm ashamed to say that I can't remember the author of this excellent book). There may be more recent works on this subject, but I haven't kept up. __ Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-645-8369 2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor Chicago, IL 60622 __
Re: Marx on Native Americans
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians? Ward Churchill is about as much native american as most white radicals can handle. He has written much to challenge white radicals' views and stands on native american issues. I always find his writings insightful and provocative. I usually agree with him more than most of my white progressive friends do. I by no means always agree with him. He has written books for South End Press and Common Courage Press and others over the past 15 years. He has also published some challenging pieces in Z Magazine from time to time. He writes much more extensively for a variety of indigenous publications. I think his first book with South End Press was titled Marxism and Native Americans.
Re: Ride free or die!
Gar W. Lipow wrote: > With gambling or without, I think a Parecon will provide a welfare safety net. > I am not talking about the retired, the involuntarily unemployed, or those unable > to work. In these cases I assume you would provide average consumption plus any > special needs as a matter of decency. > > I am talking about truly the annoying cases. Imagine for the moment a Bob Black > style anarchist who refuses to work because you have not made work "one long > ecstatic dance". > > Are you going to refuse him health care ? You endanger your own health by doing > so. Once you maintain someone's health, food is a lot cheaper than treating > malnutrition or starvation . Shelter, and clothing are cheaper than treating > exposure. Indoor plumbing is cheaper than treating infectious diseases. Thus even > in an "undeserving case" you gain more than you lose by providing some minimum. > This does not have to mean luxury or anything approaching average consumption. I agree with Lipow on this. Technically, a parecon could have a welfare safety net or not, or a net of whatever fineness of weave. But socially I would think that a parecon would provide a very substantial safety net for the reasons Lipow offers if no others.
Re: utopias
William S. Lear wrote: > > I'm really enjoying this exchange, just the kind of stuff I like to > think about, and I have one very small, peripheral question. > > Robin writes: > >... Even > >competitive markets under conditions of perfect information can lead to > >very exploitative outcomes -- and inefficient one's as well. > > I understood competitive markets to be ones in which there is zero, or > in "less than perfectly" competitive markets, close to zero profit. > How would capital accumulate in any coherent way under such a system > and thereby lead to exploitative outcomes? Wouldn't everyone, > including capitalists, just be ragged and equally miserable? I was thinking of competitive market models I play with a lot where some people start out with more "seed corn" than others and we open up a labor market that may be perfectly competitive and the result is more exploitation because the lions share of the benefit from the labor exchange goes to the employers. There are similar models of international trade where even when the international goods markets are competitive, when countries exchange goods international inequality increases. Of course how one defines exploitation is crucial, but there are ways to define exploitation I am very comfortable with that often lead to the result that the degree of exploitation increases when competitive exchanges in labor markets, credit market, or even goods markets increase. > > Also, in defining inefficient, do you take into account the vast > amount of duplicated effort that usually takes place in competitive > markets? Competitve markets can yield lots of inefficiencies for many different reasons. You sight one. Disequilibria and externalites are biggies.
Re: "Native Americans"
Since this thread is ongoing on Marxism-International as well as PEN-L, I am taking the liberty to crosspost a reply by Mark Jones to Lou Godena who is the moderator of M-I. Jones and I have disagreed on some historical questions in the past, but I think his take on the American Indian question is first-rate. He is also a powerful writer. Louis Proyect *** (Mark Jones) Lou Proyect is right: Godena is losing it. Got Heartfield's chronic inability to fess up. Political dementia, confusedness, lax thinking. Witters about social justice one day, Gonzalo the next. Louis R Godena wrote: > the US was industrialized with the aid of large amounts of outside > capital --unlike England, Japan and Russia (all three of these industrial > revolutions involving particularly harsh and callous treatment of their > "primitive" land dwellers) Neither is true without qualification. Primary accumulation depended on something else besides ferocious exploitation of English proletarians. Maritime states with strong internal markets were the first capitalist powers. The reasons are clear. They make it impossible to support the Heartfield thesis, which Godena has nailed to his totem pole. England and Japan (despite Japan's 'closure') benefited from mercantile maritime trade since late medieval times. Europe developed because North America was its essentially English) province: a million colonists in New England, more thoughout the Caribbean, when the population of England was still only 3m. As Blaut says ad infinitum, accumulation in English proto-capitalism was not just pump-primed by New World plunder: it was the sugar, tobacco, rice and grain trades, the highly-capitalised slave-operating plantations, as well as the flood of looted bullion, and the low cost of all factors of reproduction in the New World, which led to take-off. US and English capitalism developed in tandem and the process began long before the late 18th c. (as for Russia, any industrial capitalism there was centred on St Petersburg and British and French financed). If I understood Heartfield, the Indians were used by reactionary European ruling classes against progressive American capital. Truth is the Indians were victims when Colonists and the Mother Country fell out and victims when they did not. All that changed was the rate of extermination. The First Nations were *created* by European patronage, as boundary-objects defining social exteriority, as political subjects of exploitation, as exotica, Rousseauean noble savages, and simultaneously liquidated by the fatal combination of germs, guns and steel. The negative features Lou Godena relishes -- ' the reactionary caste of war chieftans and medicine-men' - were artefacts of imperialism. That's how satrapies were always confected, from Pontius Pilate to the British Raj's policy to the Moghul princes. Lou Proyect is right: Godena's exaggerated and masochistic mea culpas on behalf of the Indians are off-colour. No nation on earth did not succumb to collaborationism, appeasement, betrayal, fawning, political prostitution, when faced with the unbearable pressure of colonial terror. The rabbis in the ghettoes collaborated with the Nazis and together they birthed Israel, a historical Frankenstein which cannot endure. But you cannot blame the Jews. Blame the Nazis, and the sloth of the wartime British and Americans. No nations failed to display signs of cultural suicide when faced with imperialist genocide, but few fought with such blinding courage and determination, as the Indian Nations which Godena, an Indian, derides. Better to celebrate their achievements and bow down before their greatness. Louis R Godena wrote: > What would have been the fate of the Indians under the stewardship of a > socialist America? To continue to retain proprietory rights to vast tracts > of undeveloped land would have been unthinkable. Yeah, Proyect is right, a lot of unfinished thinking here. Why would a 'socialist America' be as territorially aggrandising as is the USA? What cultural or physical imperatives drive socialist expansionism? Godena the Stalinist has a few phrases about Stalinist aggression itching on his lips. And the 'stewardship' of small coloured nations by big white ones has nothing to do with any socialism except Hitler's. An awful lot of crap is talked of Russian chauvinism, but everywhere the Russians went in their great trek into the Siberian and Central Asian hinterlands, the orignial inhabitants still remain: Russians did not exterminate minority nations, and the Bolsheviks went to some trouble to give them national alphabets and other keys to ethnic survival, as well as subsidising them heroically. The 120+ minority nations in the ex-USSR do not live on 'reservations'. Louis R Godena wrote: > A nation of Foxwoods > casinos, massage parlors and brothels stretching up one coast and down > another? Or leaving the reactionary caste of war chieftans and medicine-men >
Re: Marx on Native Americans
A comment on this thread, from near Zimbabwe: > Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:56:43 + > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Louis: > >These questions are popping up everywhere in the world today. The NY Times > >reported that Mugabe is threatening to finally expropriate the rich white > >settlers and give the land to the land-based Zimbabweans. The whites > >complain about the injustice that is about to be done to them. Poor dears, > >where will they go... James: > Quite different questions altogether. In Zimbabwe land-ownership and the > displacement of blacks is a social condition of their exploitation at > the hands of white farmers today. There property in land is the > instrument of exploiting black labour in the here and now, not an > historical question.. Comrades the sad reality is that Mugabe is not going to give the 1400 farms (mostly white-owned) designated for redistribution recently to the landstarved peasants. His Agriculture Minister, Kumbirai Kangai, announced on radio last month that rich folk -- he specifically mentioned government ministers -- will be the prime beneficiaries as they are the ones he deems capable of running the giant farms. Some designated farms are clearly just political spoils. One (Simukai) is run by a reknowned left cooperative that came from the minority Ndebele tribe's liberation army and represents the country's most advanced form of searching for new agrarian relations of production. Another is run by a friend of mine in the eastern region of the country, a white hippy from old Rhodesian stock who married a black woman, and whose 60 acre farm has 40 acres of steep mountain land, 10 acres of arable veg garden and 10 acres of minefield since it borders Mozambique and the Rhodesian army lost track of where it laid mines. Anyhow to illustrate the silliness, this place was designated, for the sole apparent reason is that it is extremely good terrain for smuggling goods (especially grass) from Mozambique (there are a couple of safe trails across the mine field). The local political bureaucrats who made the call had no other obvious reason. My bet is that in any case Mugabe doesn't follow through with more than 20% of these because even giving only partial compensation to the owners (on buildings not land), his treasury is bust. There is general chaos in Zimbabwe (I spent much of last month there, completing a book out soon.) The central bank upped the interest rate 6% in Nov-Dec, the currency fell 55% against the US$, the stock market is down 45% since August and now the land market is paralysed. All of this is structural, of course, a reflection of the damage done by Mugabe's orthodox structural adjustment policies, the failure of which he's now trying to distract his citizens from through another round of populist posturing. 17 years too late on land reform, and it won't even happen. The good news is that on Red Tuesday, December 9, more than a million Zimbabweans joined a stay-away and tens of thousands participated in street protests in all the major centres. This was a trade union-led protest against increased taxes to pay for liberation war veteran pensions, but in fact had a very progressive content against Mugabe's overall patronage-tinged neoliberalism. The police responded by bashing Harare protesters as well as thousands of bystanders; the trade union leader -- quite a tough leftist, Morgan Tsvangirai -- was beat up the next day at his office; and the scene is now set for some form of (probably half-assed) popular front political party challenge to ZANU in 2000. The land designation will cost a couple or more GDP points next year and probably in '99 if it really gets even partially implemented, but won't make any other dent in social relations (the minister-farmers are not great as baases); there's lots more interesting stuff in Zim that bears watching and solidarity. Patrick Bond HOME:WORK: 51 Somerset Road University of the Witwatersrand Kensington 2094 Graduate School of Public and Johannesburg, South Africa Development Management Phone: (2711) 614-80882 St.David's Road, Parktown E-mails: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work phone: (2711) 488-5700 Fax: (2711) 484-2729
Exotic genocide in early America
Doug queries: > If I'm remembering correctly, James Blaut says in The Colonizer's Model of > the World (Guilford, a couple of years ago) that European diseases killed > many more indigenous North and South Americans than European guns. Blaut > writes with great confidence - is this a controversial claim at all? With at least one instance of calculated biological warfare well documented in colonial times, it's easy to assume that it became popular. Lord Jeffery Amherst was pleased to give the local indigenes blankets contaminated in - if I recall right - an outbreak of smallpox. Today the man, if not his deed, is commemorated in the august college where war-and-peace scholar Michael Clare teaches, in the colloquial name of the main UMass campus, a hotel, a bookstore, a cozy pub in which His Lordship may actually have eased his conscience, and of course the town in which all these stand. Time certainly lightens history's payload; the revered memory of the commandant of Auschwitz so far enjoys nothing similar in Germany. valis -- To those who, shocked to death, now arrive at 6:30 for Manpower's morning shape-up, I can only ask: Where was your political interest when a tube and a six-pack were the bookends of your life? --
Advisory Board Company
Does anyone know much about the Advisory Board Company? I'm trying to track down some info about them and I'm coming up dry. According to their web site, they're a research organization that services the broad industry research interests of their member corporations. But they don't show up in ABI, the NYT index, WSJ index, etc., which is pretty odd. Does anyone know more about them? Anders Schneiderman
Re: "Native American"
Doug asked: > I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians." > Is "Native American" just not sticking? In addition to the rigorous arguments adduced by Jim Craven, there is the simple sense of the term that grants its implied status to anyone who manages to be born inside US borders. Thus it's even possible that some Indians eschewed this PC neologism off the bat as a term with an endless potential for provocation. valis -- To those who, shocked to death, now arrive at 6:30 for Manpower's morning shape-up, I can only ask: Where was your political interest when a tube and a six-pack were the bookends of your life? --
Re: Marx on Native Americans
On Sun, January 4, 1998 at 15:17:35 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: >Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians? > >I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians." >Is "Native American" just not sticking? Here are some I have found helpful: Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall. *Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement*. South End Press, 1990. Ward Churchill. *Fantasies of the Master Race: Literature, Cinema and the Colonization of American Indians*. Common Courage Press, 1992. Ward Churchill. *Indians Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America*. Common Courage Press, 1994. Vine Deloria, Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle. *American Indians, American Justice*. University of Texas Press, 1983. Richard Drinnon. *Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building*. Schocken Books, 1990 [1980]. Francis Jennings. *The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest*. W. W. Norton and Company, 1975. Francis Jennings. *The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire: The Covenant Chain Confederation of Indian Tribes with English Colonies*. W. W. Norton and Company, 1984. Francis Jennings. *Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America*. W. W. Norton and Company, 1988. Hans Koning. *The Conquest of America: How the Indian Nations Lost Their Continent*. Monthly Review Press, 1993. Francis Jennings. *The Founders of America: From the Earliest Migrations to the Present*. W. W. Norton and Company, 1993. David E. Stannard. *American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World*. Oxford University Press, 1992. Russell Thornton. *American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population Survey Since 1492*. University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. Tzvetan Todorov. *The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other*. Harper Perennial, 1984 [1982]. Bill
Re: Marx on Native Americans
At 03:17 PM 1/4/98 -0500, you wrote: >Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians? > >I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians." >Is "Native American" just not sticking? > >Doug 1) Dee Brown -- Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee 2) Peter Mathiessen -- In the Spirit of Crazy Horse 3) Peter Mathiessen -- Indian Country 4) Vine Deloria Jr. -- Custer Died For Your Sins 5) Ward Churchill-- From a Native Son, selected essays in indigenism, 1985-1995 All of these are in print. I suspect that Indian is the term that has the most common usage without any "PC" implications one way or the other. Louis Proyect
Re: Marx on Native Americans
James Michael Craven wrote: >The point is that the robbing of territory, displacement of Indians >and genocide idicted Capitalisms own private property institutions >and legal criteria for establishing "ownership". On the basis of what >has been done to Indians, presumably anyone with a bigger gun and who >is more ruthless can effectively take over, hold, maintain and make >nominal improvements of someone else's territory and call it "land" >and then call it "privately owned" land and generic private property. If I'm remembering correctly, James Blaut says in The Colonizer's Model of the World (Guilford, a couple of years ago) that European diseases killed many more indigenous North and South Americans than European guns. Blaut writes with great confidence - is this a controversial claim at all? Doug
Re: Marx on Native Americans
Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians? I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians." Is "Native American" just not sticking? Doug
"Native Americans"
One final comment on the term "Native Americans". At the risk of appearing to do some kind of Derrida deconstructionist thing, look at the two words. Native is of interest to whom? For those into property rights and establishing original ownership, the term "native" might have some meaning (my ancestors had original possession) but therefore what? Showing that one's ancestors had first possession does not, in bourgeois law, establish necessary unboken succession or legitimate title/ownership today. So those Indians who use the term Native aree not trying to establish prima facia present-day ownership on the basis of first use/control of ancestors--this concept is foreign to Indian cultures and does not work even in bourgeois law. The term "Native" can be used by the Nativist Pat Buchanan types to suggest that anyone whose ancestors came after the so-called founding groups or anyone not born on U.S. soil is somehow less American, less "Native" and therefore less of an American or less entitled to the basic supposed rights and protections of U.S. law and society. Again this concept is foreign to Indian cultures as many nations and tribes freely adopted Indians and non-Indians into the tribes and those who were adopted were not seen as less than a real Lakota or Blackfeet or whatever. Among some modern-day Indians, particularly those obsessed with blood quantums, there is some of the crude "Nativism" going on but most Indians realize that as a result of a long history of being raped, abducted, converted by missionaries, inter-marriage etc. establishing "Native" roots on the basis of blood quantums or other such factors is a spurious, injurious and divisive exercise that only plays into the hands of the powers that be. On the American part, more and more tribes are coming to the conclusion that national separateness and full sovereignty is imperative for any chance of racial/ethnic/national/tribal survival. We have seen the BIA used as an instrument of developers to steal the best land at the lowest prices (de-Indianization of land) or as a spy locating the most mineral-rich areas etc; We have seen nations like the Hopi and Navaho set against each other and other cases of historical disputes being exacerbated in the interest of the powers that be. We have seen the highest positions of the BIA go to the Whites and a few token positions go to Indians with Indians being last hired first fired and even the concept of a BIA being an insult and yet a recognition of some nominal sovereignty and having to deal with Indians at least superficially lest the legal, moral, political, economic and historical facades and myths of U.S. capitalism be exposed and self-contradicted/called into question/negated. So most of the Indians I know: a) are not crude Nativists and are not hung up about being decendants of Natives or first-inhabitants of the land now called "America" because they do not see themselves as "Americans" but rather as members of a family, a clan, a tribe and a nation--not called America. That is why they do not use the term "Native" or at least are guarded in its uses and contexts of use; and b) do not see extent of Americanness as determined or reflected in any way by how many generations back one's ancestors go; c) are not particularly subject to the criteria and tests of bourgeois law in terms of establishing "original" and therefore "legitimate" "ownership" of land granted to all for wise use by the Great Spirit. Indians do understand, however, that in bourgeois law as well as in Indian cultures, there is a concept of restitution or reparations and many feel that just restitutions or reparations for past and present- day genocide have no where near been paid by those who owe them. Jim Craven *---* * "Who controls the past, * * James Craven controls the future. * * Dept of Economics Who controls the present,* * Clark College controls the past." (George Orwell)* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 (360) 992-2283 FAX: (360)992-2863* * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
Who needs live faculty, sez DoC
Your tax dollars at work... -- Anders Schneiderman --- WILL ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FUND ONLINE EDUCATION? The Commerce Department is expected to decide early this year whether to provide funding to learning technology ventures through the Department's Advanced Technology Program, which has funded such things as better refrigeration technologies and improved health information systems. Program manager Richard W. Morris says: "If we migrate to the Web, all of a sudden the economies of scale change dramatically. If we do the technology right, we can re-use and update and integrate the pieces of instruction in almost an infinite number of ways so all the advantages of the Internet make for a new economy of learning." (New York Times Cybertimes 4 Jan 98) ---
Re: Marx on Native Americans
Blaut made the memorable statement that indigenous people weren't conquered -- they were _infested_! (This drew a hearty laugh from a Guatemalan friend of mine.) Sid > > If I'm remembering correctly, James Blaut says in The Colonizer's Model of > the World (Guilford, a couple of years ago) that European diseases killed > many more indigenous North and South Americans than European guns. Blaut > writes with great confidence - is this a controversial claim at all? > > Doug > > > >
Re: Marx on Native Americans
> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 4 Jan 98 12:57:12 +800 > Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 4 Jan 98 12:57:04 +800 > Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > Sun, 4 Jan 1998 12:56:15 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailhub2.cc.columbia.edu (mailhub2.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.16]) > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 12:51:18 -0800 (PST) > Received: from My_Dell.columbia.edu (dialup-23-2.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.47.102]) > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:51:36 -0500 (EST) > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 15:46:24 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Marx on Native Americans > In-Reply-To: > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN > X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 > > At 03:17 PM 1/4/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians? > > > >I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians." > >Is "Native American" just not sticking? > > > >Doug > > 1) Dee Brown -- Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee > 2) Peter Mathiessen -- In the Spirit of Crazy Horse > 3) Peter Mathiessen -- Indian Country > 4) Vine Deloria Jr. -- Custer Died For Your Sins > 5) Ward Churchill-- From a Native Son, selected essays in indigenism, > 1985-1995 > > All of these are in print. I suspect that Indian is the term that has the > most common usage without any "PC" implications one way or the other. > > Louis Proyect > Follow-up: Indians were not even made (de jure) American citizens until 1924. In Arizona, Indians could not vote until 1958. Many Indians see "Native Americans" as a term that gives some focus to being part of a nation that was formed well after their ancestors came and lived here--a nation that did not bother to include them as citizens until 1924 and still does not include them as citizens (do we have a Bureau of Caucasian Affairs or even a Bureau of African- American Affairs? Further, there was no referendum among Indians as to whether they wanted to be summarily declared to be American citizens in 1924. Those who use the term American Indian mean an Indian of what is now called the Americas. So Indians of South America are also referred to as American Indians by those Indians who use the term Indian or American Indian---it does not mean an Indian in/of the United States of America; nor does it mean Indian-American like Italian-American or even African-American. With this background in mind, perhaps there is indeed a big difference between the term "Native American" and Indian or even American Indian. Jim Craven *---* * "Who controls the past, * * James Craven controls the future. * * Dept of Economics Who controls the present,* * Clark College controls the past." (George Orwell)* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 (360) 992-2283 FAX: (360)992-2863* * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11830] Blackfeet National Bank--Another Struggle
The following is a press release from the Piegan Blackfeet of Browning, Montana: Blackfeet National Bank "About the time the Retirement CD(TM) was to be introduced, the representatives of the tiny Blackfeet National Bank of Browning, Montana, let it be known that they were looking for a way to attract new deposits. Browning is a small town on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and Blackfeet provides the 'only banking services' in the over one million square mile reservation (an area that is larger than the state of Rhode Island). Located east of Glacier National Park, the reservation has little income from mineral royalities [formulae for undervaluing oil and gas reserves/extractions led to over $5 billion in oil and gas royalties owed not paid to various Tribes and Nations during Reagan/Bush/Clinton] or gaming establishments, and little prospect for more. The bank serves as an important source of resources for the small businesses of the reservation. Bank executives saw the Retirement CD as a potential way to atract deposits and therefore available capital from outside the environs of the reservation. In an interesting departure from traditional roles, this Indian bank became the entrepreneur in the Retirement CD business, challenging the 'territory' of those who had long ago inhabited this market. Blackfeet had to first win several court battles. Several of the state insurance commossioners tried to assert authority over Blackfeet, claiming that by selling annuities, they were operating in the business of insurance. Annuities are not insurance. The law and the courts have distinguished annuities from insurance since the turn of the century. As recently as January 18, 1995, the Supreme Court held once again that annuities are not insurance and the court battles began to go Blackett's way. When it began to look like Blackfeet would be victorious at last, the IRS took action on April 6, 1995. They released a proposed regulation that first admitted that Blackfeet's tax treatment of the Retirement CD was correct, then changed the law without authority, and made the change effective the next day. On April 14, 1995 Blackfeet issued a press release detailing these events and their opinions thereof. Press Release April 14, 1995 Treasury Department Undermines Only Indian National Bank Blackfeet Indian Reservation. On Friday, April 28th, President Clinton will meet with Indian Leaders from around the country to talk about his initiatives to promote economic growth on Indian reservations. Yet on Friday April 7th, his Treasury Department cut the rug out from under the Blackfeet National Bank's ability to attract long-term core deposits in order to appease the insurance industry. The only tribally-owned national bank in the country serves the one and a half million acre Blackfeet Reservation in Montana. It is a tiny bank by most standards, with less than $15 million in deposits. But it is also the axle on which the reservation economy turns. Last year, the bank became the first institution in the country to begin offering a new bank product--the Retirement CD(TM). It gives consumers the benefits of an annuity plus the safety of federally- insured deposits. This enables the bank to attract long-term deposits it needs to provide the housing and business loans needed to promote an economy faced with 80% unemployment. The bank was immediately attacked by the insurance industry, which saw a threat to its monopoly on over $100 billion a year in annuity contracts. The bank was quickly sued by state insurance commissioners in two states, Illinois and Florida, even though the bank had never done any business in those states. In both cases, the American Council on Life Insurance advised the state and sought to intervene on its own behalf. In January, the U.S. Justice Department announced it was beginning an investigation to determine if the insurance industry had violated the anti-trust laws through its concerted efforts to kill the Retirement CD and wear down the Blackfeet National Bank. Unable to score any victories in court, the insurance industry turned to its muscle in Washington. On April 7th, the Internal Revenue Service issued an unusual proposed regulation. It proposes to deny tax deferred status to any Retirement CDs purchased after that date, even though the notice was one of proposed rule making. Generally, regulations are not effective until the date they are finalized. Also, the IRS did not find that the Retirement CD violated any statute. Instead, it announced it was issuing the regulation because the Retirement CD 'may violate the spirit of the law'. Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, and Secretary to the bank, noted the irony of this: 'For 150 years, the government could care less when it violated every letter of every prov
Report from SPAN (fwd)
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 19:08:47 -0800 (PST) > From: National Commission for Democracy in Mexico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Report from SPAN > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Officials of Mexico and the United States: > > International news media and human-rights sources are saying that the > Mexican Army has occupied Las Margaritas, and with helicopters and > airplanes has entered and later withdrew from La Realidad in Chiapas, > Mexico, zone of the general command of the EZLN (Ejercito Zapatista > Liberacion Nacional). They also say that the five Aguascalientes Zones in > Chiapas, inhabited by Zapatista supporters, have also been surrounded by > the Mexican military. > > This threatening assault, even if a symbolic action, is contrary to the > conditional amnesty granted to members of the EZLN in 1995 in the pursuit > of peace negotations begun since the indigenous uprising in January 1994. > > You all have power in some form or other to demand peaceful rather than > military solutions to the terrible oppressive conditions that the > indigenous people of Chiapas must live under in the presence of the > military and paramilitary assaults, including the Acteal massacre, assaults > known to be supported by the ruling governing party -- the Institutional > Revolutionary Party (PRI). > > The military action is also contrary to the statements of the new > Secretario de Gobernacion (Secretary of the Interior), Francisco Labastida > Ochoa, made today that he would seek a peaceful, negotiated solution to the > extraordinary difficulties in Chiapas. Reports also say that some commands > were heard in English in Las Margaritas, which suggests the possibility of > U.S. involvement. > > I urge you all to use the power in your command to do all that is possible > to end the military and paramilitary hostilities ongoing in Chiapas and to > continue to course of peaceful negotiations so that terrible conditions of > oppression in Chiapas may be eased and even lifted. > > Rev. Wes Rehberg, Ph.D. > > > > > > >--- >--- > SPAN/--Strategic Pastoral Action > & Shoestrings & Grace > Wes Rehberg, Ph.D. > +607-546-2250, phone & fax > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.spanweb.org/ >--- >--- > > > > >
Re: Marx on Native Americans
> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 4 Jan 98 12:18:39 +800 > Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 4 Jan 98 12:18:30 +800 > Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > Sun, 4 Jan 1998 12:17:54 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [198.7.0.32]) > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 12:17:04 -0800 (PST) > Received: from [166.84.250.86] (dhenwood.dialup.access.net [166.84.250.86]) > Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:17:20 -0500 (EST) > Message-Id: > Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:17:35 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Marx on Native Americans > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN > X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 > > Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians? > > I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians." > Is "Native American" just not sticking? > > Doug The myth goes that the term "Indian" came from Columbus who thought he had hit "India". Pure crap. In the 15th Century there was no such thing as "India" as what is now called India (in Hindi Bharatha) was a collection of Maharaja-run "states" and regions. The term Indian actually came from In Dios when Columbus referred to indigenous peoples as La Hiente In Dios (People with God) as he wrote that the indigenous peoples were warm and loving and easy to trick, control, enslave, steal from etc (Diaries of Columbus). Check out "Rethinking Columbus: Teaching About the 500th Anniversary of Columbus's Arrival in America" by Rethinking Schools Ltd or Jack Weatherford's "Native Roots" and "Indian Givers" or for basic chronologies Judith Nies Chronology of Native American History. Many non-Indians and some Indians use "Native American" while others see "Native American" as a somewhat solicitous, perhaps well meaning but nonetheless rather patronizing term. I can tell you that on the Blackfeet Reservation in Browning, the term "Native American" is rarely if ever used--the term is American Indian just as in the American Indian Movement rather than Native American Movement. It is sort of like "people of color" may or may not be used for nefarious and ahistorical purposes. On the issue of numbers of Indians killed by diseases as opposes to guns and other methods, on what basis does this author make this assertion. I have a copy of a 1755 Proclamation from William Hirley, Governor-General of the Massachusetts Bay Colony offering 40 pounds for the scalp of an adult Indian male and 20 pounds for the scalp of an Indian woman or child (scalping goes back to ancient Greece) and there is so much evidence of deliberate, calculated genocide through very overt and brutal means. Even on the issue of diseases, there is so much evidence of infected goods being deliberately held and used for trade with Indians, of conscious awareness of diseases to which Indians were not resistant etc. By the way, anything on the issue of the Blackfeet National Bank, the IRS and the U.S. Government. I will resend the original post to remind people of the many ways--including through "commerce", "law", the "tax code" etc that genocide can still go on under new banners and facades. Jim Craven *---* * "Who controls the past, * * James Craven controls the future. * * Dept of Economics Who controls the present,* * Clark College controls the past." (George Orwell)* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 (360) 992-2283 FAX: (360)992-2863* * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
(Fwd) Special Chiapas bulletin (fwd)
> From: Duane Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> From: "CDH Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez, A.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: SIDIDH ESPECIAL, Mexico 03/ene/1998
>
> "Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez", Human Rights Center
>
> **SPECIAL BULLETIN**
>
> CHIAPAS: LATE-BREAKING NEWS
>
> SATURDAY, JANUARY 3
>
> Today the PRODH Center received the following confirmed and unconfirmed
> information on troubling acts in the State of Chiapas:
>
> CONFIRMED INFORMATION:
>
> 1. In a radio interview broadcast by the station "Format 21," Bishop
> Samuel Ruiz of the San Cristobal de Las Casas Diocese said he received two
> phone calls this morning from a reliable person in La Realidad in which the
> caller confirmed that Mexican Army troops occupied ("took") the community
> of La Realidad, in the Las Margaritas municipality, principal bastion of
> the Zapatista Army's (EZLN) General Command.
>
> 2. According to the same interview, Army aircraft conducted overflights of
> La Realidad, and the Army troops in La Realidad received instructions by
> radio in English.
>
> 3. Format 21 also broadcast reports that the Secretariat of National
> Defense (SEDENA) denied that the Army was operating in the community of La
> Realidad. The Secretary of SEDENA even called on the media not to
> broadcast false accounts. The new Secretary of the Interior, Francisco
> Labastida Ochoa, confirmed (avalo') the explanation of SEDENA.
>
> 4. The "Bridge to Hope Caravan," which left Mexico City December 27 for
> the communities of Oventic and Chenalho in the Chiapas Highlands, was
> blockaded on the road by an armed group, presumably PRI paramilitaries, as
> it headed for the community of Polho. The Caravan, formed by various
> foreign and national organizations and individuals (including 36 North
> Americans from San Diego, CA) carried 28 tons of supplies, approximately 14,
> 000 pesos (US$1750) in donations and material for the construction of a
> high school in Oventic.
>
> 5. The VII Military Region announced yesterday that it will expand patrols
> and checkpoints, and they "will be intensive," mainly in the three regions
> considered in conflict: the Jungle, North and Highlands of Chiapas, where
> there is a strong EZLN presence.
>
> LA JORNADA, 3 January 1998
> 6. In the zone near the "Aguascalientes" of Oventic there is a greater
> presence of military vehicles. The concentration began January 1, 1998.
> The Civilian Peace Camps volunteers who had been at that location
> abandonded Oventic at the request of the Zapatista leadership out of fear
> that the main "Aguascalientes," constructed in 1995 could be "invaded" in
> coming days by soldiers with the pretext of seeking arms, as happened in
> February 1995.
>
> LA JORNADA January 3, 1998
>
> UNCONFIRMED INFORMATION:
>
> 1. Armed groups (possibly paramilitaries or members of the Mexican Army)
> are attacking today the following communities of the Zapatistas' base: La
> Realidad, Las Margaritas and Oventic.
>
> 2. Today a paramilitary group in Chenalho took and is holding hostage from
> 40 to 46 civilians, possibly indigenous, demanding freedom for those
> detained in the Acteal massacre.
>
> 3. Ofelia Medina y Ana Colchero, who were recently in Chenalho
> participating in works of humanitarian aid for the displaced, just received
> arrest warrants (orden de aprension); there was no information given
> concerning a reason for the warrants.
>
>
>
> We request letters, faxes and communications seeking:
>
> * that measures be taken to protect physical and civil integrity in the
> communities of La Realidad and the whole conflict zone, as well as to
> prevent the Mexican Army from undertaking actions threatening the
> fundamental human rights of people in the region;
>
> * that an immediate, impartial and complete investigation be carried out to
> clarify the actions detailed in this report, with assurances that justice
> will be applied toward whomever is found responsible for violations;
>
> * that immediate actions be taken to guarantee the security and physical
> integrity of the displaced;
>
> * an end to illegal detentions and provocations of the Federal Army,
> Judicial Police and Public Security Police against indigenous communities;
>
> * that measures be taken to assure that the humanitarian aid destined for
> the displaced indigenous in different communities (such as Polho, Chenalho
> and Oventic) can effectively arrive without attempts against the physical
> integrity of the people bringing it, whether national or foreign;
>
> * expressing concern at the growing climate of violence and insecurity in
> the State of Chiapas with the consequent impunity enjoyed by paramilitary
> groups, and at the recent troop movements into civilian Zapatista
> communities in the conflict zone.
>
> SEND YOUR COMMUNICATIONS TO:
>
> * Dr. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon
> Presidente de la Republica
> Palacio N
Communique from the EZLN 1-3-98 (fwd)
> Translation of EZLN Communique of 1-3-98 > > COMMUNIQUE FROM THE CLANDESTINE REVOLUTIONARY > INDIGENOUS COMMITTEE. GENERAL COMMAND OF THE > ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION. > > January 3,1998. > > TO THE PEOPLE OF MEXICO > > TO THE PEOPLES AND GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD > > THE THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PRESS > > BROTHERS: > > THE EZLN DENOUNCES THE LATEST AND CRITICAL > EVENTS: > > FIRST: ON JANUARY FIRST 1998, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC BROKE THE > DIALOG WITH THE EZLN, AND VIOLATED THE LAW FOR DIALOGUE OF MARCH 11,1995 BY > STARTING THE PERSECUTION OF ZAPATISTAS. > THIS STARTED ON JANUARY FIRST 1998, WHEN IT ATTACKED THE COMMUNITY OF > YALCHIPTIC, > WHERE IT PLANTED WEAPONS TO JUSTIFY IT'S AGGRESSION. THOSE WEAPONS DO NOT > BELONG TO THE EZLN. > > TODAY, IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS (JANUARY 3,1998), WE RECEIVED > COMMUNICATION, THAT > THE MEXICAN FEDERAL ARMY WAS DOING MANEUVERS TO TAKE OVER THE COMMUNITY OF > LA REALIDAD, THE LAST INFORMATION WE HAD, WAS > THAT A MOTORIZED COLUMN DES EMBARKED WITH > A GROUP OF SPECIAL FORCES OF THE FEDERAL > ARMY, AND THEY STARTED ADVANCING TOWARDS > LA REALIDAD COMBING THE SIDELINES OF THE COMMUNITY, DETAINING AND TORTURING > THE > INDIGENOUS PEASANTS WHO THEY FOUND AS THEY > ADVANCED; TO THE ONE THEY WOULD GRAB AND > TORTURE, THEY ASKED: WHERE IS MARCOS, WE HAVE ORDERS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO > GRAB HIM DEAD OR ALIVE. > > AT NOON THE COMMUNICATION STOPPED AND WE > COULD NOT KNOW WHAT IS THE SITUATION IN > THE COMMUNITY OF LA REALIDAD, NOR HOW ARE THE COMPAN~EROS. > > SECOND: WITH THE PERSECUTIONS OF ZAPATISTAS, THE MEXICAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT > WANTS TO COVER UP IT'S RESPONSIBILITY IN > THE MASSACRE IN ACTEAL; IN WHICH WE ALL > KNOW, IS THE MAIN RESPONSIBLE. > > THIRD: IN THE COMMUNITY OF MORELIA IN > THE NIGHT HOURS (TODAY), THE FEDERAL ARMY > IS GOING IN HOUSE BY HOUSE SEARCHING AND > EXPELLING THE INHABITANTS OF THAT TOWN. > > FOURTH: WE CALL ON CIVIL SOCIETY NATIONAL > AND INTERNATIONAL, TO MOBILIZE AND DEMAND > THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP THE PERSECUTION > OF ZAPATISTAS AND TO RESPECT THE LAW OF > MARCH11,1995, AND TO FULL FILL THE SAN ANDRES ACCORDS; AND TO END THE > MILITARIZATION OF THE STATE OF CHIAPAS > AND OTHER REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY. > > DEMOCRACY > > LIBERTY AND > > JUSTICE > > FOR THE CLANDESTINE REVOLUTIONARY INDIGENOUS COMMITTEE. GENERAL COMMAND > OF THE ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION. > > COMMANDER DAVID > JANUARY 3,1998. EZLN > > TRANSLATED BY: SUSANA SARAVIA (ANIBARRO) FOR NUEVO AMANECER PRESS- > > > ___ > NUEVO AMANECER PRESS- N.A.P. > _ > Non Profit organization translating and distributing information > in support of the work in defense of human rights. > General Director: Roger Maldonado-Mexico > Assistant Director: Susana Saravia Ugarte > Director Spain: Darrin Wood > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Who needs live faculty, sez DoC
Your tax dollars at work... -- Anders Schneiderman --- WILL ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FUND ONLINE EDUCATION? The Commerce Department is expected to decide early this year whether to provide funding to learning technology ventures through the Department's Advanced Technology Program, which has funded such things as better refrigeration technologies and improved health information systems. Program manager Richard W. Morris says: "If we migrate to the Web, all of a sudden the economies of scale change dramatically. If we do the technology right, we can re-use and update and integrate the pieces of instruction in almost an infinite number of ways so all the advantages of the Internet make for a new economy of learning." (New York Times Cybertimes 4 Jan 98) ---
Re: UAW finances (cont.)
For those interested in pursuing this subject, see "The Edifice Complex: Rebuilding the American Labor Movement to Face the Global Economy" by Jonathan Tasini, published by Labor Research Association in 1995. In 1982-84 dollars, 28 major unions had aggregate 1992 income of $3.15 billion, up from $2.91 billion in 1979. They had aggregate wealth of $1.96 billion in 1992, up from $1.78 billion in 1979. In solidarity, Michael E. At 06:31 PM 1/3/98 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Friends, > >the uaw/gm "paid education leave fund" financed by gm contributions through the >collective barg. agreement has over 900 million dollars in it. This is supposed >to be used to promote "jointness" but the money is more than can be spent. all >uaw children may soon be getting scholarships to college! > >by the way, other unions may also have tons of cash. eg USWA, garment workers, >etc. > >michael yates > >
Re: Marx on Native Americans
Response: Even granted that Indians did not historically have a concept of private ownership of land or institutions of private property governing establishing basis of legitimacy of ownership of land, capitalist society does and from the standpoint of the core criteria and values for establishing legitimate ownership, Indians "owned" the land on they clearly and provably occupied and improved as much as any homesteaders granted title on the basis of occupancy and improvement. The point is that the robbing of territory, displacement of Indians and genocide idicted Capitalisms own private property institutions and legal criteria for establishing "ownership". On the basis of what has been done to Indians, presumably anyone with a bigger gun and who is more ruthless can effectively take over, hold, maintain and make nominal improvements of someone else's territory and call it "land" and then call it "privately owned" land and generic private property. The contradictions between the professed and de jure core values, institutions and ideals of capitalism versus the real or de facto practices, institutions, ideals and power relations--as manifested throughout the whole history of the U.S.--leads to pseudo palliatives like the BIA and reservations otherwise the whole basis of the system --private property is what it is historically based on and how it is ususally acquired: theft-- lies naked and exposed. Jim Craven > > Heartfield: > >The Native Americans were slaughtered, not robbed. Property rights are > >alien to native American culture. > > > > The American Indians did not have a concept of land ownership like Donald > Trump's, but they certainly did have a concept of territoriality. > Heartfield is aware of this, I'm sure, since he has been anxious to remind > us of the intermittent wars between various tribes, who fought over hunting > grounds typically. > > Both the American government and the tribes understood the territorial > rights of the Indians, since the evidence of such an agreement can be found > in the myriad of treaties that they hammered out and which the whites > betrayed over and over again. Heartfield hates these treaties as much as > the capitalist class did and finds all sorts of "Marxist" reasons to throw > them into a bonfire and piss on them while they burn. But they were based > on law and were not at all "fictional." The Supreme Court of the United > States and state supreme courts are called upon to adjudicate them > constantly. All these cases involve land claims made by Indians on the > basis of various treaties. Like them or not, they are real, not fictional. > > In 1851 the Cheyennes, Arapahos, Sioux, Crows and other tribes met at Fort > Laramie with US officials and hammered out an agreement that would allow > roads and military posts across their territory. The treaty did not > relinquish any rights or claims to the land and guaranteed the Indians > hunting and fishing rights. > > In the following decade gold was discovered and miners flooded into the > territory. Little Raven, an Arapaho chief, told them that they could keep > all the gold they found since the Indians had no use for it, but he also > reminded them that the land belonged to the Indians. > > Unfortunately the Indians' generosity did not assuage the greed of the > American capitalist class. The treaty of 1851 was subverted through a > provocation by the capitalist government. A single rancher's cow was > slaughtered by a Minneconjou Sioux and the rancher demanded compensation > all out of proportion to the value of the cow. When the tribe resisted > payment, the cavalry attacked. The ensuing wars had nothing to do with > revenge, but desire for material gain. The Indians stood in the way of > maximum exploitation of the land. Specifically, buffalo-hunting and > cattle-ranching were mutually exclusive "means of production." The > territoriality of the Indian tribes had to be overcome through force and > violence. It was an act of theft. General George Cook, the most renowned of > the campaigners against the Indian, said, "Greed and avarice on the part of > the whites--in other words, the almighty dollar, is at the bottom of all > our Indian troubles." > > A new treaty was signed during the Civil War which would permit the > railroad to be built through Indian territory. This treaty was violated, > just as the 1851 treaty was violated. Northern troops launched an > unprovoked attack on a Sand Creek, Colorado encampment and slaughtered 300 > sleeping Cheyennes. The troops returned to Denver with the Indian scalps. > > This raid provoked a general conflagration on the Plains territories. With > the end of the Civil War, the US ruling class was now able to concentrate > its fire on the Indians who were an impediment to the untrammeled > capitalist growth that Heartfield is so in love with. Black Kettle, the > chief of the Cheyennes, tried v
Re: Ride free or die!
Robin Hahnel wrote, >I am very sympathetic to this view. Rationalization of exploitation as >being in the interest of the exploited is the ultimate insult. - snip - >I agree that randomized inequity is better than systematic inequity. - snip - >I know from my students' reactions to parecon that most of them THINK >they'd like more of an income lottery than 2:1 But they -- mistakenly >in the case of the students at the university where I teach -- usually >assume they are more likely to come out on the high than the low end >too. - snip - >If people want to take their >effort earned consumption rights and exchange them in a Casino for a >possibility of much more consumption right -- and a possibility of much >less, I see no reason to discriminate against gambling. So if someone >doesn't like the 2:1 distributive odds of the parecon economy, they can >make it as risky as they want! > >A welfare safety net for the losers? What would you say? I abhor the notion of a safety net. It reminds me of the poor laws and the work test for employable indigents. The problem remains that distribution "based on effort" invites rationalizations of exploitation. This is not to say that there couldn't be some effort-based reward structures, only that effort shouldn't be the primary basis for consumption rights. The reason your students think they would prefer a ratio greater than 2:1 is because they also think that they would gladly put in more than twice the effort of the lowest paid worker. They may be right. Of course, they may also be willing to put in several times the effort of the lowest paid worker doing something that contributes no net social benefit. When I read the phrase "effort earned consumption rights", I find the idea of a distributive lottery that much more appealling. There's never been an economy truly based on "reward for effort", but the worst apologists for capitalism portray the profit system as the purest form of precisely that. The last thing I want to do is get into a Pythonesque argument with right-wing pamphleteers about whether "the market" or "democratic participation" is the best means for measuring effort. And I think the cleanest way to avoid such a nauseating fuss is to simply walk away from the entirely unnecessary criterion of effort. I almost wrote "effort is bullshit", but on second thought effort is a debased theological notion, the cornerstone of vulgar Calvinism. Effort won't get you into heaven, but -- depending on how well it's rewarded -- it may indicate to you whether you're elect or preterite. Speaking of theology, the implicit conformism of a 2:1 ratio worries me. Wouldn't such a profound standardization of incomes would lead to a similar standardization of consumption patterns -- the little houses made of ticky-tacky? Although it may be enough to object to such conformism simply as a matter of taste, wouldn't there also be a possible ecological principle at stake here, having to do with diversity of consumption pattern? And doesn't this play into the right-wing propagandist's image of a socialist ant hill? Let's say we've got a ratio of roughly 100:1 (annual income, determined by lottery): the 1's being subsistence and being relatively rare and the 100's being even rarer. The subsistence income for the 1's would be bearable because it wouldn't be part of a chronic condition of poverty. They'd presumably still have their better-off friends and at any rate they could look forward to fatter times next year. The 100's would have the delicious dilemma of deciding whether to blow out their bonanza year or salt some away for a raining day. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Know Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Psycho-dynamics of Homo Economicus
At 14:05 1/1/98 D. Henwood wrote: "I think someone interested in economic power and class could apply these techniques [of Foucault's] to the construction of economic subjects, the socio-psychological creation of Homo economicus." I am not sure that Foucault's specific techniques would be useful in this area, but others have been used in this particular area. Some German anti-fascists maintain that the notion of "secondary gains of the neurosis" are the key link between the ideas of Freud and Marx. I have independently worked with this and find it useful. I also found J. Kovel's theory of "bifurcated reality" to be especially helpful. My own researches in this area, though, initially centered on the anal theory of money and the anal character. Specific work involved the changes in the class and sub-class identifications of the anal character as key industrial dynamics underwent internal changes (e.g. the identification of the anal character with the early bourgeoisie to the later identification with remaining entrepreneurs and the petty bourgeoisie.) Recently my interests have been around the transformation question as examined in Vol. II of Capital and elsewhere. The intense intra-firm and intra-industry competition around the transformation problem has given rise to a particular real world phenomenon with massive impact on internal psycho-dynamics. This is what Madison Avenue calls the "advertising jingle," what the psychiatrists call "paleo-logical thinking" with particular reference to von Doramus's principle, the psychoanalysts call "primary process thinking," and the anthropologists call "magical thinking." We live surrounded by magical incantations as no previous society has ever experienced. In the roughly four blocks from my apartment to the subway I counted over 500 advertisements, each pronouncing reality a certain way. The shift in the industrial dynamic from accumulation to transformation has also produced significant shifts in characterology, from the compulsive saving/hoarding anal character to the impulsive discharging/spending urethral character. Ironically, urethral eroticism has become the fourth lost libido in classical psychoanalysis. While my interest in psychoanalysis is anthropological and not therapeutic, urethral aspects of early theories of narcissism were never examined. Nor have even the therapeutic-oriented psychoanalysis investigated such areas for the treatment of narcissistic and borderline conditions that afflict (or are afflicted by) late capitalism they way that Victorian society produced sexual hysterics.
