Environmentalism and the American Socialist
Not trying to tease - and would rather have this post ignored - but really, how can anyone try to make Marx into some ecologist just on the basis of a few pages in Capital on soil fertility. Foster would accomplish alot more if he stop projecting his own thoughts onto Marx, and simply present them as his own. [To a very large extent, the work of John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett has been dedicated to re-establishing the ties between Marxism and ecology, which had existed during Marx's own career as demonstrated by his concern with the problem of soil fertility. So when Marxists of earlier generations display concerns like Marx's, they should be singled out and integrated into this intellectual tradition. John's research into Soviet ecological thought, most notably not excluding the Stalin era, goes a step in this direction. In a recent article, he took note of scientist V.L. Komarov who wrote in 1935 that, "The private owner or employer, however necessary it may be to make the changing of the world comply with the laws of Nature, cannot do so since he aims at profit and only profit. By creating crisis upon crisis in industry he lays waste natural wealth in agriculture, leaving behind a barren soil and in the mountain districts bare rocks and stony slopes." In 1957, the United States was not the obvious place to search for environmental initiatives. One year later, Rachel Carson would begin the research that led to the publication of "Silent Spring", but in previous years, one can perceive a general complacency around such questions related to a large extent to the general sense of technological and industrial optimism brought on by postwar prosperity and the euphoria surrounding the "promise" of nuclear power. In these circumstances, the article by Reuben W. Borough titled "The Religion of Conservation" appearing in the September 1957 American Socialist appears like a lightning bolt in a blue sky. I want to preface the excerpt from the article below with a few words about Borough, who is described by the editors as: "editor of Upton Sinclair's EPIC News in the thirties, and a California leader of the [Henry] Wallace movement in the forties." EPIC stood for End Poverty in California, the party which supported Upton Sinclair's run for governor of California in 1934. In Greg Mitchell's "The Campaign of the Century," a prize-winning book on the campaign, we learn that Sinclair tapped into powerful anticapitalist feelings in the state, that encompassed lowly farmworkers as well as Hollywood stars, including Charlie Chaplin. The studio heads, fearing a threat to their open shops, and agribusiness, combined to redbait and sabotage Sinclair's campaign. Also noteworthy was the Communist Party's sectarian opposition to Sinclair, who was not ready to function under their discipline. Sinclair, who was a long-time socialist in the Debs tradition and muckraking novelist, supported the Russian Revolution but, like the editors of American Socialist, believed that American needed its own revolutionary traditions and program. Borough, just like Upton Sinclair, was a living symbol of those traditions. He is described by Mitchell in the following terms: The newspaper's editor, Rube Borough, was an excitable fellow with bushy hair described by a former colleague as "a wild man from the Borneo of newspaperdom." As a Socialist reporter in the Midwest, he had been close to Carl Sandburg (whom he knew as "Sandy")_until he panned the poet's Good Morning, America. Rube came to Los Angeles and started working for the pro-worker daily the Record in 1917. Borough was a natural choice to edit the EPIC News, operating out of state EPIC headquarters in L.A., but lately he had started to look ahead. EPIC had become so much more than Sinclair, and yet the EPIC News was little more than Uppie's campaign sheet. Borough wanted it to promote the entire progressive movement, from co-ops to technocracy. He loved Sinclair, but recognized that he was only the catalyst of the insurrection, not its cause. Win or lose in November, EPIC's priorities (with no election to mobilize around) would change. Borough's goal was to make the EPIC News a daily newspaper, and go toe-to-toe with the Los Angeles Times. It would be the People versus the Interests, seven mornings a week. === The Religion of Conservation by Reuben W. Borough F OR many months now I have been verbally exploding at the breakfast table over the steady stream of tragedies headlined in the Los Angeles Times. I have been repeating over and over again an old colloquialism from boyhood days: "We're too big for our pants!" I repeat it here with two recent examples of the current scientific and industrial anarchy of the profit-takers fresh in mind: 1) The aircraft collision a short while back in the San Fernando Valley that took the lives of five airmen and two high school students and injured
Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? I read *Capital* (Vol.I) several years before I became involved in any kind of political activity whatsoever. At the time it had no impact on my politics, but I thought it was one of the most beautiful books I had ever read. I didn't read Vols. II III until after I had become deeply involved in marxism, and the first four chapters of Vol. II, taken as an independent unit, seemed and seem to me a literary masterpiece. Carrol
Re: Environmentalism and the American Socialist
Richard Duchesne: Not trying to tease - and would rather have this post ignored - but really, how can anyone try to make Marx into some ecologist just on the basis of a few pages in Capital on soil fertility. Foster would accomplish alot more if he stop projecting his own thoughts onto Marx, and simply present them as his own. Marx and Engels wrote about the relationship between society and nature throughout their career. One of the more important aspects of John's book is the restoration of the importance of materialism to their research. Marx collaborated with Engels on the conception of "Dialectics of Nature" and even contributed a chapter. This book, which was not published until after Lenin's death, also contains the chapter "The Role of Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man" which has often been available as a separate pamphlet. Here, as a reminder, is what it states: "Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature -- but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly." Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Evaluating pen-l retrospectively
Suppose that we look at 2 different scenarios. The economy either crashes and burns or improves dramatically. Now suppose that someone went back and reviewed the archives of this list? How would we look in either case? Would our discussions seem relevant or instructive? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Environmentalism and the American Socialist
Louis not quite here. It was only with the onset of the Cotton Famine that they began to take the environment seriously. I have written in my Marx book that he took the environment more seriously than he let on because he feared giving too much credence to the Malthusians. Louis Proyect wrote: Marx and Engels wrote about the relationship between society and nature throughout their career. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Environmentalism and the American Sociali
I thought we all knew long ago about their materialism. Passages like the one cited below - and I know there are a few others - are in no way sufficient to ground a theory that would be called "Marxist Ecology". And we all know what the Soviets did to their environment with their megalomaniacal ventures. "Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature -- but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly." Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Evaluating pen-l retrospectively
Michael wrote: Suppose that we look at 2 different scenarios. The economy either crashes and burns or improves dramatically. Now suppose that someone went back and reviewed the archives of this list? How would we look in either case? Would our discussions seem relevant or instructive? It depends. If you narrowed the search to posts by Jim Devine, you'd find them extremely relevant. The problem is that very few people with his kinds of expertise feel motivated apparently to write analyses on PEN-L. Whether this is because of time constraints or something else, I have no idea. I suspect, however, that much of this discussion is taking place among PEN-L'ers but not here, rather over on LBO-Talk. In any case, your scenario seems focused on the United States, while for most of the rest of the world the economy has not only crashed and burned, but has disappeared off the face of the map. In the USA economic woes tend to get framed in terms of whether Teamsters, for example, will be able to fend off Mexican trucks. Over on the Marxism list, the discussion was focused on the Argentina truckers union led by Moyano who led a march against anti-labor legislation which was attacked by the cops, leaving many wounded from gunfire or clubs. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Alan's stock answers
Mayer, Thomas. 1999. Monetary Policy and the Great inflation in the United States: the Federal Reserve and the Failure of Macroeconomic policy, 1965-1979 (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar). viii Preface: "When starting out I thought that I would land up with a scathing criticism of the Federal Reserve. But in working my way through the material I began to understand why the Fed did what it did, and that the blame for the mistaken policies that it followed should be shared in large part by the academic economists whose writings encouraged these policies." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
It was just Vol. II which he offered to Darwin. Which other book would you say is a literary masterpiece? Ricardo Duchesne wrote: As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? I read *Capital* (Vol.I) several years before I became involved in any kind of political activity whatsoever. At the time it had no impact on my politics, but I thought it was one of the most beautiful books I had ever read. I didn't read Vols. II III until after I had become deeply involved in marxism, and the first four chapters of Vol. II, taken as an independent unit, seemed and seem to me a literary masterpiece. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
At 09:57 AM 5/8/00 -0500, you wrote: As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far. I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium, CAPITAL wins hands down. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Environmentalism and the American Socialist
Richard Duchesne: Not trying to tease - and would rather have this post ignored - but really, how can anyone try to make Marx into some ecologist just on the basis of a few pages in Capital on soil fertility. Foster would accomplish alot more if he stop projecting his own thoughts onto Marx, and simply present them as his own. Duchesne clearly hasn't read Paul Burkett's research on Marx, Engels, and ecology, including Paul's recent book. Perhaps it's too boring a book for Ricardo, though, since it's very scholarly. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Query
At 08:33 PM 5/7/00 -0700, you wrote: Milton Friedman saw the balance of payments deficit early on as an opportunity to eliminate fixed exchange rates, which he saw as a form of government control. should socialists be in favor of fixed exchange rates? under capitalism? under socialism? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Environmentalism and the American Socialist
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Not trying to tease - and would rather have this post ignored - but really, how can anyone try to make Marx into some ecologist just on the basis of a few pages in Capital on soil fertility. Foster would accomplish alot more if he stop projecting his own thoughts onto Marx, and simply present them as his own. No, you're not trying to tease, you're trying to provoke, otherwise you would have ignored the post. There's enough reflexive anti-Marxism in the world without having to read it on PEN-L too. Doug
Re: Re: Evaluating pen-l retrospectively
Louis Proyect wrote: In the USA economic woes tend to get framed in terms of whether Teamsters, for example, will be able to fend off Mexican trucks. Over on the Marxism list, the discussion was focused on the Argentina truckers union led by Moyano who led a march against anti-labor legislation which was attacked by the cops, leaving many wounded from gunfire or clubs. Hmm, well how about the AFL-CIO's changed stance on immigration, and the successes organizing janitors in LA? Why can't we replicate that in NYC? Sometimes relevant and interesting things happen, or don't happen, in one's own backyard. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: At 09:57 AM 5/8/00 -0500, you wrote: As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far. I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium, CAPITAL wins hands down. I have to admit that while I love vols. 1 3 of Capital, I found vol. 2 pretty excruciating. Are there others, aside from our reflexively hostile anti-Marxist, who agree? Doug
crime stats.
from Shuger's daily news summary in SLATE (May 8, 2000): The USA [TODAY] account of the crime stats [in the U.S.] broaches the matter of explanation in the fourth paragraph, with a quote from a former NYPD commissioner strongly suggesting the reasons for the decline are rising incarceration rates and increased numbers of cops. Then, a bit down from there, a professor is quoted citing a break in the violence associated with the rise of crack cocaine, meaning that the drug killed many criminals and put many others in jail for long sentences. In short, USAT makes it seem like the stats can be explained, and that the explanations are conservative ones. But the [Washington POST] says high up that criminologists disagree about the causes. And the paper carries a quote from Janet Reno that USAT left out, in which she credits her administration's "preventing 500,000 prohibited persons from obtaining guns"--a liberal explanation. Also, USAT does not mention as a factor something both the WP and NY [TIMES] do: demographics, which in recent years have meant fewer young people in their peak crime tendency years, but which could, with the post-boomer bulge, soon enough be reversed. The NYT is alone in mentioning that these latest stats mean that the country is now experiencing the longest running crime decline on record. What's the leftist explanation of this trend? I would guess that the falling unemployment rate has something to do with the trend, since it implies greater opportunities to be paid to commit legal crimes, encouraging people to move away from illegal ones. (It's revealing that the mainstream news outlets ignore this one.) But of course, causation is overdetermined Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Once again I took it for granted everyone knew it was only Vol. II which Marx offered to Darwin. On boredom, I would add it is not something which we experience during tedious work only, but when we have "nothing to do". It is also a time when we do more than we realize; in the broken bits of thought we have, we are actually thinking about new possibilities, or trying to resolve issues/difficulties. So boredom is good for you; it is also an alternative to the "do it" mentality of our society. since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far. I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium, CAPITAL wins hands down. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Evaluating pen-l retrospectively
Hmm, well how about the AFL-CIO's changed stance on immigration, and the successes organizing janitors in LA? Why can't we replicate that in NYC? Sometimes relevant and interesting things happen, or don't happen, in one's own backyard. Doug Actually, I was the one who tried to initiate some kind of discussion on the LA janitors here, but apparently--except for Nathan--it went nowhere. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: Alan's stock answers
At 08:32 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: Mayer, Thomas. 1999. Monetary Policy and the Great inflation in the United States: the Federal Reserve and the Failure of Macroeconomic policy, 1965-1979 (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar).viii Preface: "When starting out I thought that I would land upwith a scathing criticism of the Federal Reserve. But in working my way through the material I began to understand why the Fed did what it did, and that the blame for the mistaken policies that it followed should be shared in large part by the academic economists whose writings encouraged these policies." which academic economists is he referring to? monetarists? non-monetarists? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Evaluating pen-l retrospectively
At 08:18 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: Suppose that we look at 2 different scenarios. The economy either crashes and burns or improves dramatically. Why only two scenarios? Thomas Palley's instructive article in CHALLENGE a few issues ago had at least three possible scenarios (soft landing, hard landing, crash). Also, what is "improvement"? To many, a 3.9 percent unemployment rate is an improvement, even a dramatic one. It's not some statistical fluke either, since we can read about a (temporary) reversal of the trend toward greater income inequality and the fact that businesses are much more willing to hire people outside their normal labor pools, including ex-convicts. Now suppose that someone went back and reviewed the archives of this list? How would we look in either case? Would our discussions seem relevant or instructive? As Louis P. points out, we really don't discuss this stuff very much. I play Cassandra a lot Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Evaluating pen-l retrospectively
Louis Proyect wrote: If you narrowed the search to posts by Jim Devine, you'd find them extremely relevant. Absolutely. The problem is that very few people with his kinds of expertise feel motivated apparently to write analyses on PEN-L. Without denigrating Jim, for whom I have tremendous admiration, there is an enormous pool of talent here on the list. I suspect, however, that much of this discussion is taking place among PEN-L'ers but not here, rather over on LBO-Talk. Yes, again. This is due in large part to Doug's ability to stimulate discussion with an enormous array of information. In any case, your scenario seems focused on the United States. Right again. Over the years, I have tried to draw upon some of the members from outside the Anglo-Saxon countries, but have not have much success in that regard. Lou's Marxism does a much better job in that respect. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: crime stats.
Changing demographics are also important. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: crime stats.
Jim Devine wrote: What's the leftist explanation of this trend? A couple of years ago, I interviewed a bunch of crime pundits on the downtrend. The consensus was: 1) the decline of crack (driven, several of them said, by younger people seeing how ravaged their older siblings and neighbors were by the drug), 2) a smaller teen population, and 3) community policing. I can't vouch for these explanations, but they were given by people from the "left" to the center. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Alan's stock answers
I just looked through a couple of pages. I will not look at it again until after finals are graded. Yuk. I love teaching but I consider my grading work to be comparable to a beef inspector for the USDA. Chico, 2001. GPA 2.34, etc. Just so that the corporations know where to herd the members of the new labor pool. which academic economists is he referring to? monetarists? non-monetarists? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Evaluating pen-l retrospectively
G'day Mike Louis, Sez Louis: It depends. If you narrowed the search to posts by Jim Devine, you'd find them extremely relevant. The problem is that very few people with his kinds of expertise feel motivated apparently to write analyses on PEN-L. Whether this is because of time constraints or something else, I have no idea. I suspect, however, that much of this discussion is taking place among PEN-L'ers but not here, rather over on LBO-Talk. In any case, your scenario seems focused on the United States, while for most of the rest of the world the economy has not only crashed and burned, but has disappeared off the face of the map. I, too, am a devout fan of The Sainted Jim, but I reckon you're being a tad harsh, comrade! This list gets stuck right in when it actually agrees on what the issue is. That rather confines its best moments to commentary and retrospectives, but that's really the only stuff I have any great faith in, anyway. That's where Michael will find the telling texts when stuff goes pear-shaped (which remains my humble suspicion). The quality is positively gratifying then, and our humble listmaster's moderation makes for a learning process both gentle and humorous - which is important to late-comers to the dismal science. Not everyone is as brave as you when it comes to chancing the arm in public. Doug's list is great for those with bags of time (indeed, none greater, for mine), but I actually reckon a lot of posts there are very US-specific, too - and there's more copious redundancy - and old scraps get refought there more often and more hotly than here (for good reasons, mind - cultural theory elicits the worst out of me, too - but anyone who takes Engels' letter to Bloch, or the Frankfurters' attempts to come to grips with their sad appraisals du jour, seriously has to walk that turf) but it's nice to have a Pen-L and an LBO - they still taste very different to me. And now I've found out about the contribution of Moyano and his comrades to a continent's traumatic - and potentially world-challenging - peregrinations through the harsh contradictions that mark our time. Ta. Anyway, my old steam-driven box can't take LBO traffic ... So more strength to your arm, Michael! Rob.
Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly Free Trade
Once again, American workers at the lower rungs of the pay scale are being asked to sacrifice their jobs and wages on the altar of "free trade," so that the poorer countries of the world might pursue an economic development strategy that offers little hope for the vast majority of their own populations. Over the last 25 years, we have lost more than a million jobs in textiles and apparel... Name: Mark Weisbrot Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation of Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky? Also, SS Prawer has a nice book on Karl Marx and World Literature, which is an old-fashioned (i.e. pre-Theory) lit critter's approach to Cpitala nd a lot more. As someone who has worked on translating Marx (never published) and in fact on translating Capital, I think i am qualified to say that Marx writes really fine German philosophical prose. He's not a writer of the caliber of Heine or Nietzsche--that is, of the very highest rank--, but his literary accompliahment would win him a place in German literature even if none of his views could be supported. Isaiah Berlin has a nice literary appreciation of the Manifesto in his little bio of Marx. All that said, I can imagine that Darwin, presented with any part of Capital, would have found it uninteresting, and if he had found it interesting, would have been horrified. Darwin was desperately respectable. Wallace, as LP pointed out a while back, was another story. --jks In a message dated Mon, 8 May 2000 11:40:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 09:57 AM 5/8/00 -0500, you wrote: As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far. I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium, CAPITAL wins hands down. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Environmentalism and the American Sociali
No, you're not trying to tease, you're trying to provoke, otherwise you would have ignored the post. There's enough reflexive anti-Marxism in the world without having to read it on PEN-L too. Doug Depending on the reader, he/she may say am trying to enrage or infuriate, as you do, or just simply stimulate/induce/stir. And believe me the days of "anti-Marxism" are over; people are just indifferent to it, the more so when you keep repeating the same old dogmas about materialism and Darwinism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation of Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky? Yes... If Wolff is correct in his assessment of what Marx is trying to do in chapter 1, volume 1, then all I can say is that Marx failed--that Wolff is perhaps the first and only reader to understand him... Brad DeLong
Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: It was just Vol. II which he offered to Darwin. Which other book would you say is a literary masterpiece? Here we are talking about a book which was never written (Vol. II). Had it gotten to the point where the dedication had been relevant, it would presumably have appeared with all its footnotes (which, as Jim observes, are one of the glories of Vol.I). The first four chapters of Vol. II (the most finished part) are, as I said before, a masterpiece all by themselves. (I know no other work -- econ, novel, play, poem; history -- which makes the repetition of a single tautology incorporate so much of the world.) It's impossible even to guess what Vol. III, finished, would have looked like. But then I always have taken delight in what Northrop Frye calls "encyclopedic works" -- Herodotus, Milton, Byron, Browning, Gibbon, Pound, K. Burke, Swift's *Tale of a Tub* -- even Korzybski's *Science and Sanity* and Freud's *Interpretation of Dreams*. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
At 09:22 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation of Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky? Yes... If Wolff is correct in his assessment of what Marx is trying to do in chapter 1, volume 1, then all I can say is that Marx failed--that Wolff is perhaps the first and only reader to understand him... please explain. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly Free Trade
Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Brad De Long wrote: Once again, American workers at the lower rungs of the pay scale are being asked to sacrifice their jobs and wages on the altar of "free trade," so that the poorer countries of the world might pursue an economic development strategy that offers little hope for the vast majority of their own populations. Over the last 25 years, we have lost more than a million jobs in textiles and apparel... Name: Mark Weisbrot Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Baseball and economic growth
RE Michael's message Regression of growth rates on dummy variables as to whether countries play baseball or cricket, baseball playing countries have significantly higher rates of growth. Wall, H. J. 1995. "Cricket vs. Baseball as an Engine of Growth." Royal Economic Society Newsletter, 90 (July): pp. 2-3. Actually, a literature on the link between baseball (and sports in general) and capitalism exists. It is very interesting. Given my current role as my son's T-ball (a version of baseball) team's manager, I face every week the issue of the way that baseball is typically run in a way designed to get young kids prepared for life in capitalism. Of course, the kids on my son's team are getting a somewhat different experience. Eric Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat
Re: [weisbrot-columns]
Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Someone calls this attitude "getting high on paradise": that the West may find redemption by returning to the innocence and purity of the past and that this past may be found in the Third World; which is why I heard once that Jameson was rather upset when Indian movie directors he admired wanted to make more "commercial" films, he opined against it and insisted they keep making movies for people like him, which even if they make no money, he can always write about it; not that he had planned to cash on that! But now I may be half teasing.
Chinese workers desert state sector
BBC Saturday, 6 May, 2000, 09:30 GMT 10:30 Chinese workers desert state sector By Duncan Hewitt in Beijing An official survey in China has given further evidence of the dramatic changes in the country's economy. The nationwide survey found that in the last two decades, the proportion of urban workers employed in state enterprises has almost halved to just over 40%. The private sector on the other hand has snowballed, according to China's official news agency. The survey by China's state statistical bureau showed that at the end of 1998, only some 44% of the country's 200 million urban workers were employed in state enterprises, down from 78% two decades before. Around 23% worked for individual or family run businesses, with a similar proportion in what are known as collective or other forms of enterprises. In practice these too are often effectively privately-run. The figures give a further indication that the private sector is now the most dynamic part of China's economy. This is despite continuing official ambivalence: China last year amended its constitution to give greater protection to private business, but it still emphasises that the state sector is the core of the economy. The survey also highlights a growing wealth gap: the average monthly urban income is around $80, but people with college degrees earn at least twice as much as those with little education. In practice the divide is often far wider: in 6% of urban families, the survey showed, per capita income was a mere $12 a month. It said poor families were a serious problem, particularly in cities which were once bastions of state run industry where redundancies have been highest. It also suggests that people in their 40s are among those hardest hit by the economic changes. Having missed much of their education because of the Cultural Revolution, they now earn less on average than people under 30. It is these older workers who often face redundancy from the state sector. And with at least another seven million job losses expected this year the government is urgently seeking to create a nationwide social welfare system to defuse what is seen as a potential threat to social stability.
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Michael Perelman Roger Milliken thinks that he will lose a *lot* of money if the quotas on African textile imports into the United States are removed. Are you saying that he is a bad judge of his own interests, and that he will actually profit *more* if Africans export more textiles to America? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior that Darwin did not want to popularize himself, so let's give credit to him. However, this was not simply an ethical concern or political correctness for Darwin. Regarding the letter, we are not hundred percent sure if Marx really wanted to dedicate second volume of Capital to fellow Darwin. Unlike Gould's story, some suggest this letter was sent under the influence of Aveling (son in law), so it was beyond Marx's intention. Even if we assume that Marx was sincere, Darwin rejected the offer on the grounds that he did not want to cause a reaction or bad reputation among religious circles/ruling classes. Darwin was just a scientist. Certainly, he did many big things to overcome religious convictions, but he was not a political activist as Marx was. Despite the revolutionary nature of his theory, some of Dawrin's investigations (brain size differences between whites and blacks, men and women), were, sincerely or insincerely, designed to fit the ruling class ideology and colonial policies in Britain at that time. Actually, Hobson, in _Imperialism_ goes into details of explaining how the evolutionary theory in Britain at the turn of the century was promoting scientific and cultural imperialism besides economic imperialism. Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany Dear Sir, - I thank you for your friendly letter and the enclosure. The publication of your observations on my writings, in whatever form they may appear, really does not need any consent on my part, and it would be ridiculous for me to grant my permission for something which does not require it. I should prefer the part of the volume not to be dedicated to me (although I thank you for the intended honour), as that would to a certain extent suggest my approval of the whole work, with which I am not acquainted" (taken from a science list serv, Robert Young) As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer?
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Someone calls this attitude "getting high on paradise": that the West may find redemption by returning to the innocence and purity of the past and that this past may be found in the Third World; which is why I heard once that Jameson was rather upset when Indian movie directors he admired wanted to make more "commercial" films, he opined against it and insisted they keep making movies for people like him, which even if they make no money, he can always write about it; not that he had planned to cash on that! But now I may be half teasing.
Re: Baseball and economic growth
Yes, baseball is like craft-based capitalism; football more like Taylorist capitalism with enormous specialization and clock management. Cricket is supposed to reflect a more feudal economy. Eric Nilsson wrote: Actually, a literature on the link between baseball (and sports in general) and capitalism exists. It is very interesting. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was from Aveling, not Marx. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior that Darwin did not want to popularize himself, so let's give credit to him. However, this was not simply an ethical concern or political correctness for Darwin. Regarding the letter, we are not hundred percent sure if Marx really wanted to dedicate second volume of Capital to fellow Darwin. Unlike Gould's story, some suggest this letter was sent under the influence of Aveling (son in law), so it was beyond Marx's intention. Even if we assume that Marx was sincere, Darwin rejected the offer on the grounds that he did not want to cause a reaction or bad reputation among religious circles/ruling classes. Darwin was just a scientist. Certainly, he did many big things to overcome religious convictions, but he was not a political activist as Marx was. Despite the revolutionary nature of his theory, some of Dawrin's investigations (brain size differences between whites and blacks, men and women), were, sincerely or insincerely, designed to fit the ruling class ideology and colonial policies in Britain at that time. Actually, Hobson, in _Imperialism_ goes into details of explaining how the evolutionary theory in Britain at the turn of the century was promoting scientific and cultural imperialism besides economic imperialism. Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany Dear Sir, - I thank you for your friendly letter and the enclosure. The publication of your observations on my writings, in whatever form they may appear, really does not need any consent on my part, and it would be ridiculous for me to grant my permission for something which does not require it. I should prefer the part of the volume not to be dedicated to me (although I thank you for the intended honour), as that would to a certain extent suggest my approval of the whole work, with which I am not acquainted" (taken from a science list serv, Robert Young) As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Much of the poverty of Africa has to do with the devastation imposed by Europe and North America. Yes, they have been plauged by corrupt leaders also, but that was probably also fostered by the same powers. Now, the idea is to intergrate more closely into the global economy with a minimum of local control. Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. Brad De Long wrote: Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Michael Perelman Roger Milliken thinks that he will lose a *lot* of money if the quotas on African textile imports into the United States are removed. Are you saying that he is a bad judge of his own interests, and that he will actually profit *more* if Africans export more textiles to America? Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
I know that the letter was from Aveling.What about Gould's claim that there was a correpondence between Marx and Darwin? Is this another correpondence? or is Gould making up? Mine Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was from Aveling, not Marx. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior that Darwin did not want to popularize himself, so let's give credit to him. However, this was not simply an ethical concern or political correctness for Darwin. Regarding the letter, we are not hundred percent sure if Marx really wanted to dedicate second volume of Capital to fellow Darwin. Unlike Gould's story, some suggest this letter was sent under the influence of Aveling (son in law), so it was beyond Marx's intention. Even if we assume that Marx was sincere, Darwin rejected the offer on the grounds that he did not want to cause a reaction or bad reputation among religious circles/ruling classes. Darwin was just a scientist. Certainly, he did many big things to overcome religious convictions, but he was not a political activist as Marx was. Despite the revolutionary nature of his theory, some of Dawrin's investigations (brain size differences between whites and blacks, men and women), were, sincerely or insincerely, designed to fit the ruling class ideology and colonial policies in Britain at that time. Actually, Hobson, in _Imperialism_ goes into details of explaining how the evolutionary theory in Britain at the turn of the century was promoting scientific and cultural imperialism besides economic imperialism. Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany Dear Sir, - I thank you for your friendly letter and the enclosure. The publication of your observations on my writings, in whatever form they may appear, really does not need any consent on my part, and it would be ridiculous for me to grant my permission for something which does not require it. I should prefer the part of the volume not to be dedicated to me (although I thank you for the intended honour), as that would to a certain extent suggest my approval of the whole work, with which I am not acquainted" (taken from a science list serv, Robert Young) As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Chinese workers desert state sector
I understood that the private businesses pay less and have inferior working conditions. Why the desertion? It sounds like the boot. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? If I understand what you are saying, it is that (a) eugenic laws were practiced here in the U.S. until 1965, and so (b) African textile businesses should be prohibited from exporting more than a narrowly-limited quota of goods to the U.S. I'm missing something here... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not ExactlyFreeTrade
Much of the poverty of Africa has to do with the devastation imposed by Europe and North America. Yes, they have been plauged by corrupt leaders also, but that was probably also fostered by the same powers. Now, the idea is to intergrate more closely into the global economy with a minimum of local control. Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. -- Michael Perelman Ummm... You said that AGOA was in Milliken's interest--that capital was more mobile than labor, and hence that (American) capital would benefit rather than (African) labor from removing the quotas on exports of textiles from Africa. Are you now withdrawing that claim? It seems so. I agree that your initial claim was false. But I would like to know on what grounds you then oppose AGOA, if you now agree that it will make Roger Milliken somewhat poorer... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
I think that Gould is wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that the letter was from Aveling.What about Gould's claim that there was a correpondence between Marx and Darwin? Is this another correpondence? or is Gould making up? Mine Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was from Aveling, not Marx. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior that Darwin did not want to popularize himself, so let's give credit to him. However, this was not simply an ethical concern or political correctness for Darwin. Regarding the letter, we are not hundred percent sure if Marx really wanted to dedicate second volume of Capital to fellow Darwin. Unlike Gould's story, some suggest this letter was sent under the influence of Aveling (son in law), so it was beyond Marx's intention. Even if we assume that Marx was sincere, Darwin rejected the offer on the grounds that he did not want to cause a reaction or bad reputation among religious circles/ruling classes. Darwin was just a scientist. Certainly, he did many big things to overcome religious convictions, but he was not a political activist as Marx was. Despite the revolutionary nature of his theory, some of Dawrin's investigations (brain size differences between whites and blacks, men and women), were, sincerely or insincerely, designed to fit the ruling class ideology and colonial policies in Britain at that time. Actually, Hobson, in _Imperialism_ goes into details of explaining how the evolutionary theory in Britain at the turn of the century was promoting scientific and cultural imperialism besides economic imperialism. Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany Dear Sir, - I thank you for your friendly letter and the enclosure. The publication of your observations on my writings, in whatever form they may appear, really does not need any consent on my part, and it would be ridiculous for me to grant my permission for something which does not require it. I should prefer the part of the volume not to be dedicated to me (although I thank you for the intended honour), as that would to a certain extent suggest my approval of the whole work, with which I am not acquainted" (taken from a science list serv, Robert Young) As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Baseball and economic growth
I meant an early form of capitalism in which small capitalists hired skilled labor; i.e. master, journeyman, Jim Devine wrote: At 01:06 PM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: Yes, baseball is like craft-based capitalism; I think that the phrase "craft-based capitalism" is somewhat contradictory. I think a better phrase would be "craft-based commodity exchange." Even though professional baseball clearly reflects the class system it thrives in (though in surprising ways), the game itself is much more egalitarian than say, football. Baseball is egalitarian -- but also individualistic, because of the batter vs. pitcher battle which dominates the game. Football reminds me more of the army -- or of simple cooperation-based capitalism, with its hierarchy and its production process, which works more in parallel (everyone doing a different task, all at the same time) rather than in sequence (like an assembly line or a bucket-brigade). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
At 09:09 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: Once again, American workers at the lower rungs of the pay scale are being asked to sacrifice their jobs and wages on the altar of "free trade," so that the poorer countries of the world might pursue an economic development strategy that offers little hope for the vast majority of their own populations. Over the last 25 years, we have lost more than a million jobs in textiles and apparel... Name: Mark Weisbrot Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Michael P writes: Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. it's important to avoid Brad's style of argument here, which seems similar to guilt-by-association: If Roger Milliken (boo, hiss) is for something, it _must be_ bad. That's like saying that just because Farrakan or the UC-Berkeley economics department is for something, it must be wrong. Jim Devine BULLSHIT!!! Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not (African) labor but (American) capital. I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. No guilt-by-association.
Milliken
Brad De Long wrote: I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. Milliken is pretty alone in his industry, as far as I know. Most CEOs of large companies do not support Pat Buchanan for president, either. Nor do they furtively give money to the Citizens Trade Watch. Doug
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Brad, this sentence does not belong to me. My post was a reply to Ricardo's post about Indian film producers. please, read Ricardo's entire response, then you will make the connection. merci, Mine I did not write: Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad De Long wrote: I wrote: Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Somebody wrote (NOT ME) Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad replied: If I understand what you are saying, it is that (a) eugenic laws were practiced here in the U.S. until 1965, and so (b) African textile businesses should be prohibited from exporting more than a narrowly-limited quota of goods to the U.S. I'm missing something here... Brad DeLong -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
It has been established long ago that Marx did not offer to dedicate Capital to Darwin. Check Louis Feuer's article in the Journal of the History of Ideas, (some time in the 1970s). Rod Hay Carrol Cox wrote: Ricardo Duchesne wrote: As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? I read *Capital* (Vol.I) several years before I became involved in any kind of political activity whatsoever. At the time it had no impact on my politics, but I thought it was one of the most beautiful books I had ever read. I didn't read Vols. II III until after I had become deeply involved in marxism, and the first four chapters of Vol. II, taken as an independent unit, seemed and seem to me a literary masterpiece. Carrol -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
I strongly think so too, but i spying on him. there is something fishy there.. Mine Michael Perelman wrote: I think that Gould is wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that the letter was from Aveling.What about Gould's claim that there was a correpondence between Marx and Darwin? Is this another correpondence? or is Gould making up? Mine Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was from Aveling, not Marx. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior that Darwin did not want to popularize himself, so let's give credit to him. However, this was not simply an ethical concern or political correctness for Darwin. Regarding the letter, we are not hundred percent sure if Marx really wanted to dedicate second volume of Capital to fellow Darwin. Unlike Gould's story, some suggest this letter was sent under the influence of Aveling (son in law), so it was beyond Marx's intention. Even if we assume that Marx was sincere, Darwin rejected the offer on the grounds that he did not want to cause a reaction or bad reputation among religious circles/ruling classes. Darwin was just a scientist. Certainly, he did many big things to overcome religious convictions, but he was not a political activist as Marx was. Despite the revolutionary nature of his theory, some of Dawrin's investigations (brain size differences between whites and blacks, men and women), were, sincerely or insincerely, designed to fit the ruling class ideology and colonial policies in Britain at that time. Actually, Hobson, in _Imperialism_ goes into details of explaining how the evolutionary theory in Britain at the turn of the century was promoting scientific and cultural imperialism besides economic imperialism. Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany Dear Sir, - I thank you for your friendly letter and the enclosure. The publication of your observations on my writings, in whatever form they may appear, really does not need any consent on my part, and it would be ridiculous for me to grant my permission for something which does not require it. I should prefer the part of the volume not to be dedicated to me (although I thank you for the intended honour), as that would to a certain extent suggest my approval of the whole work, with which I am not acquainted" (taken from a science list serv, Robert Young) As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Re: Re: Re: Environmentalism and the American Socialist
I would have to side with Lou here. Marx did write about the relations between society and nature throughout his career. Otherwise, it is impossible to discuss human labour. His life long interest in the works of Aristotle and Hegel indicate that. That is not the same as saying that "took the environment seriously." Rod Hay Michael Perelman wrote: Louis not quite here. It was only with the onset of the Cotton Famine that they began to take the environment seriously. I have written in my Marx book that he took the environment more seriously than he let on because he feared giving too much credence to the Malthusians. Louis Proyect wrote: Marx and Engels wrote about the relationship between society and nature throughout their career. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Michael P writes: Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. I wrote: it's important to avoid Brad's style of argument here, which seems similar to guilt-by-association: If Roger Milliken (boo, hiss) is for something, it _must be_ bad. That's like saying that just because Farrakan or the UC-Berkeley economics department is for something, it must be wrong. Brad writes: BULLSHIT!!! wow. Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not (African) labor but (American) capital. That makes sense, in that as soon as the African laborers start getting significant wage-gains, capital will move on to greener pastures. Of course, fixed capital isn't totally mobile, so in the meantime, the interested capitalists would support explicitly anti-labor governments that repress unions and suppress wages. As part of this, they would use the threat of capital mobility to avoid need to actually move capital (as they do in the US). In addition, the mobility of capital would speed up the commercialization of agriculture, which would imply an amply supply of labor to the cities, keeping wages down. I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. No guilt-by-association. Wait a sec! the logic of this is that RM is against AGOA, then it _must_ be good for others. Suppose that he's against flying the Confederate flag on the S. Carolina statehouse. In that case, would it be good for others to fly it? I don't know about his position on that issue, so turn to a different one: I am sure that RM is against the "expropriation of the expropriators" (which includes capitalists such as himself). Does that mean that it's good for others to expropriate the capitalists' assets? I'd say so (if it's done in the right way), but I doubt that you say so. Thus, using RM's position to justify your favoring of free trade _is_ akin to a guilt-by-association argument. (Because a special interest like RM is against AGOA, it must go against the public interest, however defined.) Instead of using his opposition to AGOA as part of your argument in favor of that act, you should argue that the act is good in itself. BTW, I myself have a bias in favor of free trade. But unlike orthodox economists, for whom this bias seems like the only consideration, I have other biases which keep things in balance. On this issue, I don't know if I ever told pen-l about a cousin who works for Pat Buchanan (as a "think" tanker). He's against free trade because it leads to rising class antagonism and disrupts society. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Milliken
Wouldn't it behoove us to find out whether the firms that will make the textiles etc. are Northern Corps. out to simply set up shop to capture rents from the wage differential. If they are, say, US corps. then the suggestion that some sort of levy or tax on their "import"[ation] into the US so as to compensate for the retraining of US textile workers for job loss wouldn't be too off the mark. As for the idea that it will make African workers more propserous, could someone suggest a time line so that we could go back and check on their lives and communities in, say, five-ten years and also see what the factory conditions are like, whether some of the profits were used to invest in education, health care, sewage systems etc. or was the capital just sloshed around in forex markets or confiscated for "debt repayment". Better yet, although it's too late, were any suggestions made that the firms making these goods be worker owned or community owned or did they just get slapped with the WAl-MART model of ownership/ripoff. Ian
Clarification about African trade
Brad De Long wrote: BULLSHIT!!! Jim should not have made such a direct accusation and you should be a bit more moderate in your response. Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not (African) labor but (American) capital. I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. But if Roger will be hurt, it does not follow that African labor will be helped. Other capitalists will be helped. Despite what you write, I remain unconvinced that the workers in the Indonesian sweatshops are beneficiaries of free trade. The profits flow in another direction. I think that the results in Africa will be just as bad. Even so, I am very grateful that you are steering the discussion in a fruitful direction. As a student of economic history, can you point me to one instance of a country that developed through feee trade? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: Environmentalism and the American Socialist
Rod, what Marx wrote early on about nature was relatively utopian and naive. Only after the US Civil war did he begin to look more deeply. Rod Hay wrote: I would have to side with Lou here. Marx did write about the relations between society and nature throughout his career. Otherwise, it is impossible to discuss human labour. His life long interest in the works of Aristotle and Hegel indicate that. That is not the same as saying that "took the environment seriously." Rod Hay Michael Perelman wrote: Louis not quite here. It was only with the onset of the Cotton Famine that they began to take the environment seriously. I have written in my Marx book that he took the environment more seriously than he let on because he feared giving too much credence to the Malthusians. Louis Proyect wrote: Marx and Engels wrote about the relationship between society and nature throughout their career. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it... We should all hope so, but why didn't our boyz Foley and Mitchell 'do it' in 1993? mbs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Environmentalism and the American Socialist
Michael. I am making a distinction between writing about nature and writing about the environment. What he wrote about nature or more correctly about the mediate and immediate relations of purposeful human activity to nature (i.e. labour), is on a fairly abstract philosophical level. When he wrote about soil fertility, he is dealing with the more practical influence of human society on nature. So there is no necessary contradiction between what you wrote and what Lou wrote. Rod Hay Michael Perelman wrote: Rod, what Marx wrote early on about nature was relatively utopian and naive. Only after the US Civil war did he begin to look more deeply. Rod Hay wrote: I would have to side with Lou here. Marx did write about the relations between society and nature throughout his career. Otherwise, it is impossible to discuss human labour. His life long interest in the works of Aristotle and Hegel indicate that. That is not the same as saying that "took the environment seriously." Rod Hay Michael Perelman wrote: Louis not quite here. It was only with the onset of the Cotton Famine that they began to take the environment seriously. I have written in my Marx book that he took the environment more seriously than he let on because he feared giving too much credence to the Malthusians. Louis Proyect wrote: Marx and Engels wrote about the relationship between society and nature throughout their career. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not ExactlyFreeTrade
if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it... We should all hope so, but why didn't our boyz Foley and Mitchell 'do it' in 1993? mbs Damned if I know... I remember people wanting to stack striker replacement between the budget (with the EITC) and NAFTA, before health care began. The arguments I always heard from the White House were that it would be easier to do striker replacement after health care was won... I still remember the days when Bill Clinton used to argue that in the context of rapidly-rising income inequality the Democrats could not afford to nominate someone as conservative as Paul Tsongas. And I fell for it. No more unknown governors from small southern states... Brad DeLong
Re: RE:Milliken
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:5:./temp/~c106uyCI0L:e76497: SEC. 402. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR TEXTILE AND APPAREL WORKERS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workers in textile and apparel firms who lose their jobs or are threatened with job loss as a result of either (1) a decrease in the firm's sales or production; or (2) a firm's plant or facility closure or relocation, shall be certified by the Secretary of Labor as eligible to receive adjustment assistance at the same level of benefits as workers certified under subchapter D of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 not later than 30 days after the date a petition for certification is filed under such title II = So Brad, who should pay for this, the taxpayers or the firms that move their plants? Ian Taxpayers in general. The European experience with charging firms for firing workers *may* have been counterproductive. I'd rather run a slightly more progressive tax system and put responsibility for TAA on general revenues... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
No more unknown governors from small southern states... How about senators from small southern states who are known only because of the success of their 1992 running mates (and who have been simply following orders for the last 7 years) or governors from large southern states who are known because of their fathers' fame? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
actually, there is hardly any opposition to neo-liberal program in the US. United Steel Workers already allied with big steel industry to protect US jobs, thanks to bourgeois unions. Free trade and protectionism are the sides of the same coin=imperialism, capitalism and core hegemony, which is part of the US strategy of "divide and rule" for centuries. I think US liberal acedemics, especially of the pro-free trade kind, should stop idealizing what they don't have.. or they should seriously think about why socialism does not work in this part of the universe. Mine Jim Devine wrote: -- If the US capitalist class and its government thinks that free trade (and more importantly, free mobility of capital) is so all-fired important why don't they pay US workers to compensate for the inevitable costs of freeing up trade? This would undermine the opposition to their neo-liberal program. Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Putin's enthronement
At 00:28 08/03/00 +, Louis Proyect wrote: Is it also not time that the marxist internet left starts to turn on Putin? Where is there any leadership on this? Chris Burford London You won't hear much about Putin on this mailing list but I have been battling supporters of Putin on the alt.politics.socialism.trotsky newsgroup for a month. Basically I argue that while it was correct to support the Serbs in their war with NATO, Chechnya is a totally different story. I am surprised at the lack of discussion on this list of what Putin is and what he is doing. Yesterday he was installed with everything but a crown, with all the other signifiers any postmodernist servant of the oligarch's media companies could have wished, in the throne room of the Czars. Yeltsin, present out of respect for the gilding of the establishement, Gorbachev to give continuity, over 1500 people to applaud his solitary slight figure, undwarfed by anyone taller, as he walked past the assembled ranks of applauders. Afterwards a thirty gun salute and a guard of honour led by a Russian priest. Today a visit to a mass grave of war dead from the great patiotic war. All this symbolism has meaning. It is that foremost is the "integrity of Russia", "the destiny of the fatherland" and the crushing of the right to self determination of the Chechen people. More ominously this crushing has been the excuse for the oligarchs to impose on Russia the former head of the successor to the KGB, in Yeltsin's words to "take care of Russia". In practice what? No nation which oppresses another can itself be free but unfortunately the Communists, who are attracted by the smack of authoritarian central government have done a deal with Putin in return for the post of Speaker of the Duma. He knocked out potential rivals and flattered the Communists with coming second in the election for President. Underneath the words about democracy, freedom, and peaceful transition there is the dictatorship of one body of people over another: "In the performance of my duty I will be guided by the interests of the state." Putin declared - a statement which I suggest stood out by comparison with the platitudes. It is true that the western politicians have been lulled into collusion with him and his oligarchs with suggestions that he will now move into a political phase of dialogue with the Chechens. But meanwhile what is most important of all is the political economy he will strengthen. For the western news media, the briefings have stressed his "liberal agenda". His likely prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov is significantly described as a financial specialist and "skilled debt negotiator" - ideal for striking a deal with western finance capital. Andrei Illanov is described as a "radical liberal economist". German Gref is described as having been charged with "crafting the economy". This crafting is likely to combine the worst of all possible worlds- freedom for finance capital and the oligarchs, authoritarian discipline for the working people. By comparison with what it did over East Timor and Indonesia, it is clear that the West, for its own imperialist motives, has colluded in this repressive political settlement. The left has fallen into the trap of thinking that it should not criticise this Russian regime too much, for fear of appearing to ally with its own ruling class. The reverse is in fact the case. Chris Burford London
Re: Putin's enthronement
At 12:09 AM 5/9/00 +0100, you wrote: The left has fallen into the trap of thinking that it should not criticise this Russian regime too much, for fear of appearing to ally with its own ruling class. I don't know about that. I, for one, likened Putin's rise to power to a covert coup d'etat. I think that the main reason for sparse attention to Putin is that not many on pen-l know much about Russia. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Clarification about African trade
All the reports that I get indicate that the sweatshop workers do not get a living wage. Their money wage may be greater than their parents, but their parents had access to the food production and the light that was not priced on the market. So the money wage is misleading. Brad De Long wrote: But if Roger will be hurt, it does not follow that African labor will be helped. Other capitalists will be helped. Despite what you write, I remain unconvinced that the workers in the Indonesian sweatshops are beneficiaries of free trade. Even though the workers in Indonesian sweatshops today have three times the material standard of living of their parents back on the village a generation ago? Even though it does look as if--since World War II--that closing yourself off from world trade is a really bad idea? Even though the most that Dani Rodrik (who is in the business of attacking the trade-and-growth linkages) has been able to do is to fuzz the standard errors and make them large without moving the size of the estimated effect of trade on growth much? As a student of economic history, can you point me to one instance of a country that developed through free trade? The usual case against free trade is a case for export subsidies--invest heavily in export industries that as byproducts build human and institutional capital, protect those industries that generate big social learning externalities, subsidize exports so that you can ride down a learning curve. I know of *many* who have argued that tariffs and quotas on imports into your country can be beneficial. I haven't heard the argument that restrictions on your ability to export--tariffs and quotas imposed on your products by others--are beneficial... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade
Michael Perelman wrote: All the reports that I get indicate that the sweatshop workers do not get a living wage. Their money wage may be greater than their parents, but their parents had access to the food production and the light that was not priced on the market. So the money wage is misleading. A friend of mine who spent 2 years as a wire service reporter in Vietnam - she opened Dow Jones's Hanoi bureau - said she interviewed lots of (mostly female) workers who much prefer working for Nike to working in the rice fields. They make more money, the work is less onerous, and they feel partly freed from rural patriarchy. Sorry, that's what she says. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade
Doug, what you say bears some resemblance to the reports that people gave about the girls who worked in the Lowell textile mills. They were younger, single and had no responsibilities. The horror stories that I hear relate to the young girls that have responsibilities, especially children. This version however does not necessarily mean that Brad is correct when he talks about a standard of living three times higher than that of the grandparents. Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: All the reports that I get indicate that the sweatshop workers do not get a living wage. Their money wage may be greater than their parents, but their parents had access to the food production and the light that was not priced on the market. So the money wage is misleading. A friend of mine who spent 2 years as a wire service reporter in Vietnam - she opened Dow Jones's Hanoi bureau - said she interviewed lots of (mostly female) workers who much prefer working for Nike to working in the rice fields. They make more money, the work is less onerous, and they feel partly freed from rural patriarchy. Sorry, that's what she says. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not ExactlyFreeTrade
Brad, I cannot follow what is that your saying. Ummm... You said that AGOA was in Milliken's interest--that capital was more mobile than labor, and hence that (American) capital would benefit rather than (African) labor from removing the quotas on exports of textiles from Africa. Are you now withdrawing that claim? No. It seems so. I agree that your initial claim was false. In what way. Capital can benefit even though an individual capitalist might be inconvenienced. But I would like to know on what grounds you then oppose AGOA, Because such legislation will be detrimental to the long run prospects of Africa and to a lesser extent the interests of labor in this country. if you now agree that it will make Roger Milliken somewhat poorer... Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
In a message dated 00-05-08 18:36:14 EDT, you write: No more unknown governors from small southern states... What about relatively well known ex-Senators from small Southern states, Brad? --jks
RE: Re: RE:Milliken
As a general trend is that more cost effective than simply taking wages "out of competition" on an international scale? Or should global wage deflation in goods with substantial international competition remain the norm for another 40-50 years as firms relocate down the labor cost curve? Ian So Brad, who should pay for this, the taxpayers or the firms that move their plants? Ian Taxpayers in general. The European experience with charging firms for firing workers *may* have been counterproductive. I'd rather run a slightly more progressive tax system and put responsibility for TAA on general revenues... Brad DeLong -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brad De Long Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:18654] Re: RE:Milliken http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:5:./temp/~c106uyCI0L:e76497: SEC. 402. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR TEXTILE AND APPAREL WORKERS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workers in textile and apparel firms who lose their jobs or are threatened with job loss as a result of either (1) a decrease in the firm's sales or production; or (2) a firm's plant or facility closure or relocation, shall be certified by the Secretary of Labor as eligible to receive adjustment assistance at the same level of benefits as workers certified under subchapter D of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 not later than 30 days after the date a petition for certification is filed under such title II =
Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade (fwd)
I agree with Micheal. Workers earning their livings in sweatshops do not even get a living wage. Let's not make the situation look better. Particulary, women workers are more vulnerable to exploitation in this process.It is true that most of the women in this part of the world come to cities to find jobs in order to escape themselves from old fashioned rural patriarchy. Yes, they prefer to work in Nike rather than in rice fields. What happens is that they are now exploited by capitalist bosses who use them as slave labor. This is particulary true in apparel industry in the pacific rim. Some of the studies I have seen indicate that in some industries (foreign based) Malaysian women earn like $50-100 a month, prodividing cheap labor for US manufacturing companies located in free trade zones ( the same is true for Latin Aemrica and Caribbean too). In Dominican republic, for example, wages in export processing stay at $0.50 an hour which is lowest of any carribean basis country(Helen Safa, "Export Manufacturing, State Policy and Women Workers in the Dominican Republic" in Global Production : The Apperel Industry In the Pacific Rim, p 249). One can see a feminization of labor force from industrial labor dominated by men to light industry based on female labor force, and in apparel industry wpmen are used in assembly operations as unskilled and cheap labor. Women are emancipated, but not liberated. Women find themselves in a situation of patriarchal paradox, exploiated by local and foreing male capitalists at the same time. According to Safa,"to attract foreing capital, the Dominican state passed industrial incentive laws providing tax holidays of 8 to 20 years, exemptions from import duties, and no restrictions on profit repatriation.Labor control has been achieved by outright repression or prohibition of unions in the Dominican free trade zones, further increasing the vulnerability of workers" (p.253). Recently, garment firms employ a large female labor force (in 1992, they were 67 percent of all firms in Dominican republic). The strategy is to incorporate women to economic proccess and exploit them at the same time. It is also interesting that, according to Safa, some women in export manufacturing industries (38 percent) condider themselves "as major economic providers". "Juna Santana for example, sustained her family of three children on her weekly salary (about $20), covering food, rent, and her expenses such as transportation and lunch.. Juana's situtation was typical of what many women workers in the free trade zomes faced: low wages, poor working conditions, lack of inexpensive and adequate child care, few job alternatives, partners offering limited assistance or none at all.Export manufacturers have shown a preference for wome workers because they are cheaper to employ, less likely to unionize, and have greater patience for the tedious, monotonous work employed in assembly operations. Most of the women in the trade zones were young and had no previous work experience,which increased their vulnarebility. In addtion, 78 percent of the women were rural migrants, more than half were married, and one fourth were female heads of household, who carried the heaviest financial responsibility as principal or sole economic providers. Two thirds of our sample had young children to support, increasing their financial burden". Here are the stats. I don't know the situation of wome workers in Vietnam. Women may prefer to work in Nike, but i don't think they are economically well off. Perception is not the issue here. Many women think that they are not even exploited. for example, do they make a living wage? what are the objective indicators of this perception of well-being? Minimum wage in selected Countries (Source: USITC, Annual Report on the Impact of the Carribean BAsin Economic Recovery Act on US industries and consumers, sixth report, 1990, pub no, 3432, washington DC, 1991). Country US/hour ($) Aruba 2.86 BAhamas 2.20-3.00 Trinidad and Tobago 2.14 Netherland Antilles 1.18-3.08 Antigua and BArbuda 1.10 St Kitts and Nevis 1.08 Belize 0.87 St Vincent 0.76 Dominica0.75 Guatemale 0.75 Costa Rica 0.71-0.84 Panama 0.59-0.78 Dominican REp 0.50 El Salvador 0.50 Grenada 0.48 Haiti 0.39 Guyana 0.38 Honduras0.33 Jamaica 0.27 Female and Male Labor force Participasion Rates in the Dominican Republic, 1960-1990 (National office of stats 1966, 1985, and in edited tables from 1970 census. 1990 figures from central bank of dominican rep, survey of labor force,
Clarification about African trade (fwd)
Here it is! did the "wire service reporter" interview with women beaten by Nike capitalists? Thanks for posting this significant information.. Mine The Denver Post, April 8, 1998 BUSINESS ANYTHING BUT USUAL FOR NIKE IN VIETNAM CRITICISM INTENSIFIES OVER LOW PAY AND TREATMENT OF FACTORY WORKERS By Jennifer Lin, Knight Ridder News Service HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam - On a steamy March morning a year ago, Thuyen Nguyen drove to the vast Pou Chen Co. factory and found an angry crowd at the front gate. Several elderly men told him that foreign managers WERE BEATING VIETNAMESE WOMEN AT THE PLANT, which made shoes for Nike Inc. Nguyen, 33, a New Yorker who fled Vietnam as a boy, had returned to his homeland to investigate reports that Nike subcontractors were abusing $ 1.84-a-day workers. What he stumbled upon at Pou Chen alarmed him. That morning, a Taiwanese supervisor HAD FORCED 56 WOMEN TO RUN TWICE AROUND THE 2-KILOMETER FACTORY PERIMETER AS PUNISHMENT FOR WEARING THE WRONG SHOES TO WORK. A dozen women fainted in the heat. Some required treatment at a hospital. . . Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
[Fwd: imperialism or globalism?]
The following is excerpted from an article in the Christian Science Monitor. In an era where Marx and Lenin were declared irrelevant a few years ago, it is interesting to see how even mainstream commentators are grappling with the debates and concepts today. Readers are encouraged to go to the original site of the CSM for more information. We can find lots of useful information in the mainstream press if we read with a critical eye Published in the Christian Science Monitor: "Lenin and Globalization", CSM Lenin and globalization or Yes Virginia, there is such a thing as imperialist rivalry and war Lenin and globalizationBenjamin SchwarzPage: OPINION, Page 9As delegates to the World Trade Organization celebrated, and protestersvilified the global economy, both groups could have used a historylesson. For better or worse, today's international market didn't simplyemerge. It was deliberately constructed. Understanding this illuminatesboth the challenges posed by the world economy and the threats to it.Too many economists and business leaders neglect historian E.H. Carr'smaxim: "The science of economics presupposes a given political order andcannot be properly studied in isolation from politics." Though theycorrectly emphasize the unprecedented economic growth the global economyhas engendered, they fail to emphasize America's equally unprecedentedpower, which made growth possible.Several years ago a Pentagon planning document asserted that America'sgreatest post- World War II achievement is the creation of a"market-oriented zone of peace and prosperity encompassing two-thirds ofthe globe." To appreciate this achievement, it's helpful to recall theonce-famous debate between V.I. Lenin and Karl Kautsky. Lenin held thatany international capitalist order was inherently temporary because thepolitical order among competing states on which he believed it would bebased would shift over time.Whereas Lenin argued that international capitalism could not transcendthe Hobbesian reality of international politics, Kautsky maintained thatcapitalists were much too rational to destroy themselves in internecineconflicts. An international class of enlightened capitalists,recognizing that international political and military competition wouldupset the orderly processes of world finance and trade, would insteadseek peace and free trade.But Lenin and Kautsky were talking past each other. Kautsky believed thecommon interest of an international capitalist class determinedinternational relations, whereas in Lenin's analysis internationalrelations were driven by competition among states. Lenin argued thatthere was an irreconcilable contradiction between capitalism and theanarchic international system; Kautsky didn't recognize the division inthe first place.US foreign policy has been based in essence on a hybrid of Lenin's andKautsky's analyses. It has aimed at the unified international capitalistcommunity Kautsky envisioned. But the US effort to build and sustainthat community is determined by a worldview not far from Lenin's. ToWashington, today's global economy hasn't been maintained by the commoninterests of an international economic elite, but by US preponderance.So, the Pentagon asserts that the global market requires the "stability"that only American "leadership" can provide. Ultimately, of course,Lenin and US policymakers diverge. While Lenin recognized that any giveninternational order was inherently impermanent, America's foreign policystrategists have hoped to keep that reality of international relationspermanently at bay. Since World War II, the US has created a new kind ofinternational politics among the advanced capitalist states. Whereasthese states had formerly sought to protect their national economiesfrom outside influences and to enhance their national power in relationto their rivals, they would now seek security as members of theUS-dominated alliance system and their economic growth as participantsin the US-secured world economy, adjusting their national economics asdictated by world market tendencies.But at the close of the 20th century, global capitalism's contradictionsare becoming apparent, as the international economy's very successbegetspotentially lethal challenges to it. Just as "war made the state," sothe world market's unprecedented autonomy, power, and pervasiveness isprecisely the sort of challenge that could provoke the expansion of thestate's capabilities and prestige (which, of course, raises the specterof totalitarianism). In short, as the global economy goes from strengthto strength, the state must subdue it or be destroyed by it.Even more important, it is precisely because capitalism has reached itshighest stage that the state may have a chance against it. As the globaleconomy has become more interdependent, it has become more fragile. Forinstance, the emergent technology industries are the most powerfulengines of
You Can't Take It With You When You Go
You Can't Take It With You When You Go I've got a friend who's a workaholic, never knows when to quit Me I knock off early, oh, every chance I get He's got an IRA for a rainy day, but I wonder if he knows That you can't take it with you when you go While I'm out fishing, you bet he's working hard My little boat's in the water, his big boat sits in the yard While I'm making time with that gal of mine, his love life's on hold And you can't take it with you when you go No you can't take it with you when you go You better take some time to live and love before you get too old All the treasures in the world don't mean a thing when they lay you low 'Cause you can't take it with you when you go Now hard work is a virtue, nothin' wrong with that I ain't afraid to pull my weight, but I ain't gonna break my back I ain't worried about my bank account, just let the good times roll 'Cause you can't take it with you when you go (From the debut Bluegrass album "Wires Wood" by the Johnny Staats Project. Following the release of the CD, Staats--a UPS driver--continues to hold down his day job delivering parcels.) Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Muzsikás and Bela Bartok
Louis Proyect wrote: In an act that amounted to charity, Bartok was appointed a research fellow in anthropology without teaching duties at Columbia University. According to an article by Paul Hume in the March 22, 1981 Washington Post, "Unhappily the funds, limited at best, that paid Bartok's stipend at Columbia gave out by 1942; and in the face of wartime privations, the university felt unable to continue its grant to a non-teaching composer. It was also a time when, although he has some concert appearances and some of his music was being played, the income from both of these sources was minute." [the following has little to do with politics or pol economy but oh well.] This post-1942 period was Bartok's worst in terms of poverty and health but his best in terms of creativity. Many of his friends came to his aid commissioning works from him. The famous bassist-conductor Serge Koussivitsky commissioned the Concerto For Orchestra which was debuted by Koussivitsky and the BSO in 1943 (there is a recording of this concert, I'm not sure if it is on CD. Still one of the best interpretations. Played real fast and with extravagance.Bartok was there and liked it.) Y.Menuhin commissioned the Sonata for Solo Violin in 1943, another extravagant work that became the longest work for solo violin next to the chaconne from Bach's partita in Dm. During this period he composed other great works including the 3rd piano concerto. The folk rhythms in Bartok make his instrumental music very difficult to play. Only Hungarian interpreters of Bartok like Zoltan Kocsis, Gyorgy Sandor or Zoltan Szekely can, I think, get the full measure of it. The best recordings are the ones made by Bartok himself. In the early 40's, Bartok was commissioned by a native band in Washington State (forget which one) to make field recordings and transcribe their musical traditions. Bartok accepted knowing that recording and transcribing the band's music was crucial to its survival as a coherent entity. He died before he could make the trip depriving the band of a chance to ensure its traditions would survive and perhaps depriving music fans of a chance to hear Western Classical music based on Native American rhythm and harmony (the only serious attempt that I know of to base music on Native American harmonies and rhthym was by the late great jazz saxophonist Jim Pepper.) Bartok was one of the greatest ethnomusicologists. Like others before him such as Liszt and to a lesser extent Brahms and Dvorak he took a lot of heat from the cesspool known as the classical music establishment who accused him of "vulgarity" and "crudity". You could maybe level these accusations at Liszt who used the folk tunes to create vehicles for his flamboyant virtuosity at the piano. Bartok never used the folk harmonies and rhythms as a means. Bartok was influenced by the Viennese school and this can be seen in some of his work most notably the 2nd violin concerto a cross between Viennese dodecaphony, traditional western harmonies and folkish harmonies. As always with Bartok, no style dominates suggesting that various cultures and traditions could live the same way. Sam Pawlett
