Alfred Russel Wallace
From Andrew Berry's review of "Footsteps in the Forest: Alfred Russel Wallace in the Amazon" by Sandra Knapp. Full article at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n10/berr2210.htm It is the difference in their responses to the fame afforded by their discovery of natural selection that most obviously sets Darwin and Wallace apart. Darwin knuckled down. In the 23 years between the publication of the Origin and his death, he published ten books, each one building in some way on the platform provided by the Origin. His often overlooked final book, published in 1881, The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits, is in fact the ultimate illustration of Darwin's strategy. His theory of evolution is based on extrapolation: he borrowed the uniformitarianism of the geologists to argue that processes that have minor effects on a day-to-day basis can have major consequences over long periods of time. Thus the subtle action of natural selection may be barely discernible from one generation to the next, but give it a few thousand generations and significant changes will occur. So, too, with the impact of earthworms on landscapes: only over long periods will their soil-churning activities be noticeable. Darwin stuck to his theme to the very end. Wallace, on the other hand, went wild. Between his return from South-East Asia and his death in 1913, he cranked out some 665 publications, 20 of them books. He remained astonishingly productive as a scientist, with The Geographical Distribution of Animals (1876) and Darwinism (1889) among his important contributions, but his scientific reputation served also as a springboard for wide-ranging forays beyond science. PLUNGING INTO A SECOND CAREER AS A SOCIALLY ENGAGED PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL, HE WROTE ON SOCIALISM, IN PARTICULAR THE NATIONALISATION OF LAND; ON PACIFISM; ON SPIRITUALISM (which he first espoused publicly in 1866, having earlier disavowed orthodox religion); on smallpox vaccination (he was opposed: his splendidly titled, Vaccination a delusion; its penal enforcement a crime was published in 1898); on the possibility of intelligent non-human life in the universe (whose existence he doubted); on votes for women (which he favoured). Paradoxically, despite his role in one of history's most important intellectual revolutions, Darwin avoided confrontation. It took Wallace's letter to break his twenty-year habit of procrastination, so unwilling was he to deal with the controversy he knew his ideas would ignite. Wallace, in contrast, took up causes with abandon, impelled either by his profound humanitarianism, or by outrage at a perceived transgression against scientific truth. His choice of causes was sometimes ill-advised, but always well-intentioned. For example, he responded to the challenge of a Mr Hampden, a committed flat-earther, who wagered £500 that nobody could prove the surface of a body of water to be convex. Drawing on his surveying skills, Wallace duly supplied an excellent proof, and was, for his pains, pursued in the courts for many years afterwards by Mr Hampden, who remained unimpressed - the earth, after all, is flat so it's impossible to prove it otherwise. Wallace had not picked his adversary well, as his young wife found out when she received a letter from Mr Hampden: 'Madam - If your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason.' Wallace's work is consistently cogent and logical. Even his writings on some of his more eccentric causes bear these hallmarks. In defending spiritualism - a position that inevitably attracted the scorn of the scientific establishment - he disputed Hume's definition of a miracle as a 'violation of the laws of nature'. Wallace pointed out that such a definition presupposes knowledge of those laws - knowledge that Wallace the scientist knew to be incomplete at best. And on inspection, what with hindsight appears to be the most quixotic of all his enthusiasms, his campaign against smallpox vaccination, is also surprisingly rational. He objected to the statistics used by the medical profession to justify its implementation, and revealed many instances in which they were manipulated to enhance the establishment's claims. For example, one report exaggerated the number of smallpox cases nationwide prior to vaccination by multiplying the number in London by 12 on the premise that approximately one 12th of the population lived in the capital. Such an extrapolation was unwarranted because the dense and dirty (i.e. disease-fostering) living conditions in London did not obtain elsewhere. Wallace may have been wrong to oppose vaccination, but his critique of the evidence in its favour was sound. Darwin and Wallace disagreed on a number of issues, most notably the evolution of humans. Darwin, Wallace wrote in My Life (1905), believed that "there was no difference in kind between man's nature and animal
Re: Re: Re: Re: technology and legal systems
CB: If you are looking for faux socialism ( state monopoly capitalism) look at how the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank, bailed out that giant hedge fund when it failed. Or Chrysler , before it was Daimler. How much money did the U.S. government commit to Long Term Capital Management? How much money did the U.S. government lose in its investment in Chrysler? none and none. But didn't the Fed implicitly guarantee the loans that the private banks made to LTCM? No. They took equity positions...
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, MAY 15, 2000 __Producer prices for finished goods fell 0.3 percent last month as prices charged by oil refiners for products such as gasoline and home heating oil recorded their largest decline in 9 years, BLS reported. Sharp increases in energy costs caused 1 percent increases in the producer price index in February and March. More recently, crude oil prices have risen again somewhat, so that no large decline in the PPI is likely to appear when May's figures are released next month, analysts said. ... (John M. Berry in Washington Post, May 13, page E1). __Wholesale prices fell in April for the first time in 14 months as energy costs took their biggest plunge in 9 years, more than outweighing a sharp jump in food prices. But even with good news on inflation, economists expect the Federal Reserve to push interest rates higher on Tuesday. The Producer Price Index, which measures inflation pressures before they reach consumers, dipped an expected 0.3 percent last month, after having shot up in February and March. Outside the volatile energy and food categories, the core rate of inflation in April rose for the second consecutive month by 0.1 percent, also matching many analysts' forecasts. ... (Associated Press in New York Times, May 13, page B3). __After months of increasingly worrisome inflation data, market-watchers finally got some good news with a report showing that wholesale prices fell in April for the first time in more than a year. But the report may not be enough to deter the Federal Reserve from taking more aggressive steps to cool the nation's economy. ... (Yochi J. Dreazen in Wall Street Journal, page A14). Small businesses across the United States have begun to raise prices aggressively, passing along their higher labor and raw material costs in a sign that inflation is heating up after years of being under control. One-quarter of small businesses surveyed reported raising prices in April, as opposed to the 7 percent who said they cut prices, according to a monthly survey of small businesses by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the nation's largest small business lobbying organization with more than 500,000 members. That marks the second month in a row that price increases among small businesses were more than triple the number of price reductions, representing the strongest evidence of inflation that the survey has found in more than a decade. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2). Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufactures, says in the "Letters to the Editors" feature of The Wall Street Journal (page A51) "In regard to your May story 'Industry Focus -- Manufacturers Pass on Price Increases to Consumers': Manufacturers have encountered a series of cost increases over the past few months, ranging from higher energy prices to employee benefit costs. But rather than pass them to consumers, firms are attempting to engineer them out. In this respect, the prices of manufactured goods have been rising more slowly than the overall inflation rate, and in some sectors, such as computers, prices continue to decline. The unlikelihood of firms passing costs through to prices is opposed by basic price theory, which states that firms do not control prices, only the production process. In a competitive economy, the price is set by the market (specifically the price is set by the intersection of the supply and demand curves). Most industrial firms do not possess anything like the sort of monopoly power required to pass costs through." ... The Washington Post's feature "Teacher Says" feature (page C4) headlined "Helping Kids Make Career Course Corrections" recommends the Department of Labor's Web site, America's Job Bank at www.ajb.org. DUE OUT TOMORROW: Consumer Price Index -- April 2000 Real Earnings_ April 2000 application/ms-tnef
Most Americans not interested in acquiring great wealth
From Modern Maturity Magazine, "The Allure of Money" Full article at: http://www.aarp.org/mmaturity/jul_aug00/allure.html Who doesn't want to be a millionaire? More people than you might think. In an exclusive AARP-Modern Maturity survey, "Money and the American Family," 27 percent of men and a startling 40 percent of women said no when asked if they would like to become wealthy. More than half defined being wealthy as requiring $500,000 or less in total assets (including savings, investments, and real estate); in fact, only 8 percent said it would take $1 million to make them feel wealthy. The nationwide survey, based on 2,366 interviews, including a random sample of Americans 18 and over, was conducted by the Washington-area public opinion research firms of Belden Russonello Stewart and Research/Strategy/Management. The study takes an in-depth look at the impact that gender, age, race, and ethnic background have on the way Americans across all income levels think about and manage their money. Why do so many have an aversion to getting rich at a time when the most popular show on TV is Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and the new Internet economy is creating instant millionaires by the nanosecond? Four out of five of those surveyed said they feared that wealth would turn them into greedy people who consider themselves superior, and three-fourths said that wealth promotes insensitivity. Even those who said they would like to be wealthy shared that negative view of how the rich behave. Does this really mean that huge numbers of people would turn down a million-dollar windfall and that they hate the rich? "No and no," says Andrew Hacker, professor of political science at Queens College in New York City and the author of Money: Who Has How Much and Why. What it does indicate, Hacker argues, is that most Americans aren't all that interested in doing what it takes to amass great wealth. "There are certain types, the driven young men you read about on Wall Street, who want to make lots of money as a way of keeping score," he says. "But most of us just want enough to feel comfortable and secure. Would you take the million if it fell from the sky? Sure. Do you want to work seven days a week and think about money 24 hours a day? Probably not." As for negative stereotypes of the rich, Hacker believes they are almost entirely the result of publicity about celebrities. "I'll bet if you asked those polled to list ten rich people, they'd be hard put to come up with very many names after they had thought of people such as Donald Trump, Michael Jordan, and Bill Gates." In fact, in the interviews that were conducted after the survey was completed, the only other name that emerged was Oprah Winfrey. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: On forgiving
Doyle Saylor wrote: The problem of course with feelings are the many examples of how intense feelings lead into abuses. Feelings are central to human beings, but our means of understanding these things are not very much advanced beyond what expletives do. One may argue as Michael does that speech ought not to be nasty. I have not the slightest idea what that means. It is an arbitrary judgement of an individual. I agree. I've seen him some people, for example Max and Lou, say the most insulting things to each other, but with with an underlying sense of humor. Some people, however, are more sensitive. An appropriate approach would be to apply a different standard for each combination of the people communicating. That, of course, would be impossible. Instead, I apply a somewhat rigid him, somewhat arbitrary judgment. That is the best that can do. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: On forgiving
That, of course, would be impossible. Instead, I apply a somewhat rigid him, somewhat arbitrary judgment. That is the best that can do. -- Michael Perelman My experience with rigid hims has been mixed. The last time I applied a rigid him on the Marxism list, it led to anonymous obscene phone calls at 3am in the morning. Usually I hung up after no less than 2 minutes. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: Re: On forgiving
Voice recognition, early in the morning, makes for wonderful poetry. Louis Proyect wrote: That, of course, would be impossible. Instead, I apply a somewhat rigid him, somewhat arbitrary judgment. That is the best that can do. -- Michael Perelman My experience with rigid hims has been mixed. The last time I applied a rigid him on the Marxism list, it led to anonymous obscene phone calls at 3am in the morning. Usually I hung up after no less than 2 minutes. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: On forgiving
I agree. I've seen him some people, for example Max and Lou, say the most insulting things to each other, but with with an underlying sense of humor. . . . Actually I was laughin' on the outside but cryin' on the inside. mbs
Re: On forgiving (fwd)
Mine, Cursing is ok sometimes. Clean language all the time is too church/religious like. It is good to curse at capitalism and alienation. Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 12:10AM A lot of people use in this list the word "bullshit". why? is it a way of stressing out? or a part of common language? last month on wsn, we had a *crazy* discussion on gender issues. we got mad at each other, almost as if fighting in a battle field, but never used such words.. Mine I understand that. Some people are more sensitive than others. The problem is that such language gets carried over into other discussions and then becomes hard to contain. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Re: Re: On forgiving (fwd)
ohh, nothing "personal", indeed. I was just making a general observation.. I have seen worse cases like "why don't you play your Alpha male show?" It seems to me "veiled personal affronts" are more effective ways of making one's point than "direct" and "open" affronts.. they can be sometimes intimidating though when the discussion prolongs..then parties keep constantly talking past to each other.. bye, Mine Doyle wrote: Greetings Economists, Mine writes in response to Michael Perelman warning Carrol Cox about his speech toward Louis Proyect, Mine, A lot of people use in this list the word "bullshit". why? is it a way of stressing out? or a part of common language?
[Fwd: The Globalization Syndrome] (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:23:11 -0400 From: Chris Chase-Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fwd: The Globalization Syndrome] Title: The Globalization Syndrome Below you will find a description of a new title published by Princeton University Press. We hope that you will find this title of interest to your members and will choose to post this message to your listserv, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you very much. -- Julie Billings, Text Promotion Manager Princeton University Press The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance James H. Mittelman Paper | 2000 | $17.95 272 pp. | 6 x 9 | 3 tables Here James Mittelman explains the systemic dynamics and myriad consequences of globalization, focusing on the interplay between globalizing market forces, in some instances guided by the state, and the needs of society. Mittelman finds that globalization is hardly a unified phenomenon but rather a syndrome of processes and activities: a set of ideas and a policy framework. More specifically, globalization is propelled by a changing division of labor and power, manifested in a new regionalism, and challenged by fledgling resistance movements. The author argues that a more complete understanding of globalization requires an appreciation of its cultural dimensions. From this perspective, he considers the voices of those affected by this trend, including those who resist it and particularly those who are hurt by it. The Globalization Syndrome is among the first books to present a holistic and multilevel analysis of globalization, connecting the economic to the political and cultural, joining agents and multiple structures, and interrelating different local, regional, and global arenas. Mittelman's findings are drawn mainly from the non-Western worlds. He provides a cross-regional analysis of Eastern Asia, an epicenter of globalization, and Southern Africa, a key node in the most marginalized continent. The evidence shows that while offering many benefits to some, globalization has become an uneasy correlation of deep tensions, giving rise to a range of alternative scenarios. ORDER FORM FOR CUSTOMERS RESIDING IN U.S./CANADA ONLY: Indicate the number of copies on the below order form. Here are the ordering options. 1. Print a copy of this order form, fill it out and mail to: Princeton University Press, c/o California-Princeton Fulfillment Services, 1445 Lower Ferry Road, Ewing, New Jersey, 08618. 2. Fax this order form toll-free to: 1-800-999-1958 or call 1-609-883-7413 outside the U. S. and Canada. 3. Call our toll-free number: 1-800-777-4726 (8:30 a. m. to 8:00 p. m. EST) or 1-609-883-1759 outside the U. S. and Canada. Have your credit card and order information ready. 4. Send your orders through e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (either forward this message or copy and paste the order form below into a new message). Please send me: The Globalization Syndrome, James H. Mittelman Paperback copies (0-691-00988-0) @ $17.95 Cloth copies (0-691-00987-2) @ $49.50 Total book price Postage and handling for customers in the U. S./Canada (Please add $3.75 for the first book and $1.00 for each additional book.) Sales Tax (NJ 6%; CA 8.25%; Canada GST 7%*) TOTAL *Princeton University Press remits GST to Revenue Canada. Your books will be shipped from inside Canada, and you will not be assessed Canada¹s Post border handling fee. Ship To: Name/Address/City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ Bill To: (if different): _ _ _ _ Please indicate your payment method: Enclosed is my check made payable to: California/Princeton Fulfillment Services, Inc. Please charge my: _ Visa _ MasterCard Credit card #: Exp. Date: ___ Telephone #:_ Signature:___ Prices are in U.S. dollars and subject to change. VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT: http://pup.princeton.edu
Re: RE: Re: On forgiving
Max, I will try to be more sensitive next time. Max Sawicky wrote: Actually I was laughin' on the outside but cryin' on the inside. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On forgiving (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 11:45AM
Mine,
Cursing is ok sometimes. Clean language all the time is too
church/religious like. It is good to curse at capitalism and alienation.
Charles
dear charles, the point was *not* about cursing capitalism since
I curse it all the time. I also curse religion, if that is what you meant.
the point was about the norms of communication in the list. "bullshit" can
be okey sometimes, for I feel like saying it too, and in my personal life
i use it all the time ("fuck" too)however if words have sexist
and racist connotations besides being a simple expression of anger, we
should be exteremely careful not to use them..
___
CB: Yes, we must use non-sexist,non-racist curse words, and bullshit is anti-male so
it is ok. A bull is a male. So bullshit is knocking males, not females. Therefore it
is non-sexist. It does not have a sexist connotation, that is why it is a good curse
word to use.
_
as you know charles, we want anti-capitalist, anti-sexist, anti-racist
Marxism.. anti-capitalism by itself is not enough..
___
CB: I said alienation as well as capitalism. Sometimes the frustration expressed by
cursing is due to generalized alienation from capitalism, male supremacy, racism.
Also, as I said above, bullshit is a good non-sexist curse word to use.
Comradely,
CB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technology and legal systems
At 07:57 PM 05/15/2000 -0700, you wrote: CB: If you are looking for faux socialism ( state monopoly capitalism) look at how the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank, bailed out that giant hedge fund when it failed. Or Chrysler , before it was Daimler. How much money did the U.S. government commit to Long Term Capital Management? How much money did the U.S. government lose in its investment in Chrysler? none and none. But didn't the Fed implicitly guarantee the loans that the private banks made to LTCM? No. They took equity positions... so didn't the Fed implicitly promise to support these equity positions that the banks took? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine How do you support an equity position?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technology and legalsystems
Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 10:47AM At 07:57 PM 05/15/2000 -0700, you wrote: CB: If you are looking for faux socialism ( state monopoly capitalism) look at how the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank, bailed out that giant hedge fund when it failed. Or Chrysler , before it was Daimler. How much money did the U.S. government commit to Long Term Capital Management? How much money did the U.S. government lose in its investment in Chrysler? none and none. But didn't the Fed implicitly guarantee the loans that the private banks made to LTCM? No. They took equity positions... so didn't the Fed implicitly promise to support these equity positions that the banks took? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine How do you support an equity position? __ CB: Why didn't the banks take an equity position without any participation by the gov'mnt ?
Query
Is the following true or false ? . In the developing countries the numerical growth of the industrial working class was greater than in any other part of the world in the thirty years from 1960 to 1990. It grew from 88 million to 192 million. In the Newly Industrialising Countries (the so-called Tiger economies of SE Asia and some of Latin America) the industrial working class increased from 12 million to 33 million. In the advanced capitalist countries the industrial working class grew from 159 million to 189 million.
RE: Genderization
RE Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents. Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat
Re: On forgiving (fwd)
CB: Yes, we must use non-sexist,non-racist curse words, and bullshit is anti-male so it is ok. A bull is a male. So bullshit is knocking males, not females. Therefore it is non-sexist. It does not have a sexist connotation, that is why it is a good curse word to use. _ true.I did not think that way. but also think about its meaning in "common" culture. people use "bullshit" to curse because it does not have any sexist connotations. (?). I highly doubt about it. the fact that bullshit is commonly used is specifically because it is "knocking males". therefore, it is males' S. in any case, i agree with you in principle.. comradely days, Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany
Re: On forgiving (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 12:52PM CB: Yes, we must use non-sexist,non-racist curse words, and bullshit is anti-male so it is ok. A bull is a male. So bullshit is knocking males, not females. Therefore it is non-sexist. It does not have a sexist connotation, that is why it is a good curse word to use. _ true.I did not think that way. but also think about its meaning in "common" culture. people use "bullshit" to curse because it does not have any sexist connotations. (?). I highly doubt about it. the fact that bullshit is commonly used is specifically because it is "knocking males". therefore, it is males' S. ___ CB: This gets to be refined talk about shit. But if we are looking to "clean" up our cursing, it is safest to knock males. Cowshit would be suspect, like son of a b'. ___ in any case, i agree with you in principle.. comradely days, Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany __ Same to you, Charles B. at Detroit
RE: Genderization
Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? CB "Eric Nilsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 12:52PM RE Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technology and legal systems
At 07:47 AM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: At 07:57 PM 05/15/2000 -0700, you wrote: CB: If you are looking for faux socialism ( state monopoly capitalism) look at how the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank, bailed out that giant hedge fund when it failed. Or Chrysler , before it was Daimler. How much money did the U.S. government commit to Long Term Capital Management? How much money did the U.S. government lose in its investment in Chrysler? none and none. But didn't the Fed implicitly guarantee the loans that the private banks made to LTCM? No. They took equity positions... so didn't the Fed implicitly promise to support these equity positions that the banks took? How do you support an equity position? For example, you give below-market loans to help the owners when if they get in trouble. Precedents can be seen in the US Savings Loan crisis, where even officially the FSLIC (which later became part of the FDIC) was supposed to help only the depositors through deposit insurance, the owners of the thrifts were also helped. Just having one's depositors' deposits guaranteed helps the owners of the thrifts' equity, since it allowed a low-cost source of funds. More importantly, regulatory forbearance -- the informal loosening of regulations -- did so too, since it allowed the owners of ailing thrifts to shift assets out before the deluge. The exemption of all but the worst SL crooks from prosecution helped, too. (Was the Bush involved with this George W's brother?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: Genderization (fwd)
EXACTLY, Eric! very true points.. Mine ps: continue dressing your baby in gender-neutral clothes!! RE Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents. Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On forgiving (fwd)
agreed. in the final analysis, of course, i am looking for a world where neither males nor females is to be knocked.. but knocking the knocker is the safest position untill we get there. comradely, Mine ___ CB: This gets to be refined talk about shit. But if we are looking to "clean" up our cursing, it is safest to knock males. Cowshit would be suspect, like son of a b'. ___ in any case, i agree with you in principle.. comradely days, Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany __ Same to you, Charles B. at Detroit
RE: Genderization (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 01:55PM yes, because many males that have male hormones are not necessarily males in the conventional sense.I don't think that they are "abnormal" because they have "different" hormones. _ CB: What do hormones do ? Anything ? Even if some males' behavior is not affected by their hormones, what about the others ? Are their behaviors affected by their hormones ? __ Sociobiologists would make such essentialist arguments, relating different sexualities to hormonal abnormalities or deviations (so hetero is seen as the norm). Gay people would refuse to put themselves in this definition. They are still males by virtue of their biological identity (let's says organs), but they prefer not to engage in a sexual intercourse with women. I don't know the reason why though, but it does not seem to me terribly clear that there is a necessary relation between biology and gender. __ CB: Lets leave out "normal" and "abnormal". Lets use "some" and "some". Do hormones have some impact on some males' and some females' behavior ? CB Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? CB "Eric Nilsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 12:52PM RE Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents.
Re: RE: Genderization
Yes, Eric. It is a difficult question. How much is behaviour controlled by chemicals, genes, etc. and how much is it learned behaviour? I don't know the answer. But there are many who do claim to know. The biological determinist are one group and the cultural determinists are another. I am fairly sure that both of them are wrong. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. As Carroll pointed out--it is imprudent to place too much weight on one study. The process of getting at the truth is a long and painful one with many set backs. But there have been a number of studies recently that suggest that exposure to elevated hormone levels in the womb can influence (not determine) a person's sexuality. Rod Eric Nilsson wrote: RE Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents. Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Name: winmail.dat winmail.datType: DAT File (application/x-unknown-content-type-DAT_auto_file) Encoding: base64 -- 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: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons(fwd)
Rob Schaap wrote: Two men expressing affection in a homophobic world may do so by hugging each other, but only if they bring their forearms hard against each others' backs, preferably bruising some ribs, and then, for but a moment, making sure to hug hard enough to induce pain. This is a very poignant ritual, but must be reserved for rare and moving occasions - like when someone remembers it is the object of theory that is the object of theory. I think we need to theorize this - the need to differentiate this kind of hug from an erotic hug, the need to bruise some bones in the process, etc. etc. I'm reminded of that Barbara Krueger caption to a photo of a football game - "You devise elaborate rituals to touch each other." Oh, sorry, this isn't economics. Doug
Sowing Dragons (fwd)
process, etc. etc. I'm reminded of that Barbara Krueger caption to a photo of a football game - "You devise elaborate rituals to touch each other." Oh, sorry, this isn't economics. Doug Did I ever mention that the cafeteria at Goldman-Sachs, where I used to work in the late 80s, was festooned with Barbara Kruger's work? When you picked up your tray, there was a blinking Kruger sign that said something like "You think you can escape commodification --- You can't." And while the sign blinked on and off, men in pinstriped suits stood in line chatting about leveraged buyouts. === The New York Times, October 9, 1994, Sunday, Late Edition - Final How Corporate Collecting Fell on Hard Times By DEBORAH GIMELSON; Deborah Gimelson writes the Art Commerce column for The New York Observer. "WHEN I BEGAN WORKING for First Bank in Minneapolis in 1980, they had about a thousand duck prints," said Lynne Sowder, who advises corporations about their art collections. "We called it Art Ducko." She eventually assembled for First Bank one of the most radical corporate collections of contemporary art in the country, including sexually explicit work by artists like Andres Serrano, Cindy Sherman and Barbara Kruger. But the employees quickly rebelled. "The bank was very white Scandinavian, with no outward expression of rage," said Ms. Sowder. "They would put plants in front of the art or make the pieces crooked -- very passive-aggressive." In the 1980's, collecting art was the thing to do if a company wanted to seem culturally minded and on the cutting edge. The requirements, usually, were three: the availability of serious money, somebody in a position of power who was interested in pushing for an art collection, and an outside consultant. But after a few years things changed dramatically. When the economy started to falter in the late 1980's, corporations had trouble explaining to stockholders why they were spending money on art when stock prices were plunging. Fashions changed too. Conspicuous consumption became as impolitic for corporations as for individuals. The new mood affected corporations in different ways. Some simply abandoned their artistic aspirations; others were clever enough to reconfigure their programs, and chose to weather the criticism that increasingly accompanied corporate collecting. No statistics track corporate collecting of fine art, but the Business Committee for the Arts, a nonprofit organization that encourages businesses to invest in the arts, surveys companies every three years about their overall spending on cultural activities. It found that businesses spent $698 million on the arts in general in 1985; by 1991, the last year the survey was conducted, the figure had shrunk to $518 million. For some corporations, collecting art had become a liability, and they responded accordingly. At First Bank, for example, it was decided that the offended workers should have a say. "In 1987 we started a program called Talk Back," said Ms. Sowder. "The forms came back filled with rage. We turned around and published the employees' responses in a monthly newsletter and created a dialogue within the bank." The next year First Bank set aside an area called Controversy Corridor to which any six employees could banish a work of art they deemed unacceptable. "We got this kind of X-rated gallery," said Ms. Sowder. But when employees started using the Talk Back forms to complain about the bank as a whole, she said, the collection was viewed as causing too much turmoil. The buying program came to an end. Another company whose years as a corporate Medici ended in a fire sale was Pacific Enterprises, a Los Angeles utility that began divesting after making a number of acquisitions in the 80's. With the help of Susan Rush, a corporate art consultant, Pacific Enterprises bought the works of many young artists and commissioned many more. Its corporate headquarters features a Richard Artschwager reception desk, a boxlike sculpture that accommodates three people, and an eight-story glass-encased staircase by David Ireland, a San Francisco architect and sculptor. The company spent about $2 million in a couple of years, Ms. Rush said, on approximately 450 pieces of art for its 12-floor building. Ms. Rush even supervised the making of a 22-minute film about the collection for the employees. Then in 1991 it all caved in. "They had a lot of lawsuits," Ms. Rush said. "Shareholders were questioning the fact that the company bought art when the stock dropped so precipitously." Twenty percent of the collection was sold, including 52 pieces in one sale at Sotheby's in February. Ms. Rush says the company was lucky enough to break even. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Rod writes: ... It is a difficult question. How much is behaviour controlled by chemicals, genes, etc. and how much is it learned behaviour? I don't know the answer. But there are many who do claim to know. The biological determinist are one group and the cultural determinists are another. I am fairly sure that both of them are wrong. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. ... One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms (I've got XY, while my wife has a full complement of X chromosomes) and "gender" in cultural terms. Sex starts with the "male" vs. "female" dichotomy, though it's more complicated, as indicated by the fact that some XY types are born without the full "equipment" (the topic of the story that started this thread). Perhaps it's a little like the current literature on "shadow syndromes," so that it's more than one chromosome (or several genes) that determine biological sex. In any event, there are some gray areas between male and female, biologically speaking. When it comes to gender, the (sometimes fuzzy) distinction is between "masculine" and "feminine." These seem to refer to cultural norms, norms that seem generally to be aimed at drawing a cultural line corresponding to the biological line. In other words, biologically-based differences are exaggerated by the culture. Nonetheless, the meaning of "gender" clearly has varied between cultures (including between classes) and between different historical periods. The aristocratic fop who was sent to the guillotine in late 18th century France is very different from, say, George W. Bush in terms of "masculinity" even though they probably have the same combination of "sex" chromosomes. The way in which the meaning of masculine and feminine change over time, place, and class divides suggests that biological determinism of gender should be rejected. However, there is a biological component. For example, in "normal" sex, it's the male who penetrates the female, with the latter (but not the former) facing the possibility of getting pregnant. Though there are a lot of alternatives to "normal" sex, the biological difference suggests that males and females would have completely different attitudes toward the sex act. Such attitudes seem central to the cultures of masculinity and femininity. Similarly, the culture helps determine whether the alternatives to "normal" sex are applied or ignored as taboo, so that cultural affects the importance of such attitudes. Since causation goes both ways, both brands of determinism are wrong. However, each has the potential to add some insights as long as we don't try to be reductionist. BTW, Carol Tavris has a useful book on all of this, _The Mismeasure of Woman_. She brings up a log of interesting stuff of the sort that I didn't deal with above. Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. (It's true in the dystopia that appears in that book, too, except that the biological alterations exaggerate the differences between the sexes.) On the abstract level, there's no reason leftists should favor either brand of determinism _a priori_. But let's shift gears, getting away from the politically-charged topic of the assignment of gender to people of different sexes. It used to be thought that the incidence of autism was determined by the child's cultural environment. The Bruno Bettelheim, a Freudian, blamed the "refrigerator mother" (the mom who doesn't show enough affection for her child) for the child's autism. Among other things, this example shows that cultural determinism need not be politically progressive. By the 1990s, Bettelheim's theory had been utterly rejected by the psychiatric and psychological communities, based on the weak-to-nonexistent empirical evidence behind it. (Bettelheim is nowadays dismissed as a quack.) Instead, they lean toward a biological theory, which need not be genetic, since autism might arise due to damage while the fetus is in the uterus of a variety of different sorts (including environmental pollution, which might explain the autistic cluster in New Jersey). Some even blame the effects of early-childhood immunizations for the onset of autism (though my unprofessional impression is that this theory is picking up a correlation that doesn't correspond to causation). In any event, since there seem to be a variety of different types of autism (including high-functioning autism or Asperger's Syndrome,
RE: Genderization (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 02:38PM NO. __ CB: So, hormones do nothing ? They are like the appendix ? the tonsils ? or which behavior do you have in mind? CB: Sexual behavior. Seems to me that some people's sexual behavior is influenced by hormones. It does not make a final determination, because there is also cultural learning, nurture. But nature is not a zero influence in sexual behavior. I suppose one might say hormones only impact body shape and parts ( beard or beardless, etc. ) and not behavior. agressiveness? it has nothing to do with male hormones per se. it is because males are socialized in that way. that is why it becomes a manly charecteristic..there are agressive women too, and the reason why they do so is because 1) they either internalize the dominant cultural practices by normalizing male violence (for example think about "son obbsessed" mothers who think it is their son's right to mistreat his wife) or 2) agresssion is one of the ways of "coping" with patriarchal norms as an unarticulated form of resistance (See for this Deniz Kandiyoti's analyis of gender relations in Turkey, an article published in _Feminist Studies_ "Emancipated but Unliberated"). Since patriarchy relagates women to the level of insignifigance and routine practices (such as mothering), women's way of articulating violence significantly differs due to their victim position... ___ CB: I don't know about aggressiveness, but I don't think any studies have proven that hormones have no impact on anything. They only prove that socialization has an impact. But they have not proven that ONLY socialization determines behavior. I don't think humans are 100 % determined by socialization. Humans are much more determined by socialization than any other species, but it is not complete social determination. It is a combination of nature and nuture, not just nuture. A given individual may be "completely" determined by socialization, but not all individuals are completely determined by their socialization. Also, some socialization may be in the same direction as the influence of hormones. Socialization is not always necessarily in conflict with the tendency that the hormones give. CB Mine __ CB: Lets leave out "normal" and "abnormal". Lets use "some" and "some". Do hormones have some impact on some males' and some females' behavior ? CB
Re: Re: Genderization
At 11:55 AM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: RE Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? I don't know. Very possibly hormones might have some impact on behavior. But the issue is: what percent of behavior is explained by hormones? My opinion, worth the electronic paper I write on, is about 2 percent. The other 98 percent is explained by social forces. I don't think these issues can be quantified in this way (though maybe I've been influence by Stephen J. Gould too much). Biology sets limits (that can be modified by technology), whereas culture seems to determine how we live within those limits (and when and how we decide to use technology to modify the biological limits). See my long missive in this thread. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Genderization
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 03:25PM I don't think these issues can be quantified in this way (though maybe I've been influence by Stephen J. Gould too much). Biology sets limits (that can be modified by technology), whereas culture seems to determine how we live within those limits (and when and how we decide to use technology to modify the biological limits). See my long missive in this thread. _ CB: Marshall Sahlins has the same formulation on limits. I agree. However, biology sets some tendencies or directions, as well as limits. Culture and experience can sometimes reverse those tendencies or directions, but sometimes culture goes parallel with the biological tendencies or directions. CB
FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same Depressing Tale on Labor Rights
sor Specializing on Labor and the Global Economy at Uc Berkeley http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/2516/t46153.html Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times -- You are currently subscribed to the global economy network listserver as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The global economy network is a project of the Campaign for America's Future. America's Future is on the web at http://www.ourfuture.org. To unsubscribe send an email to Tom Matzzie at the Campaign for America's Future [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same Depressing Tale onLabor Rights
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Max Sawicky wrote: LOS ANGELES TIMES Tuesday, May 16, 2000 China, Mexico: Same Depressing Tale on Labor Rights World affairs: Economic openness doesn't cure all ills, as we have learned with NAFTA. By HARLEY SHAIKEN I have a feeling that this question of China is a no win one; we just keep going around in circles. But, . . . . Max previously quoted a labor publication which opposed giving China PNTR based on a variety of arguments including that the country was communist, that the government did not follow free market policies, that workers were repressed, and that China's entrance into the WTO would unleash an export flood that would hurt US workers. Clearly, we would not want to support positions that argue against the vote on the basis of a country following a non-free market economic policy, or that the regime was communist (leaving aside the fact that the country is much closer to state capitalist). This is a very problematic result of a campaign like this. As for supporting Chinese workers, I think it is clear that this is not a solidarity movement like those that endorsed boycotts for apartaid South Africa and Burma. Even Chinese labor activists in Hong Kong who are working for independent unions in China do not support a no vote. So, fundamentally we have the argument of protecting U.S. workers. There are many issues underlying this legitimate concern for U.S. workers, issues that are also present in Shaiken's article on Mexico. Among the most important are the devastating consequences of export-led economic development and the behavior of U.S. multinational corporations. These issues can best be responded to by building movements to dissolve the IMF, World Bank and the WTO. It is these institutions that promote actively, led by the U.S., export-led growth. As for the behavior of U.S. mncs, should not we figure out how to limit or control their activities, rather than attack other countries. I think that fundamentally the China issue is being pushed by labor leaders as a way to allow U.S. workers to vent their frustration. It is a way to open up a non-class avenue of protest. If U.S. workers really wanted to address the problems they face then they would have to look at U.S. labor law; U.S. government policy relative to the IMF, WB, and WTO; and the behavior of U.S. MNCs. This would lead to a class agenda which would require the US trade union leadership to organize a real struggle. It is far better to lead workers to attack China, as an unfair trader, dictatorship, and violator of neoliberal rules of the game (and even EPI has advanced this argument). Even though this movement includes recognition of the negative role of U.S. mncs, it is revealing that little is being done to orient workers to take on the actions of mncs or the export-led capitalist growth stategy that benefits them. We were on the verge of targeting in a powerful movement the IMF, WB, WTO, third world debt cancellation, and building international solidarity. Now we find ourselves battling over the question of China's admission into the WTO. Which should be our priority? We can do the most for Mexican and Chinese workers if we build a strong class conscious labor movement in this country and work to change the international economic environment. As to the former, lets work to gain ratification of core ILO labor standards in the U.S. (we have ratified only one) which would highlight the fact that US labor laws are far from satisfactory and might help to promote organizing. Lets work to promote living wages. As for the latter, lets concentrate on defunding the IMF and WB, and dismantling the WTO (not creating the basis for a weak set of social regulations to legitimate it). The China fight is the wrong fight; it confuses the class clarity that we are getting closer to building. Regardless of how the vote on China goes, it is an argument that takes away from the kind of movement we should be building. Marty
Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same Depressing Tale on Labor Rights
Very nice article, Max. Brad tended to write about the Africa bill as if it were choice between helping Africa or helping the United States. In fact, as the article from the Progressive showed, the effect of the bill would be to transform both Africa and United States to be more to the liking of capital. Certainly NAFTA that did that for Mexico. Obviously, the impact of these trade bills on United States will be less than on the smaller economies of its trading partners. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
Biology sets limits (that can be modified by technology whereas Jim technology is *not* neutral. it IS political. it is already part of the definition of dominant cultural practices under capitalism just as science is. the idealist discourse of biology versus culture or whether biology sets limits or not is itself embedded in hidden normative assumptions. Recently, you can see this so called "liberating aspects of technology" advocated by geneticists who say that fetus's gender can be determined (intervened) before it is born. Besides the stupidity of the argument, this sort of reasoning is "politically dangerous". It reinforces patriarchal practices by allowing parents to opt for males rather than for females, since in the dominant culture, it is still considered to be a "pride" to have a son. another example. some african americans go under surgery to make their skin whiter. technology, again, reinforces racism by imposing "white man's biological and racial superiority" on african americans. Change your color! look cool! and become like a civilized man! Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug
China
Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: Max previously quoted a labor publication which opposed giving China PNTR based on a variety of arguments including that the country was communist, that the government did not follow free market policies, that workers were repressed, and that China's entrance into the WTO would unleash an export flood that would hurt US workers. The anti-China campaign gives me a serious case of the creeps - it's right out of the long tradition of Yellow Perilism, compounded with old-fashioned anti-Communist Red Perilism. But today's Financial Times reports that 9 out of 10 U.S. CEOs support PNTR and WTO entry. This is a major priority for big capital. So is the one true "progressive" position on this to support PNTR/WTO entry, along with the Fortune 500? Seems to me this is an extremely complicated issue, much too complicated for a simple yes/no answer. Doug
Re: China
The answer is that this fight should not be made our fight. The problem is that many progressive groups are making this a top priority. We should be putting our energy into and mobilizing people around other issues and struggles. Marty On Tue, 16 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: The anti-China campaign gives me a serious case of the creeps - it's right out of the long tradition of Yellow Perilism, compounded with old-fashioned anti-Communist Red Perilism. But today's Financial Times reports that 9 out of 10 U.S. CEOs support PNTR and WTO entry. This is a major priority for big capital. So is the one true "progressive" position on this to support PNTR/WTO entry, along with the Fortune 500? Seems to me this is an extremely complicated issue, much too complicated for a simple yes/no answer. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics. Rod Doug Henwood wrote: Jim Devine wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug -- 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: China
The answer is that this fight should not be made our fight. The problem is that many progressive groups are making this a top priority. We should be putting our energy into and mobilizing people around other issues and struggles. Marty You're right: trying to keep China poorer is not a "progressive" cause... Brad DeLong
Re: China
Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: Max previously quoted a labor publication which opposed giving China PNTR based on a variety of arguments including that the country was communist, that the government did not follow free market policies, that workers were repressed, and that China's entrance into the WTO would unleash an export flood that would hurt US workers. The anti-China campaign gives me a serious case of the creeps - it's right out of the long tradition of Yellow Perilism, compounded with old-fashioned anti-Communist Red Perilism. But today's Financial Times reports that 9 out of 10 U.S. CEOs support PNTR and WTO entry. This is a major priority for big capital. So is the one true "progressive" position on this to support PNTR/WTO entry, along with the Fortune 500? Seems to me this is an extremely complicated issue, much too complicated for a simple yes/no answer. Doug No one seems to be arguing that PNTR will make China poor. No one seems to be arguing the U.S.'s trade policy can be used as significant leverage to improve Chinese government treatment of its own people. The argument against PNTR seems to be that it is a move in a symbolic card game, an implicit approval of China's anti-human policies. So why not go with David Ricardo on this one?
Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights
Very nice article, Max. Brad tended to write about the Africa bill as if it were choice between helping Africa or helping the United States. In fact, as the article from the Progressive showed, the effect of the bill would be to transform both Africa and United States to be more to the liking of capital. -- Michael Perelman Keeping quotas on imports of African textiles will keep Africa poorer than it would otherwise be, yes. And if Africa is poorer Africa will be less to the liking of capital, yes. But you have forgotten the object of the exercise. The object is not to keep Africans barefoot and under the thumb of corrupt despots and to cheer "hooray! It's not to the liking of capital!" Brad DeLong
Re: Re: China
Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: The answer is that this fight should not be made our fight. The problem is that many progressive groups are making this a top priority. We should be putting our energy into and mobilizing people around other issues and struggles. I'm not sure you can do politics that way. It's a big issue, with big forces mobilized on both sides, and a big vote coming up. I don't think you can just sit back and say "It's not my job, man." Doug
Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. Jim, from what I see, Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into feminine practices. We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new intimacy!! Mine
Genderization
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 04:51PM Jim Devine wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. _ CB: Yes, whatever happened to reading Butler ? I'm willing to do a list Zizek reading, but I was reading Butler , and puff , the group dropped it.
Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights
Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it. I suspect you would also. What was the problem with Jesse Jackson's bill? Brad De Long wrote: Very nice article, Max. Brad tended to write about the Africa bill as if it were choice between helping Africa or helping the United States. In fact, as the article from the Progressive showed, the effect of the bill would be to transform both Africa and United States to be more to the liking of capital. -- Michael Perelman Keeping quotas on imports of African textiles will keep Africa poorer than it would otherwise be, yes. And if Africa is poorer Africa will be less to the liking of capital, yes. But you have forgotten the object of the exercise. The object is not to keep Africans barefoot and under the thumb of corrupt despots and to cheer "hooray! It's not to the liking of capital!" Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: China
Brad De Long wrote: No one seems to be arguing that PNTR will make China poor. China's recorded some of the most spectacular growth rates in human history without PNTR. Will PNTR accelerate them? No one seems to be arguing the U.S.'s trade policy can be used as significant leverage to improve Chinese government treatment of its own people. The argument against PNTR seems to be that it is a move in a symbolic card game, an implicit approval of China's anti-human policies. Actually lots of people are arguing that. So who's "no one"? So why not go with David Ricardo on this one? Ricardo believed that capital was immobile, for one. And for two, his example countries, Britain and Portugal, and his example commodities, cloth and wine, were perfect examples of uneven development. Doug
Genderization (fwd)
Jim, from what I see, Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into feminine practices. We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new intimacy!! Mine Much more of this and I'll start thinking about all of modern sociobiology's good points... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: Since causation goes both ways, both brands of determinism are wrong. However, each has the potential to add some insights as long as we don't try to be reductionist. BTW, Carol Tavris has a useful book on all of this, _The Mismeasure of Woman_. She brings up a log of interesting stuff of the sort that I didn't deal with above. How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity? If, as seems to be the case, men and women have differing "natural inclinations", this would then mean only that what Hegel called the "originally sensuous will" is gendered. What identifies men and women as human, however, is a shared capacity for overcoming this "originally sensuous will", i.e. for "autonomy" in Kant's sense, for full self-determination. This, I take it, is what Hegel and Marx mean by "freedom" as the "idea" of humanity. "That man is free by Nature is quite correct in one sense; viz., that he is so according to the Idea of Humanity; but we imply thereby that he is such only in virtue of his destiny - that he has an undeveloped power to become such; for the 'Nature' of an object is exactly synonymous with its 'Idea'. ... Freedom as the ideal of that which is original and natural, does not exist as original and natural. Rather must it be first sought out and won; and that by an incalculable medial discipline of the intellectual and moral powers. ... To the Ideal of Freedom, Law and Morality are indispensably requisite; and they are in and for themselves, universal existences, objects and aims; which are discovered only by the activity of thought, separating itself from the merely sensuous, and developing itself, in opposition thereto; and which must on the other hand, be introduced into and incorporated with the originally sensuous will, and that contrarily to its natural inclination." (Hegel, The Philosophy of History, pp. 40-41) Social contexts can be more or less supportive of such development. According to Marx, the most supportive such context would be a community of "associated producers", "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Ted Winslow -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: China
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 04:57PM The anti-China campaign gives me a serious case of the creeps - it's right out of the long tradition of Yellow Perilism, compounded with old-fashioned anti-Communist Red Perilism. But today's Financial Times reports that 9 out of 10 U.S. CEOs support PNTR and WTO entry. This is a major priority for big capital. So is the one true "progressive" position on this to support PNTR/WTO entry, along with the Fortune 500? Seems to me this is an extremely complicated issue, much too complicated for a simple yes/no answer. __ CB: I agree that this is a complicated issue. However, aren't there a lot of major issues that 9 out of 10 US CEO's support, that the AFL and others are not making a priority to oppose. If the AFL starts vigorously opposing 9 out of 10 CEO's on every big issue...then we are cooking with gas. Or maybe the AFL (et al. ?) see something strategic about this issue ? What is their strategy ? How is this important in their big plan to oppose big capital ? Or do they have one ?
Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same Depressing Tale on Labor Rights
At 02:03 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: Very nice article, Max. Brad tended to write about the Africa bill as if it were choice between helping Africa or helping the United States. In fact, as the article from the Progressive showed, the effect of the bill would be to transform both Africa and United States to be more to the liking of capital. Keeping quotas on imports of African textiles will keep Africa poorer than it would otherwise be, yes. ... I don't think it helps intellectual or political clarity to simply ignore what other people say; it's a symptom of adhering to some sort of non-falsifiable True Belief. This comment does so, since it ignores points that were made before, i.e., that the actual "free trade" bill for Africa does not simply reduce quotas on African textiles. (It's important to remember that just as "Democratic Kampuchea" wasn't democratic, not everything labelled "free trade" actually involves nothing but free trade. Hype rules!) Rather, it imposes an IMF-style remodeling of African economies, with the usual destructive effects, including making the vast majority of the people in the countries poorer (though of course, the promise is that it will pay off "in the long run," in which we're all dead, as Brad reminds us). This comment also ignores the comment that this "free trade" bill isn't the _only_ bill on the plate. There's also the bill sponsored by JJJr (Jesse Jackson Jr.) which has a much greater emphasis on debt relief and AIDS relief. Instead of scolding people for not endorsing _his_ pet bill, Brad might be scolded for not endorsing the JJJr bill, because that's the one most likely to help the poor people in Africa. But you have forgotten the object of the exercise. The object is not to keep Africans barefoot and under the thumb of corrupt despots and to cheer "hooray! It's not to the liking of capital!" With this attribution of motives to his opponents, Brad zips into orbit, talking to himself (and perhaps his students) more than to anyone else. And in the mode that he established so well with this missive, he also assumes -- contrary to the arguments that have appeared on pen-l (some by yours truly) that he seems to willfully ignore -- that free trade automatically helps the poor in Africa. He also ignores the arguments that (1) capital _likes_ corrupt despots, such as the current rulers of China, who are willing to "play ball" for a few side-payments; and (2) capital itself is a despotism, as seen in microcosm in the form of the huge corporate bureaucracies the increasingly rule our lives, including the lives of those of us in the ivory halls of academe. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: China
Doug Henwood wrote: So is the one true "progressive" position on this to support PNTR/WTO entry, along with the Fortune 500? Seems to me this is an extremely complicated issue, much too complicated for a simple yes/no answer. It isn't a complicated an issue because for "true progressives" it is not an issue, *period*. It is just one of those issues that (in its substance) makes no difference one way or another to working people. So while it is *not* a progressive position to "support PNTR/WTO," it *is* a reactionary position to involve workers in the struggle over China in PNTR. It is just one more of those side shows which false leadersd of workers put on to divert them from more important issues (like deciding what time to have dinner or what color shirt to wear). It is of course correct to oppose the existence of WTO -- that is one of the important issues which gets buried in this creepy (as you say) fight over China. Carrol
Re: China
Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/00 05:10PM No one seems to be arguing the U.S.'s trade policy can be used as significant leverage to improve Chinese government treatment of its own people. __ CB: This would be like using the Mafia's trade policy to improve the conduct of pickpockets.
Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: SameDepressingTale on Labor Rights
Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it. Shoddy argument. As written, the bill offers countries a choice: do whatever is required to get certified as a country moving toward a market economy and get substantial market access; or don't get certified and don't get any of the quota relaxations and tariff reductions. "Neoliberal policies" get "imposed" only if the governments of the countries themselves decide that the game is worth the candle. Yes, many governments of African countries are undemocratic; many are dominated by cruel elites; many should be overthrown immediately. Yes, African countries should be offered a better menu of choices than the bill offers them. But whether the principal effect is to aid or harm African development--and whether they ought to accept or reject their package--ought to be *their* choice. You want to make that choice for them, and restrict their options. One thing that the statist old-socialist tradition never, never learned was that to narrow somebody's options is in general not to do them a benefit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: SameDepressingTale on Labor Rights
What was the problem with Jesse Jackson's bill? No problem with Jesse Jackson's bill--save that 218 representatives wouldn't vote for it.
Re: Re: Re: China
No one seems to be arguing the U.S.'s trade policy can be used as significant leverage to improve Chinese government treatment of its own people. The argument against PNTR seems to be that it is a move in a symbolic card game, an implicit approval of China's anti-human policies. Actually lots of people are arguing that. So who's "no one"? As significant leverage? Maybe I just hang out with too many people who think that economic sanctions are ineffective against non-democratic governments...
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
BUT Butler neglects the Marxist feminist critique of how capitalism underlies the construction of sex and gender. Exploitation is not only discursive, it is REAL as it is embedded in oppressive practices. Butler apolitical critique of gender categories reminds me of the absurdity of post-modern pessimism: "don't criticicize sexism and racism because you perpetuate the same discourse" B. so what? See Rosamary's book _Materialist Feminism_ for an excellent critique of Butler (edited volume).. Mine You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
I wrote: One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms... Doug writes: You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Rod writes: Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics. I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed down the toilet? More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid. Just because X was right about issue Y doesn't mean that he or she is right about issue Z. Instead, tell us what logical argument X presented, what kind of empirical evidence he or she mobilized, and/or what kind of philosophical-methodological insights X had. The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are in boxes... If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: Re: China
The answer is that this fight should not be made our fight. The problem is that many progressive groups are making this a top priority. We should be putting our energy into and mobilizing people around other issues and struggles. Marty No. "This," meaning PNTR, is just a battle in an extended war. Likewise with China in or out of WTO, or even WTO itself. It's getting attention now because the vote is this week. The campaign is much broader, nor, for labor, does it hinge in any important way on China's communist identity. You keep telescoping the campaign to the parts you don't like, just as you mischaracterize the emphases in the Teamster quote I posted and in your allusions to positions in EPI publications. Since you don't want to endorse the WTO, you counterpose an abolitionist position, nix rather than fix. This is very superficial. With no WTO, U.S./China trade would be subject to some alternative web of laws, regulations, and institutions. "No WTO" leaves to the imagination what these should be. What should they be? What would an MTO -- Marty's Trade Organization -- do in the face of capital migrating from the U.S. to a union-free environment? Or we could put it this way, in the spirit of targeting the corporations. Suppose Ford announces they would rather produce Escorts in China than in Wayne, Michigan, so good-bye 3,700 auto jobs, hello 3,700 lesser opportunities (optimistically speaking). Should the workers excoriate the company, but fail to demand the government do anything? Should they threaten to strike? If strikes were effective in this vein we would not have the problem in the first place. If the government does prevent the plant from leaving, what would be the difference between this and a WTO regime that accomplished the same thing? It is almost fair to say your position is analogous to one that stipulated, don't attack the state, attack the corporations (or capital, or whatever) underlying the actions of the state. In this case the WTO is the surrogate for states and Capital. It's the new global form of business as usual. If you want to create some leverage by disrupting the machine, you go for the gears; you don't agitate for better safety goggles. mbs
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
The excellent one to start with is Marxist feminist Gayle Rubin's article published in _Towards an Anthropology of Women_ "The Traffic in Women: Political Economy of Sex". It offers a much better argument than the one offered by Butler's metaphysical post-modernism.. Mine The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are in boxes...
Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: SameDepressingTale on Labor Rights
Brad De Long wrote: Shoddy argument. Now, you have convinced me. As written, the bill offers countries a choice: do whatever is required to get certified as a country moving toward a market economy and get substantial market access; or don't get certified and don't get any of the quota relaxations and tariff reductions. "Neoliberal policies" get "imposed" only if the governments of the countries themselves decide that the game is worth the candle. Do you really think that countries will be given that choice without any other pressures? Yes, many governments of African countries are undemocratic; many are dominated by cruel elites; many should be overthrown immediately. Thus US has a terrible record of chooing the wrong side: Mobutu, Idi Amin, etc. Yes, African countries should be offered a better menu of choices than the bill offers them. But whether the principal effect is to aid or harm African development--and whether they ought to accept or reject their package--ought to be *their* choice. You want to make that choice for them, and restrict their options. No. I do not want to make that choice for them, and restrict their options. Why do you always use such attributions? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
At 05:14 PM 05/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: Jim Devine wrote: Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. Mine writes: Jim, from what I see, Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. I really don't care if she's a Marxist or not, since Marxism is not the sole source of truth (while some Marxists are downright wrong). I know that she does not suffer from "biological essentialism," since her utopia also involves all sorts of _societal_ changes that do not stem from biological changes. If anything, causation in her book runs from society to biology. Feminists like Marge Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be if you were to read her novel. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed down the toilet? Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no existence apart from the system of monetary representation that it emerged from. It doesn't feed people or make them happy, but important folks pay lots of attention to it and it guides their actions. More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid. He said, citing an authority... Just because X was right about issue Y doesn't mean that he or she is right about issue Z. Instead, tell us what logical argument X presented, what kind of empirical evidence he or she mobilized, and/or what kind of philosophical-methodological insights X had. I gave it to you from the horse's mouth. The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are in boxes... If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or "nature" - is invoked. When people start talking about hormones, there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there's no appeal. Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of interest or unemployment. As Keynes said of the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that is most likely to preserve the status quo; I think you'll find the same when "natural" differences between the sexes (not genders) are invoked. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights
At 02:39 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: What was the problem with Jesse Jackson's bill? No problem with Jesse Jackson's bill--save that 218 representatives wouldn't vote for it. so might makes right? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights
At 02:38 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it. Brad writes: Shoddy argument. As written, the bill offers countries a choice: do whatever is required to get certified as a country moving toward a market economy and get substantial market access; or don't get certified and don't get any of the quota relaxations and tariff reductions. "Neoliberal policies" get "imposed" only if the governments of the countries themselves decide that the game is worth the candle. this is not really a choice if you run a country that is dominated by debt service. It's like the plantation-owner after the Civil War in the US South who gives the Black share-cropper the "choice" of working on the plantation, when the combination of the plantation-owner, the money-lender, and the "Jim Crow" politician (along with the vagaries of nature) have gotten the share-cropper so deep in debt so that he (or she) sees no alternatives. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. as it is "written" above, Marge Piercy is making an implicit case for biological reductionism. "Culture" enters into play to "endorse" her utopian vision of "biologically altered" men. so culture "corrects" what is biologically "incorrect" (according to her) .. Piercy's argument is *still* biologically essentialist... I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be if you were to read her novel. I already read her novel in Turkish version. More useful would be if you were to improve your knowledge of feminism, since you are confusing different feminist positions.. It is FLAT absurd to compare leftist feminist position to Marge Piecy's biologically guided cultural feminism. No feminist reader would buy this.. Mine
Re: RE: Re: China
Wow, I went from superficial, to head of a new world trade organization, to wearing safety goggles. Or at least agitating for them. It is a bumpy ride in the globalized world. On Tue, 16 May 2000, Max Sawicky wrote: No. "This," meaning PNTR, is just a battle in an extended war. The question is which war is being fought. Is the goal to reform the WTO? Build a militant working class movement? Restructure class relations in the U.S.? in any important way on China's communist identity. You keep telescoping the campaign to the parts you don't like, just as you mischaracterize the emphases in the Teamster quote I posted and in your allusions to positions in EPI publications. Quite the contrary, I am highlighting critical elements of the campaign against the PNTR. And people like Scott who works with EPI has directly deemed China an unfair trader because of its state interventionism, industrial policy, etc. Since you don't want to endorse the WTO, you counterpose an abolitionist position, nix rather than fix. This is very superficial. With no WTO, U.S./China trade would be subject to some alternative web of laws, regulations, and institutions. "No WTO" leaves to the imagination what these should be. What should they be? What would an MTO -- Marty's Trade Organization -- do in the face of capital migrating from the U.S. to a union-free environment? I am precisely for developing new means of regulating economic activity in the US and supporting workers who seek to do the same in progressive ways in other countries. The world did exist without the WTO. There are other ways of seeking to transform international economic relations. China in or out of the WTO does not put those other possibilities on the table. Your article about Mexico makes that clear. Even a reformed NAFTA with side agreements does little to help. It is almost fair to say your position is analogous to one that stipulated, don't attack the state, attack the corporations (or capital, or whatever) underlying the actions of the state. In this case the WTO is the surrogate for states and Capital. It's the new global form of business as usual. If you want to create some leverage by disrupting the machine, you go for the gears; you don't agitate for better safety goggles. mbs I guess I was not very clear. Sorry. I want to target both state and corporations which are workign together to create a world hostile to working people. The PNTR debate basically lets both off the hook. That is the problem. I prefer to push other issues that forces people to organize directly against US state and corporate policies, not focus primary attention on the policies of other states. For example, the US government claims to want to support and protect U.S. worker interests, thus Clinton advocated some kind of social pact for the WTO. Some progressives say, that is silly given your push to bring China into the WTO, thus we should oppose that. But what about directly confronting the state and capital in the US adn directing our main fire at US laws and corporate actions. For example, pushing for higher minimum wages, living wages, ratification of ILO core labor standards, etc. And if we want to improve the international environment demand that the US government cuts off funding for the IMF, WB, etc. and cancel the debt for third world countries without conditions. These are not demands that ignore the state. They are demands that highlight the ways in which our state and corporations operate. They are demands that can promote international solidarity. I think building such campaigns would pay far more and better returns then the fight over China. To be clear, I am not saying that all who oppose China are doing so on the basis of anti-communism, or support for neoliberalism. But the campaign is difficult to control, and at its heart promotes a general sense that our problems here are the result of the actions of other governments who do not measure up to our standards. In short, China in or out of the WTO has little to do with the gears of anything. But I do pledge that as head of the MTO, the headquarters will be moved from Geneva to Portland, and you can all come to the first session as my honored guests. Even Max. Marty
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
btw, the turkish translation of the novel is _Zamanin Kiyisindaki Kadin_ published by _Ayrinti_ publishers. I clearly remember it now.Marge Piercy represents the radical feminist tradition, not Marxist.. Mine I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be if you were to read her novel. I already read her novel in Turkish version.
[Fwd: Re: Only one sex?]
The topic being discussed currently under the heading of "genderization" has been debated (usually quite hotly) over and over again on every maillist to which I am subscribed. I thought some of the posts from an earlier LBO-TALK discussion might be of interest. Carrol Original Message Subject: Re: Only one sex? Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:30:31 -0600 From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: v03130300b461e73b35d0@[140.254.112.191]002b01bf4e8f$826f8620$[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] kelley wrote: What nonsense. did you even bother to read what carrol wrote. he wrote that for millenia people *thought* that there was only one sex and that women were simply a deformed version of the male. "What nonsense"? I'm not going to try to summarize closely researched and written historical scholarship in an e-mail post -- or even try to look up any of the minimal material. But note that the penis and the clitoris are the *same* organ, only differently developed. So on the basis of those two organs, there is only one sex. Same with breasts. Some of the other organs are completely different in the fetus from the beginning. So there are two sexes. Stephen Jay Gould who is not exactly biologically ignorant claims that on the basis of the *physiological* evidence the 2-sex and the 1-sex models are equally reasonable. But do read Laqueur for yourself. You will learn a lot of history. I used it as a text the last time I taught 18th century English Literature and it made a lot of things that I'd been trying for years to get across much clearer to both me and the students. Laqueur has had a year of medical school, and is now a professor of history at Berkeley. Here is the first paragraph of his Preface: This book began without my knowing it in 1977 when I was on leave at St. Anthony's College, Oxford, doing research for what was to be a history of the life cycle. I was reading seventeenth-century midwifery manuals -- in seach of materials on how birth was organized -- but found instead advice to women on how to become pregnant in the first place. Midwives and doctors seemed to believe that female orgasm was among the conditions for successful generation, and they offered various suggestions on how it might be achieved. Orgasm was assumed to be a routine; more or less indispensable part of conception. This surprised me. Experience must have shown that pregnancy often takes place without it; moreover, as a nineteenth-century historian I was accustomed to doctors debating whether women had orgasms at all. By the period I knew best, what had been an ordinary, if explosive, corporeal occurrence had become a major problem of moral physiology. p. vii There is still a good deal of debate around all the themes in Laqueur's book (including the history of philosophy, physiology, psychology, etc. etc. etc.) There are always debates in history. But to call it nonsense and introduce your own simple "proofs" is deliberate ignorance. Are most people who don't already take these things for granted -- who haven't already been trained by some contact with feminist struggles -- able to read anything at all on this topic? Kelley's original subject heading is looking less and less merely rhetorical. And any reader who is operating mostly on the basis of a negative reaction to Butler, please note that your reaction is probably no more negative than Yoshie's or mine. So please stop and think a little bit. As Engels remarked long ago, when common sense ventures into areas of specialized study it's apt to be pretty inadequate. Kelley hasn't asserted anything that isn't asserted in fairly sophisticated scholarship, bourgeois and marxist. Carrol
[Fwd: RE: General status of gender relations vs. Quibbles]
This was one of the most illuminating of the contributions to lbo on the questions of sex and gender, "social construction" and biology. Carrol Original Message Subject: RE: General status of gender relations vs. Quibbles Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:23:19 -0500 (EST) From: "David Jennings [MSAI]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Seth Ackerman wrote: Doug wrote: This will no doubt exasperate the Judy-haters, following Butler's in Bodies That Matter, it's interesting to watch how when "biological" arguments are invoked - as a last ditch effort to limit the social/discursive analysis of social/discursive phenomena and ground them instead in some unalterable Real. That's just what Rob is doing here - resisting arguments based on gender (and class) relations and shifting attention to the realm of the gene. Last time I looked, genes couldn't talk, though lots of people profess to talk for them. So, Doug. Are you saying gender phenomena are *always* social/discursive phenomena, and never grounded in some unalterable Real? I smell a fallacy here, or perhaps a few. First off, it may be possible that social/discursive phenomena in fact are real. More fundamentally, it seems that much of the recent gender talk has been based on a category error. The question seems to be whether such-and-such gender phenomena is really social/discursive or really based on nature (genes, etc). Specifically, is gender difference in regard to sexual preferences based on nature, or is it socialized. Its not clear to me that this is an appropriate (exclusive) disjunction. It may be analogous to asking whether something is white or warm-blooded (versus e.g. white or black). The 'nature basedness' of a phenomenon does not necessarily preclude it being social, and a fortiori does not make a sociological analysis of the phenomena inappropriate. There may very well be _something_ natural about May/December couplings, but evoking a story of a selfish gene (or whatever) doesn't mean that the social analysis of such couplings is irrelevant. Actually, I'd say that the selfish gene story is probably the least interesting thing to point out about gender phenomena. Then there's the fallacy of hidden assumption. Often, the foundation of a phenomena in nature (whatever that means) is taken to be a recommendation to a certain behavior. Child rearing is natural, thus it is moral to be a parent. Homosexuality is unnatural, thus it is immoral to be gay. Clearly we're dealing with a couple of syllogisms here in the implicit assumption that natural = good. Without this assumption, nature -- which since the 18th century has played into so many of our best and worst moral fables -- may have no prescriptive power at all. (I hasten to add that no one on this list has committed themselves to such a blatant position. Such a fallacy is, however, nearly ubiquitous in talk about gender and sexuality.) -d --- David Jennings SSS II | Agri-Services Labs CAES, UGA | (706) 542-5350 --- "It was like masters and children. You didn't want to cross the man who provided your bread and butter." - a Kannapolis NC textile worker
[Fwd: Re: Only one sex?]
Original Message Subject: Re: Only one sex? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:21:35 -0500 From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [bounced for an address oddity] Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:02:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Raphael C. Allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Methinks that way too much good thinking is sidestepped by our treating sex, and sexual difference, like they're the ontological real-deal of gender or sexuality. They ain't, as plenty others have already tried to show. Don't get me wrong: I join all y'all in hating it when lefties simplistically run away from biology, sure. So it's to the better that none of the feminist-constructionist arguments onlist have, to my reading, counterposed biology to the social, but instead braided the two together and counterposed those arguments to the stricter bio-determinism of some Skeptical-'Bout-Feminism arguments here and elsewhere. This ontology of sexual difference--particularly the question of how many sexes there REALLY are--almost completely misses questions of how sex-, gender-, and sexuality-differences work socially, how they're reproduced, and how they interact with other classifications. Doesn't this truncate the ground of politics? As Kessler McKenna argued (kudoes to Miles for this cite), along with Lacquer, Fausto-Sterling, and a slew of socialist feminists, gender/ sex/ sexuality need to be parsed from each other analytically rather than conflated. And, having tried to distinguish them, these writers all find that sex is not always the determinant base from which a gendered superstructure can be read off--often it's the reverse. .. After all, we don't go around doing genital inspections on one another (most of the time) and then proceed from the givenness of their confirmed sex. Instead, we're left to impute folks' sex from secondary, physical sex characteristics and from their gender-typed behaviors--just as we also impute folks' sexuality from their gender-behaviors. Maybe, then, we shouldn't assume that we get very far resorting to ontological privilege, re genital/genetic diversity, each time gender/feminism/ queerness comes up. This false distinction between foundationalism and non-foundationalism always claims too much for the former--What Say Ye? Which reminds me, curiously, of a similar impasse in science-studies debates, esp since Alan Sokal's lame attempt at a hoax. Everytime one of my listservs would come upon a mention of Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, or Emily Martin holding forth on the social construction of scientific practice, somebody would just hafta raise a cutely phrased question about gravity--eg, Would Andrew Ross and his journal Social Text fall if you dropped them from a bldg. And in the resultant scuffle, the more settled and righteous question re how gravity works would end up telling us almost nothing about how scientists go around making themselves matter to each other. In those discussions, like in this one, the questions with easier evidentiary threshholds are mistakenly treated as if they tell us more about everything. But they don't. raphael On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, kelley wrote: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:35:17 -0500 From: kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only one sex? When you, as someone who complains about the lack of careful scholarship around here, so obviously doesn't bother to read carefully before jumping, I start to look for motive. Now I know you never miss a chance to turn the conversation toward the socialization of sex. But, within reason, that's Ok; its the important part of the debate in this case. Such discourse had nothing to do with my post, but, still, this doesn't explain much. Here's my clue. Your "misunderstanding" of my post created the space for Carrol to trod down that irrelevant road with you, pretending he didn't know what he said either. Aha. Carrol and Yoshie have agreed to make you a member of their comedy team, haven't they? Good work, comrade! so you want to import marx economic base model to the study of gender is that it? you want to argue that you can locate the laws of motion behind gender relations in reproductive sex? go ahead, take a whack at it. i would truly love to see how it is that you can explain the way in which men and women relate to one another by looking at the laws of motion located in our our sex organs. how do you explain today that there are three genders in many actually existing societies? shall i invite jim craven to take a look at the things youwill have to say about how the hopi are stupid? furthermore, i would point out to you that a lot of marxists think that there are only two classes that are in competition despite the objective reality of what looks like at least three if not more classes in competition. compeitition between manual and professional, between
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
I wrote: I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed down the toilet? Quoth Doug: Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no existence apart from the system of monetary representation that it emerged from. It doesn't feed people or make them happy, but important folks pay lots of attention to it and it guides their actions. The idea that the distinction between sex and gender (or between biology and society) is "socially constructed" (similar to "discursively constructed" without the over-emphasis on language, which is only one aspect of society) is so trivial and obvious that I assumed that the only reason bring it up is as criticism, that I should change my point of view in some way. In any event, I think there's an objective basis for the socially constructed concepts of sex gender. I gave some evidence, some argument. Was there something wrong with my presentation? is there an alternative to the sex/gender distinction that can help us deal with these issues more effectively? does Butler suggest one? More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid. He said, citing an authority... yeah, but that authority is _correct_! Actually, I wasn't citing an authority as much as using the anonymous bumper-sticker writer as a summary for a position I've been arguing on and off on pen-l for years. I'm willing to take responsibility for that view, independent of some authority figure's assertions. snip If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or "nature" - is invoked. When people start talking about hormones, there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there's no appeal. There's nothing in the notion of the role of hormones that says that one can't overcome the urges that result from them. Simply bringing up the flow of testosterone (or whatever) is not that same thing as advocating determinism, essentialism, or reductionism. Look, I'm horny a lot (seemingly due to the baleful influence of hormones), but that doesn't mean that I always do something about it, right? it also doesn't determine exactly what I do about those hormones, right? That means that not only does the "natural" sphere play a role but society does too. Hey, if you and Don Roper don't mind, I'll use a dirty word. The relationship between biology and society is a _dialectic_. Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of interest or unemployment. As Keynes said of the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that is most likely to preserve the status quo; I think you'll find the same when "natural" differences between the sexes (not genders) are invoked. This is not a good analogy. The natural rate of unemployment, for example, is mostly a code-phrase for capitalism's need to have a reserve army of labor, an institution created by society. On the other hand, is the fact that men have "outies" and women have "innies" somehow socially constructed? No. What's socially constructed is the fact that the former have the lion's share of the power. This shunning of the role of biology threatens to veer into prudish Platonism ... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Feminist Theory Volume 01 Issue 01 (Contents) (fwd)
OUT NOW Feminist Theory An International Interdisciplinary Journal Volume 01 Issue 01 - Publication Date: 1 April 2000 Editorial Articles Thinking feminism with and against Bourdieu Terry Lovell University of Warwick, UK http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012009.html http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012009.html 'Outsider within': Speaking to excursions across cultures Maria Jaschok Oxford University, UK and Shui Jingjun Henan Academy of Social Sciences http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012010.html http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012010.html Protesting like a girl: Embodiment, dissent and feminist agency Wendy Parkins Murdoch University http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012011.html http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012011.html Using gender to undo gender: A feminist degendering movement Judith Lorber Brooklyn College and Graduate School, City University of New York http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012013.html http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab012013.html Interchanges Whose counting? Sara Ahmed Institute for Women's Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Who counts (or doesn't count) what as feminist theory?: an exercise in dictionary use Bronwyn Winter University of Sydney, Australia What counts as feminist theory? Elizabeth Ermarth University of Edinburgh, UK Book reviews Barrett, Michele, Imagination in Theory: Essays on Writing and Culture, reviewed by Melanie Mauthner Henwood, Karen, Christine Griffin and Ann Phoenix (eds), Standpoints and Differences: Essays in the Practice of Feminist Psychology, reviewed by Hollway, Wendy Fisher, Jerilyn and Ellen S. Silber (eds) (foreword by Carol Gilligan), Analyzing the Different Voice: Feminist Psychological Theory and Literary Texts, reviewed by Wendy Hollway Barnett, Hilaire, Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence, reviewed by Jane Scoular
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!!
generization
No idea is totally socially constructed (unless the thinker is completely delusional). Every idea is formed through interactions in society and in nature. To argue the constructivist position consistently is to ignore the second part of the epistomological dialect. To live in a world where ideas make ideas. Thus an idealist world. Plato's universals may have real manifestations, but he was still an idealist. Rod -- 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: Genderization (fwd)
I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
stems from "biological inequality." Question: Is that a false
interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
don't matter.
To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!!
Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: SameDepressingTale on Labor Rights
Yes, African countries should be offered a better menu of choices than the bill offers them. But whether the principal effect is to aid or harm African development--and whether they ought to accept or reject their package--ought to be *their* choice. You want to make that choice for them, and restrict their options. No. I do not want to make that choice for them, and restrict their options. Why do you always use such attributions? -- Michael Perelman Yes you do: you want to keep countries that want to "make progress toward a market economy" and get the increased trade access from doing so...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights
At 02:39 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: What was the problem with Jesse Jackson's bill? No problem with Jesse Jackson's bill--save that 218 representatives wouldn't vote for it. so might makes right? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine Say rather that politics is the art of the possible...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: Same DepressingTale on Labor Rights
At 02:38 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it. Brad writes: Shoddy argument. As written, the bill offers countries a choice: do whatever is required to get certified as a country moving toward a market economy and get substantial market access; or don't get certified and don't get any of the quota relaxations and tariff reductions. "Neoliberal policies" get "imposed" only if the governments of the countries themselves decide that the game is worth the candle. this is not really a choice if you run a country that is dominated by debt service. If you have no choice, than the AGOA is a clear, clear winner: you have the structural adjustment program anyway, and better to have it with the opportunity to export than to have it with one's exports quotaed...
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically"
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..
Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work?
let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..
Mine
Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her
work. She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose
novels and poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of
leftists owe a lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an
Marxist Feminist," so not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one
reason I gave up on labels of thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe
to her? I don't thonk so. Has she fought the good fight for almost 40
years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Carrol, I agree with your constructive criticism here
What I did was to present my own interpretation of Piercy and offer a
reasonable argument about why she seemed to me somewhat controversial (I
won't repeat the argument since it is in the archives of the list). If
Justin has something to say with the "content" of my analysis, then he
should offer another interpretation. Rational discussion requires logical
counter-arguments untill the parties convince each other. If Justin
challenges my reading of her as biologically essentialist, then he should
"reason" why he thinks the contrary..
Labeling me marxist feminist is not the solution here..
merci,
Mine
I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is not the
question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist" does not prove
her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller does not prove her wrong.
For example, Mine writes, "The big problem with her argument is that she
assumes "gender inequality" stems from "biological inequality."
Question: Is that a false interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct
interpretation, then we don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that
she is wrong. Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to
her? I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read Piercy can offer
another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just labels Mine a Marxist,
meaning someone whose opinions don't matter.
To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!!
Re: Re: Re: FW: LAT - China, Mexico: SameDepressingTaleon Labor Rights
I plead guilty -- well sort of. I don't know any country that wants to make progress toward a market economy. I know that some people may want that. Others may be convinced that it is in their best interest. I guess an outsider might say that the US wants to privatize social security, but for me, I don't think that countries are thinking entities -- or if they are -- I don't have the expertise to know what they want. Brad De Long wrote: you want to keep countries that want to "make progress toward a market economy" and get the increased trade access from doing so... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electricity Shortage
I hijacked this from Doug's posting on LBO to get Gene Coyle to comment on this. Wall Street Journal - May 11, 2000 Deregulation and Heavy Demand Leave Electricity Providers Short for the Summer By REBECCA SMITH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Here's a sobering thought for the first summer of the new millennium: America is running short of electricity. In pockets of the country, from New York to New Orleans, and from Chicago to San Francisco, shortages are likely to strike as the days lengthen and the temperatures rise. The East Coast got a taste of what's coming when a surprise heat wave hit this week just as many power plants were shut down for spring maintenance. Utilities and grid operators temporarily cut voltages, called on big industry to conserve and asked homeowners not to open their refrigerators too often. "There will be outages and brownouts this summer," says Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. "America is a superpower, but it's got the grid of a Third World nation." Consumption and Confusion A decade-long economic boom is one reason for the strain. Americans have spent heavily on juice-guzzling appliances, boosting demand for electricity faster than capacity is being added. The other big reason is deregulation. Loosening the rules that governed how power is generated, supplied and sold was supposed to spur competition and efficiency. But the four-year-old deregulation process has spawned more confusion than improvement so far. The numbers are stark. The U.S. has generating plants capable of cranking out 780,000 megawatts of electricity on a summer's day. But it will take a minimum of 700,000 megawatts to power the nation this summer, according to estimates by the Department of Energy. That leaves little surplus, and in any event, the power can't always get where it's needed most. The buffer of surplus electricity has been whittled by 60% over the past decade. In the old days, utilities generated electricity and delivered it to customers in exclusive territories. To protect consumers from gouging, rates were regulated. The result was tremendous reliability but also inefficiency and waste. Deregulation, now under way in 24 states, upsets that structure and allows new players -- some affiliated with utilities, some not -- to build power plants and sell electricity. Prices are set by competitive markets; risks are borne by investors, not ratepayers. At the same time, utilities are surrendering control of long-haul transmission lines to new nonprofit operators whose job it is to ensure fair access to the grid -- the multistate system of high-voltage lines. The result: a national electricity system that is vulnerable to disruptions caused by equipment breakdowns and human error as newly established regional grid operators assume responsibility for much larger areas than those formerly overseen by individual local utilities. For big energy users, who expected deregulation to bring lower prices, not lower reliability, it has been a worrisome experience. Oracle Corp., for one, isn't taking any chances. Shaken by a huge power failure in August 1996, the big software company has spent more than $6 million to build its own electrical bunker, complete with a substation and generators capable of supplying thousands of servers with electricity at its headquarters in Redwood Shores, Calif. While giant manufacturers have done this for decades, other commercial users are starting to follow suit. "What's the self-sufficiency worth to us?" asks Jeffrey Byron, Oracle's energy director. "Millions of dollars per hour. It's so important, you almost can't calculate the value, to us and to our customers." The problem facing Oracle and others isn't likely to go away soon. The incomplete nature of deregulation has produced planning paralysis that could have long-term consequences. Old-line utilities shied away from adding capacity, worried they wouldn't be able to recoup their investments in a truly competitive energy market. Independent generators, who were supposed to fill the need, mainly held back until they could figure out which markets would be the most lucrative. Regulators, who were often confused as to whether they should be enforcing the old rules or helping tear them down, let things slide. The upshot, today, is plenty of power plants on the drawing board, but few actually built. Roughly 162,000 megawatts of new generation has been announced -- including a doubling of New England's power-plant capacity -- but much of it will never get built, and it will be years before enough is added to have a substantial impact. Utilities in states that haven't deregulated earn their return based on the amount of equipment they put into service. The joke used to be that the utility industry was the only one where you could boost profits by buying new furniture for your office. The incentive system has changed in deregulated states. In some, such as California, some generators receive subsidies
[fla-left] [The Other Florida] Housing hopefuls endure wait; Hialeah defends indefensible system (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover Welcome to The Other Florida: The Florida of Economic Inequality and Injustice; the Florida They Don't Want the Tourists to See * Hopefuls endure wait; Hialeah defends system BY SANDRA MARQUEZ GARCIA [EMAIL PROTECTED] For three days, 1,500 people ate, drank and slept in line for a chance to get on Hialeah's waiting list for affordable housing. No more than 10 vacancies exist. The scene outside Milander Auditorium, 4800 Palm Ave., resembled an emergency shelter. People with dejected faces camped in sleeping bags, huddled in blankets and rested in beach chairs. Among those in line: the elderly, a blind woman, workers who called in sick, infants, even a woman with an oxygen tank. Some read the paper. Others listened to Walkman headsets. Trash littered the pavement. Shoving matches broke out. Police barricades guided the crowd in a snakelike formation. Some complain that making the sick, the elderly and the poor camp out for days to sign up is outdated. Hialeah officials defend the practice, calling it the fairest way to distribute a limited resource. Hialeah Housing Authority operates a total of 2,500 units -- about half of them set aside for this low-income program. The massive turnout, they say, is a testament to Hialeah's reputation for a model public housing program. ``I couldn't even see another way of doing it,'' said Councilman Julio Ponce, former head of the Hialeah Housing Authority. ``That's the way the federal government mandates. You have to have a waiting list.'' By 4 p.m., the window of opportunity had closed. Housing officials must now review the applications to see who meets income criteria for the program. To qualify, an individual can earn no more than $15,600 -- a family of six is restricted to $25,850. Eligible participants will be called in for an interview to determine their housing needs. Right now, no more than 10 three- and four-bedroom units are available. The wait for highly coveted efficiencies and one-bedrooms could take years, officials said. Those people who meet the income requirements and were standing near the front of Thursday's line have the best chance at housing. The waiting began Monday afternoon for Maria Belen Guerra, 65, a retired factory worker. She now pays $350 rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Opa-locka. Guerra had hoped to move back to Hialeah but says she has been priced out of the market because of her fixed income. ARDUOUS ORDEAL By Thursday morning, a weary-looking Guerra had submitted her application. Getting her name on the waiting list meant enduring ``heat, lack of water and bathrooms with an unbearable odor.'' But it was necessary, she said. ``It's been two years since they made a list,'' Guerra said. ``It's the only way that poor people can do it. We have to sacrifice ourselves.'' Carmen Mendoza, 58, willingly spent two nights sleeping on the pavement for the chance to rent an affordable one-bedroom apartment, but she questioned whether the first-come, first-served approach is the best way to dole out government assistance. `This is abusive,'' Mendoza said. ``There are ways to give people a ticket and have them come back a certain day.''P She wasn't alone in her opinion. ``I don't agree with this, especially for the old people. They are sick, and they need medication,'' said Margarita Fabelo, 57, who was shocked to see a woman standing in line with an oxygen tank when she brought breakfast to her 76-year-old sister who camped out overnight. LIKE THE CENSUS John Williams, 66, a civilian volunteer for Miami-Dade County Police, had his own theory: ``They are going to get federal dollars. It's like the census. ... It's supposed to show how many poor people are asking for government assistance.'' Maria Roca, executive director for Hialeah Housing, said she hoped the federal government would be swayed by the large turnout to approve more public housing grants for the city. Although inconvenient, she defended the process, noting that the rewards are great and the opportunity to get on the housing authority's list comes around only every couple of years. ``Unfortunately, it's first come, first served,'' Roca said. ```We do provide very nice housing -- decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair. That's probably why they are all here.'' For police, the large crowds called for a round-the-clock presence. ``It took a lot, approximately 20 officers working 24 hours a day,'' Sgt. Marcia Sanchez said. ``You have people trying to cut in the line. It always happens. Usually the crowd polices itself.''
Peasant sluggards
From Michael Perelman's newly published "The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret of Primitive Accumulation" (Duke University Press): Although their standard of living may not have been particularly lavish, the people of precapitalistic northern Europe, like most traditional people, enjoyed a great deal of free time. The common people maintained innumerable religious holidays that punctuated the tempo of work. Joan Thirsk estimated that in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, about one-third of the working days, including Sundays, were spent in leisure. Karl Kautsky offered a much more extravagant estimate that 204 annual holidays were celebrated in medieval Lower Bavaria. Despite these frequent holidays, the peasants still managed to produce a significant surplus. In English feudal society, for example, the peasants survived even though the gentry was powerful enough to extract something on the order of 50 percent of the produce. As markets evolved, the claims on the peasants labors multiplied. For instance, in southern France, rents appear to have grown from about one-fourth of the yield in 1540 to one-half by 1665. Although people increasingly had to curtail their leisure in order to meet the growing demands of nonproducers, many observers still railed against the excessive celebration of holidays. Protestant clergy were especially vocal in this regard. Even as late as the 1830s, we hear the complaint that the Irish working year contained only 200 days after all holidays had been subtracted. Time, in a market society, is money. As Sir Henry Pollexfen calculated: "For if but 2 million of working people at 6d. a day comes to 500,000 which upon due inquiry whence our riches must arise, will appear to be so much lost to the nation by every holiday that is kept." Zeal in the suppression of religious festivals was not an indication that representatives of capital took working-class devotion lightly. In some rural districts of nineteenth-century England, tending to ones garden on the Sabbath was a punishable offense. Some workers were even imprisoned for this crime. Piety, however, also had its limits. The same worker might be charged with breach of contract should he prefer to attend church on the Sabbath rather than report for work when called to do so. In France, where capital was slower to take charge, the eradication of holidays was likewise slower. Tobias Smollett complained of the French: "Very nearly half of their time, which might be profitably employed in the exercise of industry, is lost to themselves and the community, in attendance upon the different exhibitions of religious mummery." Voltaire called for the shifting of holidays to the following Sunday. Since Sunday was a day of rest in any case, employers could enjoy approximately forty additional working days per year. This proposal caused the naive Abbe Baudeau to wonder about the wisdom of intensifying work when the countryside was already burdened with an excess population. How could the dispossessed be employed? Of course, changes in the religious practices of Europe were not induced by a shortage of people but by peoples willingness to conform to the needs of capital. For example, the leaders of the French Revolution, who prided themselves on their rationality, decreed a ten-day week with only a single day off. Classical political economists enthusiastically joined in the condemnation of the celebration of an excessive number of holidays. The suppression of religious holidays was but a small part of the larger process of primitive accumulation. From the back cover: The originators of classical political economyAdam Smith, David Ricardo, James Steuart, and otherscreated a discourse that explained the logic, the origin, and, in many respects, the essential rightness of capitalism. But, in the great texts of that discourse, these writers downplayed a crucial requirement for capitalisms creation: For it to succeed, peasants would have to abandon their self-sufficient lifestyle and go to work for wages in a factory. Why would they willingly do this? Clearly, they did not go willingly. As Michael Perelman shows, they were forced into the factories with the active support of the same economists who were making theoretical claims for capitalism as a self-correcting mechanism that thrived without needing government intervention. Directly contradicting the laissez-faire principles they claimed to espouse, these men advocated government policies that deprived the peasantry of the means for self-provision in order to coerce these small farmers into wage labor. To show how Adam Smith and the other classical economists appear to have deliberately obscured the nature of the control of labor and how policies attacking the economic independence of the rural peasantry were essentially conceived to foster primitive accumulation, Perelman examines diaries, letters, and the more practical writings
Why we need a revolution
John Travolta's Alien Notion He Plays a Strange Creature In a New Sci-Fi Film, but That's Not the Only Curious Thing About This Project By Richard Leiby Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 28, 1999; Page G01 MONTREAL-Something otherworldly is happening inside Hangar 12, something they're trying to keep secret. But we can tell you this much: John Travolta is involved, and so are space aliens. Soldiers have secured the perimeter. "Warning: This establishment is under permanent surveillance by the military police," a sign says. Absolutely no trespassing, by order of Canada's minister of national defense. But through the 10-foot-high chain-link fence topped with triple strands of barbed wire, you can spy pieces of weird aircraft. They look like menacing insects. Occasionally a large, hairy creature will amble into view. It's only a movie, the authorities say. The Canadian military is simply renting a secure facility to Travolta and his film crew. Here is the official story: Inside Hangar 12, they are making an $80 million sci-fi epic called "Battlefield Earth." Travolta, the co-producer, stars as a nine-foot-tall alien overlord with glowing amber eyes set in a grotesquely elongated head. He has hooklike talons for hands. "Planet of the Apes" meets "Star Wars": Travolta as you've never seen him before. Okay. But what's the real story? At the end of the millennium, you can't believe press releases. On the Internet, startling allegations are flying: about an invasion fleet deployed from the Marcab Confederacy; about mind-control implant stations set up on Mars; about the parallels between the top-secret teachings of the Church of Scientology and the novel "Battlefield Earth" by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. So is "Battlefield Earth" a recruiting film for Scientology? The Washington Post, January 4, 2000, Tuesday, Final Edition THE RELIABLE SOURCE Lloyd Grove, With Beth Berselli With Beth Berselli SCIENTOLOGY'S FUNNY PHOTOS The Church of Scientology insists that more than 14,000 of its faithful packed the Los Angeles Sports Arena for a millennial celebration of Scientology's first 50 years and the "triumph of spirituality over materialism." To bolster that claim, the church's PR operation posted four panoramic color photographs of the Dec. 28 event--for use by the news media--on the Scientology Web site. . . Church PR operatives also said in a press release that President Clinton was "among those sending congratulations" on the church's "half-century of spiritual leadership." That much is true. In a Dec. 22 letter of "warm greetings," Clinton expressed gratitude to the Scientologists for "all your efforts to promote [religious freedom] and to build just communities united in understanding, compassion and mutual respect." Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
