Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Brad, I also noticed that the bill was concerned about the elimination of corruption. What is the record of United States regarding corruption? Our political campaigns are nothing more than organized bribery. Is it possible for a non-corrupt politicians to get elected to anything higher than the City Council in a small town? How many corrupt leaders has United States propped up around the world? This is not an argument that AGOA is a bad thing...
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
Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/13/00 11:19PM I wrote: [*] Has anyone ever noticed the similarity between the development of the USSR and that of the Ford Motor Company (or similar "entrepreneurial" corporations)? It starts with the radical idiosyncrasies of the Great Leader (Stalin, Henry Ford, Sr.), who is then replaced by nameless bureaucratic suits who normalize the regime. Michael P. wrote: Schumpeter? I was thinking maybe John Kenneth Galbraith. ___ CB: Convergence of capitalism and socialism into technocracies.
Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
In a message dated Mon, 15 May 2000 3:07:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles Brown wrote: Even if the olden days were not the good olden days, this literature may reflect the enormous pain suffered by the English peasants who were brutalized in the primitive accumulation. I don't think peasants made a large contribution to canonical English poetry, except as exotic subjects for middle- and upper-class poets. Doug * * * And this from a former lit grad student! I think they need less Theory and more literature in those classes. My old Oxford Anthology of English poetry has not insubstantial chunks of material that we would call folk poetry, medieval and Renaissance, not all of it is court song, and much that is is obviously taken over from popular song. There is a huge collection ballads--I think the Child ballads is many volumes. Ewam McColl and Peggy Seeger had a lot records singing them and Scots ballads as well. Burns, also, collected a lot of Scots folk song that he wrote down as poetry, ang was not the only one. Jean Redpath has at least seven discs of this material, almost all of it transcriptions. Please, Doug! Less Butler and more Burns. --ks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this from a former lit grad student! I think they need less Theory and more literature in those classes. My old Oxford Anthology of English poetry has not insubstantial chunks of material that we would call folk poetry, medieval and Renaissance, not all of it is court song, and much that is is obviously taken over from popular song. There is a huge collection ballads--I think the Child ballads is many volumes. Ewam McColl and Peggy Seeger had a lot records singing them and Scots ballads as well. Burns, also, collected a lot of Scots folk song that he wrote down as poetry, ang was not the only one. Jean Redpath has at least seven discs of this material, almost all of it transcriptions. Please, Doug! Less Butler and more Burns. --ks "Not insubstantial"? The literature I was fed in college grad school (between 1971 and 1979), and that about which Williams mainly wrote in The Country The City, was not folk poetry, but formal stuff written by highly literate, and mostly formally educated, writers. I said "canonical," after all. It was only after the "Theory" revolution that you decry that people in lit departments began reading lots of working class literature, i.e., when the canon came under challenge. A friend of mine from grad school, Donna Landry (co-editor of The Spivak Reader), has been studying peasant and working class women poets of the 17th 18th centuries. I asked her if she likes reading the stuff, which from what I've seen, looks pretty awful. She said no, but that she doesn't like poetry much anyway; she'd rather read detective novels. Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture's gotta go, Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
The edition of the Oxford Anthology I have at work is dated 1935. Maybe they dumped the folk poetry and ballads by the 70s, and reinstated them later? --jks In a message dated Mon, 15 May 2000 4:10:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this from a former lit grad student! I think they need less Theory and more literature in those classes. My old Oxford Anthology of English poetry has not insubstantial chunks of material that we would call folk poetry, medieval and Renaissance, not all of it is court song, and much that is is obviously taken over from popular song. There is a huge collection ballads--I think the Child ballads is many volumes. Ewam McColl and Peggy Seeger had a lot records singing them and Scots ballads as well. Burns, also, collected a lot of Scots folk song that he wrote down as poetry, ang was not the only one. Jean Redpath has at least seven discs of this material, almost all of it transcriptions. Please, Doug! Less Butler and more Burns. --ks "Not insubstantial"? The literature I was fed in college grad school (between 1971 and 1979), and that about which Williams mainly wrote in The Country The City, was not folk poetry, but formal stuff written by highly literate, and mostly formally educated, writers. I said "canonical," after all. It was only after the "Theory" revolution that you decry that people in lit departments began reading lots of working class literature, i.e., when the canon came under challenge. A friend of mine from grad school, Donna Landry (co-editor of The Spivak Reader), has been studying peasant and working class women poets of the 17th 18th centuries. I asked her if she likes reading the stuff, which from what I've seen, looks pretty awful. She said no, but that she doesn't like poetry much anyway; she'd rather read detective novels. Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture's gotta go, Doug
Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Louis Proyect wrote: This seems correct -- but it also seems to indicate the irrelevance or even obscurantist nature of long arguments about whether some other people are/were happier in Situation A rather than Situation B. Carrol You don't seem to get it. This is not about a "Golden Age". It is whether radicals should defend the right of peasants to live in conditions that people like Walt Rostow or others view as "primitive". Radical (in the U.S.) should defend the right of peasants to carry on their struggles without any damn interference from the U.S. As of now, of course, most peasants are directly exploited by their local ruling class, supported by the U.S. And I don't see what Walter Rostow has to do with that. Marxism has tended to err on the side of Rostow. If you look at "Marxism and Social Democracy: The Revisionist Debate 1896-1898", edited and translated by H. and J.M. Tudor, you will discover that Edward Bernstein cited the Communist Manifesto in support of colonialism in Morocco. Between the rude "tribalism" of the Moroccans and the "civilizing" role of the Europeans, Bernstein aligned himself with the latter. Citing slavery and pasha despotism, he claimed that "modern democratic institutions" were necessary. Lou, this is either pure academic bullshit or it is the kind of red-baiting I have been fighting against over on lbo. You might at least cite some of the idiocies of Marx and Engels themselves on this (idiocies which, I believe, they mostly retracted) rather than Bernstein. If you are attacking a strain of marxism, *cite* the current marxists (by name) who uphold that strain. If you can't do that, then you are merely blowing wind. You got the same kind of arguments from the now-defunct LM magazine in Great Britain which viewed resistance to the Narmada dam in India or efforts to defend the Yanomami in the Amazon as reactionary. It is what Williams characterized in the following terms: Yes, and I don't doubt that William Pitt the Younger as well as the Duke of Marlborough had some unpleasant opinions too. Who are you arguing with and why? I got tired a long time ago with your debates with Jim Heartfield. I stopped reading him -- and I stopped reading attacks on him. Neither do I read Avakian nor attacks on Avakian. You are getting very close to setting up as your opponent the "some marxists" so beloved of red-baiters. "They were also, and more critically, the brisk metropolitan progressives, many of them supposedly internationalists and socialists, whose contempt for rural societies was matched only by their confidence in an urban industrial future which they were about in one way or another—modernisation, the white heat of technology, revolution—to convert into socialism." Gee Whiz! Pick someone other than paper dolls to fight with. This is not Marxism, it is Walt Rostow/Menshevism. I'll be damned! :-) Carrol Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Carrol, we have no need to get nasty here. Carrol Cox wrote: Lou, this is either pure academic bullshit or it is the kind of red-baiting I have been fighting against over on lbo. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
In a message dated 00-05-15 18:09:36 EDT, you write: A friend of mine from grad school, Donna Landry (co-editor of The Spivak Reader), has been studying peasant and working class women poets of the 17th 18th centuries. I asked her if she likes reading the stuff, which from what I've seen, looks pretty awful. She said no, but that she doesn't like poetry much anyway; she'd rather read detective novels. Sigh. You know, this confirms my worst suspicions about those philosophers manque who do Theory. They don't like literature, and they lack the discipline or training to do real philosophy, so they generate esxciting-sounding but essentially meaningless social theory ungrounded in either rigorous argument or empirical fact. Spivak, pah. Here we have a literature prof who doesn't like poetry, who would rather read detective novels, but who studies bad "subaltern subject perspective" women poets because that is a PC thing to do. The stuff is (I wil take her word) of no literary value, and should be studied by someone with training as a historian or historical sociologist, who might be able to teach us something about it. EP Thompson did this some in Customs in Common; but he loved poetry, and knew it. high and low, as an able literary critic--not a Theorist, but as someone who knew the period(s) and loved the language. Oh, well, I am a boring old reactionary who loves poetry, so what do I know. However, my gripe with Theory aside, there was in the literary canon that _I_ was taught a lot of really good folk song and poetry by Anonymous; and you can find a lot of it in the ballads. My wife, same vintage as me, five tears later than you,a nd like me an amateur historian of medieval and Rennaisance England,a hs the asme recollection. Course we listen to a lot of thsi music in song all the time, too. Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture's gotta go, Right, teach 'em Spivak instead of Milton, it's great as an emetic. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Michael Perelman wrote: Carrol, we have no need to get nasty here. Carrol Cox wrote: Lou, this is either pure academic bullshit or it is the kind of red-baiting I have been fighting against over on lbo. Lou and I always forgive each other. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Please find attached one manly cyber-hug, Justin! Well-spoken, comrade! If, as Frost said, 'poetry is what gets left out in translation' (though I'm convinced Dryden managed to keep plenty of Chaucer in), 'tis even the translation that's left out in the postie critique, where the heroic couplet is only a shitfight between the logocentric and the phonocentric, and meanings not worth discussing beyond their a-priori definition as some generic ether which is significant only in that it signifies nothing but its own deferred difference. For myself, I've a lot more time for Spivak than Derrida. As I have more for influenza than I do smallpox. Anyway, good on you, Justin! Rob. In a message dated 00-05-15 18:09:36 EDT, you write: A friend of mine from grad school, Donna Landry (co-editor of The Spivak Reader), has been studying peasant and working class women poets of the 17th 18th centuries. I asked her if she likes reading the stuff, which from what I've seen, looks pretty awful. She said no, but that she doesn't like poetry much anyway; she'd rather read detective novels. Sigh. You know, this confirms my worst suspicions about those philosophers manque who do Theory. They don't like literature, and they lack the discipline or training to do real philosophy, so they generate esxciting-sounding but essentially meaningless social theory ungrounded in either rigorous argument or empirical fact. Spivak, pah. Here we have a literature prof who doesn't like poetry, who would rather read detective novels, but who studies bad "subaltern subject perspective" women poets because that is a PC thing to do. The stuff is (I wil take her word) of no literary value, and should be studied by someone with training as a historian or historical sociologist, who might be able to teach us something about it. EP Thompson did this some in Customs in Common; but he loved poetry, and knew it. high and low, as an able literary critic--not a Theorist, but as someone who knew the period(s) and loved the language. Oh, well, I am a boring old reactionary who loves poetry, so what do I know. However, my gripe with Theory aside, there was in the literary canon that _I_ was taught a lot of really good folk song and poetry by Anonymous; and you can find a lot of it in the ballads. My wife, same vintage as me, five tears later than you,a nd like me an amateur historian of medieval and Rennaisance England,a hs the asme recollection. Course we listen to a lot of thsi music in song all the time, too. Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture's gotta go, Right, teach 'em Spivak instead of Milton, it's great as an emetic. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
what is this "manly cyber-hug"? (smile!) Mine Please find attached one manly cyber-hug, Justin..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
G'day Mine, 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. Cheers, Rob. what is this "manly cyber-hug"? (smile!) Mine Please find attached one manly cyber-hug, Justin..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Title: Re: [PEN-L:18928] Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd) How much of the legislation relates to tariffs? Brad De Long wrote: And this is supposed to be an argument that U.S. restrictions on imports of African textiles are for Africans' own good? -- Michael Perelman Title: An act to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa, expand trade benefits to the countries in the Caribbean Basin, renew the generalized system of preferences, and reauthorize the trade adjustment assistance programs. Title I: Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa - Subtitle A: Trade Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa - African Growth and Opportunity Act - Declares the support of Congress for: (1) encouraging increased trade and investment between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa; (2) reducing tariff and nontariff barriers and other obstacles to sub-Saharan and U.S. trade; (3) negotiating reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade agreements, including the possibility of establishing free trade areas that serve the interests of both the United States and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa; (4) focusing on countries committed to accountable government, economic reform, the eradication of poverty, and the development of political freedom; and (5) establishing a United States-Sub-Saharan African Economic Cooperation Forum. Subtitle B: Extension of Certain Trade Benefits to Sub-Saharan Africa - Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to authorize the President to designate a sub-Saharan African country as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country eligible to receive duty-free treatment, through September 30, 2006, for any non-import-sensitive article (except for textile luggage) that is the growth, product, or manufacture of such country, if the President determines that such country: (1) has established, or is making continual progress toward establishing, a market-based economy, a democratic society, an open trading system, economic policies to reduce poverty, and a system to combat corruption and bribery; (2) does not engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or provide support for acts of international terrorism; and (3) otherwise satisfies applicable eligibility requirements. (Sec. 111) Directs the President to monitor and review the progress of sub-Saharan countries to determine their current or potential eligibility under the requirements of this Act. Waives the competitive need limitation with respect to eligible beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. (Sec. 112) Grants duty-free treatment, without any quantitative limitations, to textile and apparel articles (including textile luggage) imported from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, if such country: (1) adopts an efficient visa system to guard against unlawful transshipment of such goods and the use of counterfeit documents; and (2) enacts legislation or promulgates regulations that would permit U.S. Customs verification teams to have the access necessary to investigate allegations of transshipment through the country. Directs the President to deny trade benefits under this Act to any exporter that has engaged in transshipment with respect to textile or apparel products from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country. Directs the Customs Service to monitor, and report annually to Congress, on the effectiveness of certain anti-circumvention systems and on measures taken by sub-Saharan African countries that export textiles or apparel to the United States to prevent circumvention as described in article 5 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. Authorizes the President to impose appropriate remedies, including restrictions on or the removal of quota-free and duty-free treatment provided under this Act, in the event that textile and apparel articles from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country are being imported in such increased quantities as to cause serious damage (or actual threat thereof) to the domestic industry producing like or directly competitive articles. (Sec. 113) Directs the President to convene annual meetings between U.S. Government officials and officials of the governments of sub-Saharan African countries to foster close economic ties between them. Directs the President to establish a United States-Sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum which shall discuss expanding trade and investment relations between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa. (Sec. 114) Directs the President to examine, and report to specified congressional committees, the feasibility of negotiating a free trade agreement with interested sub-Saharan African countries. (Sec. 116) Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) it is in the interest of the United States to take all necessary steps to prevent further spread of infectious disease, particularly HIV-AIDS; and (2) there is critical need for effective incentives to develop new pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and therapies to combat
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Brad, Thank you very much the for sending the summary of the bill. I only skimmed through it briefly. I know that Carl Linder with got some provisions put in the bill that makes the retaliation against Europe stronger regarding his banana interests. I also noticed that the bill was concerned about the elimination of corruption. What is the record of United States regarding corruption? Our political campaigns are nothing more than organized bribery. Is it possible for a non-corrupt politicians to get elected to anything higher than the City Council in a small town? How many corrupt leaders has United States propped up around the world? One final question: if the bill is about tariffs why is it so long? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Franz Neumann, Behemoth Alfred Soh-Rethel: Class Structure of German Fascism ostensibly both about Germany in the 1930s, actually about planning in conditoons of autarky/containment on the basis of fordist inddustry. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 2:22 AM Subject: [PEN-L:18916] Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd) Schumpeter? Jim Devine wrote: [*] Has anyone ever noticed the similarity between the development of the USSR and that of the Ford Motor Company (or similar "entrepreneurial" corporations)? It starts with the radical idiosyncrasies of the Great Leader (Stalin, Henry Ford, Sr.), who is then replaced by nameless bureaucratic suits who normalize the regime. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
Does this mean that peasant societies were inefficient or that a large portion of the output was siphoned all by landlords and userers? Dennis R Redmond wrote: But didn't this have to do with limited food sources and chronic disease and malnutrition? Peasant societies couldn't sustain year-round work efforts simply because most folks were hungry most of the time (no refrigeration, few reserves, salt was a luxury, etc.), right? -- Dennis -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
How much of the legislation relates to tariffs? Brad De Long wrote: And this is supposed to be an argument that U.S. restrictions on imports of African textiles are for Africans' own good? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: very often of a seasonal nature. If you read Juliette Schor's "The Overworked American", you will discover that the average peasant worked half as many hours as the average proletarian during the rise of the industrial revolution. That is the reason resistance to the Enclosure Acts and bans on hunting was so fierce. But didn't this have to do with limited food sources and chronic disease and malnutrition? Peasant societies couldn't sustain year-round work efforts simply because most folks were hungry most of the time (no refrigeration, few reserves, salt was a luxury, etc.), right? -- Dennis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
My understand of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture is that nutritional standards did decline, but so did the risk of starvation. Agricultural output was less uncertain. Rod Jim Devine wrote: At 02:33 AM 05/13/2000 -0700, you wrote: On Fri, 12 May 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: very often of a seasonal nature. If you read Juliette Schor's "The Overworked American", you will discover that the average peasant worked half as many hours as the average proletarian during the rise of the industrial revolution. That is the reason resistance to the Enclosure Acts and bans on hunting was so fierce. But didn't this have to do with limited food sources and chronic disease and malnutrition? Peasant societies couldn't sustain year-round work efforts simply because most folks were hungry most of the time (no refrigeration, few reserves, salt was a luxury, etc.), right? it has a lot to do with the fact that agricultural is by its very nature seasonal. Schor specifically refers to the change from the peasant agriculture of the European Middle Ages to capitalism. During the Middle Ages, many of the Catholic Church's saints days were actually celebrated -- except during planting and harvest time -- so that work hours per year rose with the transition to capitalism. (I think it's a good idea to avoid the myth of unilineal and no-downside progress. There is also a lot of evidence that living standards fell with the transition from hunting and gathering to farming. But of course, it's mixed.) Most pre-capitalist societies had high death rates rather than lots of chronic diseases, as I understand it. Those who survived the infant phase are tough critters, who lived about "3 score and 10" if they survived waves of plagues. Also, there are a lot of ways to keep reserves besides using salt, such as smoking meat. As others have noted, the standard of living of peasants also depends on the rate of exploitation by the lords, the state, the Church, etc. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- 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: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
I wrote: [*] Has anyone ever noticed the similarity between the development of the USSR and that of the Ford Motor Company (or similar "entrepreneurial" corporations)? It starts with the radical idiosyncrasies of the Great Leader (Stalin, Henry Ford, Sr.), who is then replaced by nameless bureaucratic suits who normalize the regime. Michael P. wrote: Schumpeter? I was thinking maybe John Kenneth Galbraith. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: very often of a seasonal nature. If you read Juliette Schor's "The Overworked American", you will discover that the average peasant worked half as many hours as the average proletarian during the rise of the industrial revolution. That is the reason resistance to the Enclosure Acts and bans on hunting was so fierce. But didn't this have to do with limited food sources and chronic disease and malnutrition? Peasant societies couldn't sustain year-round work efforts simply because most folks were hungry most of the time (no refrigeration, few reserves, salt was a luxury, etc.), right? -- Dennis Either that or people actually *liked* having their teeth fall out... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
In a message dated 00-05-13 17:05:51 EDT, you write: Either that or people actually *liked* having their teeth fall out... Brad DeLong Hey, Brad, revealed preferences, right? --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
At 02:33 AM 05/13/2000 -0700, you wrote: On Fri, 12 May 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: very often of a seasonal nature. If you read Juliette Schor's "The Overworked American", you will discover that the average peasant worked half as many hours as the average proletarian during the rise of the industrial revolution. That is the reason resistance to the Enclosure Acts and bans on hunting was so fierce. But didn't this have to do with limited food sources and chronic disease and malnutrition? Peasant societies couldn't sustain year-round work efforts simply because most folks were hungry most of the time (no refrigeration, few reserves, salt was a luxury, etc.), right? it has a lot to do with the fact that agricultural is by its very nature seasonal. Schor specifically refers to the change from the peasant agriculture of the European Middle Ages to capitalism. During the Middle Ages, many of the Catholic Church's saints days were actually celebrated -- except during planting and harvest time -- so that work hours per year rose with the transition to capitalism. (I think it's a good idea to avoid the myth of unilineal and no-downside progress. There is also a lot of evidence that living standards fell with the transition from hunting and gathering to farming. But of course, it's mixed.) Most pre-capitalist societies had high death rates rather than lots of chronic diseases, as I understand it. Those who survived the infant phase are tough critters, who lived about "3 score and 10" if they survived waves of plagues. Also, there are a lot of ways to keep reserves besides using salt, such as smoking meat. As others have noted, the standard of living of peasants also depends on the rate of exploitation by the lords, the state, the Church, etc. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sowing Dragons (fwd)
At 01:35 PM 05/13/2000 -0400, you wrote: My understand of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture is that nutritional standards did decline, but so did the risk of starvation. Agricultural output was less uncertain. Maybe, but it's not unmixed progress. It's more a matter of a trade-off (which was my point). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
