From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb  1 00:37:53 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 07:37:53 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>

While the burden of proof that Engels wrote one dumb thing after another
IMO should lie on Lew, on rechecking Engels's essay, I happened to find the
following quote by Marx, and it is easier to forward it straight away.

I had thought Lew was reasonably careful but clearly this is an example of
speaking without adequate investigation. That is something which may be
useful to clarify things in a collective study process where no-one can
know everything, but unwise, when you are prepared arrogantly to assert you
know that Marx's co-partner was repeatedly dumb and foolish on the basis of
your subjective views alone.


Lew wrote yesterday:

>Far from being subjective or arbitrary, my previous comment is an
>accurate summation of Engels' position: it is foolish and, moreover, it
>flies in the face of everything Marx wrote about the law of value.  


Capital Vol III, Lawrence and Wishart edition, 1974, p 896. Engels is
quoting from earlier in the book, p 177 in the same edition (emphases as in
original)

"The exchange of commodities at their values, or approximately at their
values, thus requires a *much lower stage* than their exchange at their
prices of production, which requires a definite level of capitalist
development ... Apart from the domination of prices and price movement by
the law of value, it is quite appropriate to regard the values of
commodities not only *theoretically* but also *historically prius* to the
prices of production. This applies to conditions *in which the labourer
owns his means of production*, and this is the condition of the landowning
farmer living off his own labour and the craftsman, in the ancient as well
as the modern world."


Does Lew wish to suggest that Engels was quoting out of context, or that he
planted this passage in Capital? Or that he puts an inappropriate spin on
it, or that the translation is misleading? Or that it is difficult to
understand and that Lew just has a strong gut feeling that Marx is right
and Engels is wrong, but cannot explain why Engels's arguments do seem to
be consistent with Marx's arguments? Certainly not to "fly in the face of
them".

Because otherwise it seems more probable that Lew's remark is a few degrees
dumber than Engels, most specifically in that he lacks the modesty to
ensure there is some basis for his arguments before he shoots his mouth off. 



Chris Burford

London






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Feb  1 04:48:12 1999
From: lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk (Lew)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:48:12 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <h3$TMAA8RZt2Ew+E@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>

In article <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050 at pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris
Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> writes

>Capital Vol III, Lawrence and Wishart edition, 1974, p 896. Engels is
>quoting from earlier in the book, p 177 in the same edition (emphases as in
>original)
>
>"The exchange of commodities at their values, or approximately at their
>values, thus requires a *much lower stage* than their exchange at their
>prices of production, which requires a definite level of capitalist
>development ... Apart from the domination of prices and price movement by
>the law of value, it is quite appropriate to regard the values of
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>commodities not only *theoretically* but also *historically prius* to the
>prices of production. This applies to conditions *in which the labourer
>owns his means of production*, and this is the condition of the landowning
>farmer living off his own labour and the craftsman, in the ancient as well
>as the modern world."

In any society (even a communist society) the products of labour have a
value and so potentially can be expressed as a price. But this is not
the same thing, Chris, as prices being determined by the law of value.
And this is what gets Engels and Chris confused.

A little later in the same work Engels goes on to say (this may be of
interest for those discussing the use of the word "Marxian"):

"In a word: the Marxian law of value holds generally, as far as economic
laws are valid at all, for the whole period of simple commodity
production, that is, up to the time when the latter suffers a
modification through the appearance of the capitalist form of
production. Up to that time prices gravitate towards the values fixed
according to the Marxian law and oscillate around those values, so that
the more fully simple commodity production develops, the more the
average prices over long periods uninterrupted by external violent
disturbances coincide with values within a negligible margin. Thus the
Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a period lasting
from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products into
commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era. But the
exchange of commodities dates from a time before all written history,
which in Egypt goes back to at least 2,500 BC, and perhaps 5,000 BC, and
in Babylon to 4,000 BC, perhaps 6,000 BC; thus the law of value has
prevailed during a period of from five to seven thousand years."

-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb  1 08:06:12 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:06:12 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Marxian, and Marxist
Message-ID: <s6b57cb1.036@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Seems to me Marx's writings can be referred to as just that. Marxian would be writings of others influenced by Marx. Marxists emphasize a unity of writings and actions.

Charles Brown

>>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 01/31 2:37 AM >>>
At 14:19 28/01/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>The adjective "Marxian" means Marx-influenced, not a baptized member of
>>the church. 
>
>Commonly, "Marxist" refers to the broad movement influenced by the work of
>Marx, whereas "Marxian" refers to Marx's writings.
>
>Andy

For his sake, my sake, and the sake of the debate, I have not been
prioritising Andrew's posts recently, but on this question of terminology,
my understanding is as he has stated it.

Chris Burford

London




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb  1 09:55:52 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 11:55:52 -0500
Subject: M-TH: naming the canon
Message-ID: <s6b5966a.033@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Did I mention that Engels was an artillery officer and new a lot about cannons ?

>>> "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> 01/29 5:02 PM >>>
How about Eleanor Marx ?

>>> Russ <r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> 01/29 4:56 AM >>>
Doubting Doug declares:


>Speaking of which, who exactly are they? What writers would participants
>nominate as the major figures of the classical Marxist canon?
>
>Doug

Interesting one this, reminds me of a comment in a short lived British 
mag called _Analysis_, written by renegades of James' ol' RCP, it took a 
nifty line on modern imperialist struggles: conjecturing a future war 
between the US and Japan for example. But I digress. In a review of 
Grossman's work on crisis (bloody title escapes me), Analysis's editor 
declared that it is one of only 6 genuinely marxist works written this 
century. Note that these Analysis guys were heavy on method, they took 
seriously Lukacs comment that Marxism is a methodology not a catechism. 
Now I'd add Lenin's philosophical notebooks, but given their tentative 
and sketchy character I don't know whether this is a bit of a dubious 
inclusion. Rosdolsky for sure, History and Class Consciousness, 
Jakubowski, but what of the rest? 
And is it a genuine claim, or can any old radical rag-tag tittle-tattle 
pass as good marxist coin?


Russ


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb  1 15:08:41 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:08:41 +0000
Subject: M-TH: commodities and organic bodies
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990131193457.21240A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990131192627.01441bac@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990201220841.012ebd20@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 19:35 31/01/99 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>
>Chris does not understand the concept of illustration, does he?
>
>Incredible!

So Andrew has to argue that for Marx this is mere illustration, a mere
coincidence of forms, with no implied comparison of underlying structure.

Marx the materialist, the devotee of dialectics, the fan of science and the
student of political economy, must have been very diligent in keeping his
illustrations which imply a comparison between the natural world and the
human world, strictly superficial with absolutely no implication that the
underlying structure of the inanimate world might be conducive to
dialectical analysis too. Because if he did not, Andrew's arbitrary
distinction between Marx and Engels on the question of dialectics in the
natural world, would fall to the ground.

That Andrew can persuade himself that he can read the passage merely as a
superficial illustration, is not surprising. 

That he expects every other would-be Marxist to read the passage and assume
Marx had a separate analytical technique for the natural world and the
economic world, *is* surprising.


Chris Burford

London




>
>Andy
>
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Chris Burford wrote:
>
>>A further example from Marx of the way he conceived his mode of analysis of
>>economics as inseparable from and directly comparable with his mode of
>>analysis of the natural world:
>>
>>>From the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859):
>>(Section 1 Chapter 1, app 4th page)
>>
>>"The dissolution of all commodities into labor time is no greater an
>>abstraction, and no less real, than the dissolution of all organic bodies
>>into air."
>>
>>Incredible!
>>
>>
>>Chris Burford
>>
>>London
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb  1 15:13:04 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:13:04 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <h3$TMAA8RZt2Ew+E@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c@pop.gn.apc.org>


On 31st January Lew wrote:

>It may have slipped your memory, Chris, but you brought up this subject
>on Thaxis over a year ago. You were the one who queried Engels' claim.

This presumably refers to my post of 14th March 1998: 

>I would urge Boddhi to read the readable appendix by Engels to volume III
>of Capital on the Law of Value. Here he discusses historically how over a
>period of 7,000 years commodities did indeed exchange within communities
>roughly in a ratio equivalent to the necessary labour time. This is "simple
>commodity production". However with industrial capitalism there is a
>divergence away from the approximate equivalence.
>
>Whether this is the full explanation is not clear to me. 


On re-reading this does not appear to me to be so very agnostic, certainly
not by comarison with Lew's militant agnosticism:


>Is the law of value thousands of years old? I don't think so! Another
>dumb statement by Engels that only obscures Marx's theory.

And in the following post, only slightly more nuanced:

> my previous comment is an accurate summation of Engels' position: it is
foolish and,
> moreover, it flies in the face of everything Marx wrote about the law of
value. 


Now if Engels, having edited Volume 3 of Capital, has appended an essay
which flies in the face of everything Marx wrote about the law of value,
this is interesting indeed. Perhaps worthy even of the pages of the more
intellectual Sunday newspapers. Comparable to Freud allegedly concealing
the evidence of childhood sexual abuse.

So it is disappointing that Lew's latest comment is one that has nothing to
do with development over thousands of years of history. But is an
unexceptional remark about the relationship of the law of value to prices
at all times:


>In any society (even a communist society) the products of labour have a
>value and so potentially can be expressed as a price. But this is not
>the same thing, Chris, as prices being determined by the law of value.
>And this is what gets Engels and Chris confused.


If I really am confused and Engels is confused, then I am flattered at the
comparison. But my own views are not terribly important in the scale of
human history, and the major proposition that we are dealing with is that
Lew can discern that Engels is not only confused on a point, (not
impossible in the process of clarification of complex ideas) but that he
makes "dumb" remarks one after the other, which fortunately Lew is
discerning enough to see through. Which, if so, does matter somewhat more
in the scale of human history.


Lew however seems to be to confused by his certainty that he must be right
and Engels must be dumb, that he cannot address the question. He cannot
explain how he is so sure that the law of value cannot be thousands of
years old, and that this flies in the face of everything that Marx wrote
about the law of value, but here we have a passage from Marx saying that
the law of value, apart from equilibration of the prices of production
which occurs under capitalism, existed in the ancient world.

How can Lew be so intellectually confident in his confusion? I suggest he
must be imposing some sort of idealist disputational framework on the texts
of Marx and Engels, instead of seeing the actual dynamic they were
describing. It seems likely that this is ahistorical. But if Lew does have
a theory of the history of the law of value, and it is not that of Engels,
what is it? and how sure is he that it is that of Marx?

Chris Burford


______________________________________________________________




At 11:48 01/02/99 +0000, Lew wrote:
>In article <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050 at pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris
>Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> writes
>
>>Capital Vol III, Lawrence and Wishart edition, 1974, p 896. Engels is
>>quoting from earlier in the book, p 177 in the same edition (emphases as in
>>original)
>>
>>"The exchange of commodities at their values, or approximately at their
>>values, thus requires a *much lower stage* than their exchange at their
>>prices of production, which requires a definite level of capitalist
>>development ... Apart from the domination of prices and price movement by
>>the law of value, it is quite appropriate to regard the values of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>commodities not only *theoretically* but also *historically prius* to the
>>prices of production. This applies to conditions *in which the labourer
>>owns his means of production*, and this is the condition of the landowning
>>farmer living off his own labour and the craftsman, in the ancient as well
>>as the modern world."
>
>In any society (even a communist society) the products of labour have a
>value and so potentially can be expressed as a price. But this is not
>the same thing, Chris, as prices being determined by the law of value.
>And this is what gets Engels and Chris confused.
>
>A little later in the same work Engels goes on to say (this may be of
>interest for those discussing the use of the word "Marxian"):
>
>"In a word: the Marxian law of value holds generally, as far as economic
>laws are valid at all, for the whole period of simple commodity
>production, that is, up to the time when the latter suffers a
>modification through the appearance of the capitalist form of
>production. Up to that time prices gravitate towards the values fixed
>according to the Marxian law and oscillate around those values, so that
>the more fully simple commodity production develops, the more the
>average prices over long periods uninterrupted by external violent
>disturbances coincide with values within a negligible margin. Thus the
>Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a period lasting
>from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products into
>commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era. But the
>exchange of commodities dates from a time before all written history,
>which in Egypt goes back to at least 2,500 BC, and perhaps 5,000 BC, and
>in Babylon to 4,000 BC, perhaps 6,000 BC; thus the law of value has
>prevailed during a period of from five to seven thousand years."
>
>-- 
>Lew
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From magellan at netrio.com.br  Tue Feb  2 01:31:07 1999
From: magellan at netrio.com.br (R. Magellan)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:31:07 -0200
Subject: M-TH: How can we stand in solidarity with Brazil and Argentina?
Message-ID: <199902020831.GAA11993@lin.momentus.com.br>


I answer below to a dialogue under the same subject that took place in 
another international list which I am not a subscriber to.  I think that you 
will find some interesting information about the present Brazilian situation.  

It is also a good example of a plague that is not specifically Brazilian, 
but that is growing everywhere: how people with a certain progressive 
inclination may harbor  reactionary thoughts, how a new world that is not 
born yet is so tied up to the old world that refuses to die.   How Gramscian 
this sounds!   

Oh, before reading it, please cease to call the Brazilian currency as  
__rial__   for its name is  __real__.   Calling it  "rial"  makes me feel 
like a Saudi potentate, since rial is the Saudi currency.  It is not a 
coincidence of names:  it is the same name spelled in two different ways.  
Remember that  __real__  is an ancient coin of the Iberian peninsula and 
that the Cordoba Caliphate was the center of the Islamic world between the 
VIII and XI th centuries.

What is the biggest problem of Brazil today? 
The coming impeachment or resignation of FHC (president Fernando Henrique 
Cardoso)
****************************************************************************
**********
Paulo C?sar de CAMARGO is a Brazilian that read the first part of my message 
whose subject is "Desastre brasileiro //  Brazilian disaster" without the 
accompanying article by Chossudovsky (parts 2nd and 3rd).  Eric Fawcett is a 
Canadian subscriber to that list.

Chossudovsky's  excellent piece is among the top 3 articles about the 
Brazilian crisis that I have ever read in the latest 14 months.  He shows 
that he knows Brazil better than Brazilian economists and politicians whose 
heads lie at 700, 19th Street, Washington  (the headquarters of IMF) and who 
are organically linked to the dominant classes and very specially to the 
financial system. 
.
CAMARGO.	I found the text below a bit naive and I do not believe FHC team is 
the kind of people that are considering to go to Miami if things go wrong.  
Probably the biggest problem in Brazil nowadays is the lack of political 
tradition. 

FAWCETT.	 I agree that the lack of a political tradition in Brazil makes the 
situation far worse, but in countries with a long tradition things aren't so 
good. In particular, the USA itself is almost ungovernable, let alone 
competent to act responsaibly as the world's sole superpower.

MAGELLAN.	One may see ahead that Camargo has distorted what I wrote.  The 
text was wrote in a hurry in two foreign languages and the most part is 
composed by citations of  Chossudovsky.  Is Camargo referring to 
Chossudovsky being naive?

Is  "the biggest problem in Brazil nowadays the lack of political 
tradition"?    Oh, what a naive fool I really am !   Just a second ago I 
thought that the biggest problems of Brazil  nowadays  --- and growing 
ones----    are  hunger, disease, homelessness, and mass unemployment.  
Aren't them anymore, Camargo?   

What do you, Camargo, mean as  "political tradition"?   Every people on 
Earth has its own political tradition for the simple reason that men 
necessarily live in society.   Brazil, as you know quite well, is a giantic 
continent-country of 160 million people with a very rich political and 
cultural history that comprises at least 4 different countries within 
herself, each of them with their own history, tradition and cultural frames. 
 Each one of these inner  "countries" moves this piebald mastodont called 
Brazil at different paces.  

Things are changing swiftly and the social movements  (either spontaneous or 
organized ones) are now surpassing organized institutions and parties, 
including the vacillant PT (Workers Party).  Pay attention, for instance, to 
the growing movement of solidarity towards the fight of the 7,000 
autoworkers  (minimum number) that were already fired by GM, Ford and 
Volkswagen or are menaced to be fired.

Is the FHC  team not the kind of people that are considering to go to Miami 
if things go wrong?   Well, the first neoliberal emperor, dom Fernando I 
(Fernando Collor), who was outsted by the Parliament on corruption charges, 
now lives in a golden exile in Miami.   I concede that the main rascal of 
today is a very sophisticated guy and will rather prefer Paris to the 
nouvelle-riche Miami.

Pedro Malan  (the present Finance Minister) and Gustavo Franco (the former 
president of the Central Bank) will become well paid employees of  IMF or of 
the banks  (they already are by their deeds!), as it is very common in 
Brazil.   Remember, Camargo, that even right wing politicians often refer to 
the scandalous permanent promiscuity ("promiscuidade permanente", as they 
derisorily say) between the high federal financial officers and the banking 
system.  I would like very much that dom Fernando II  and all the rest of 
them go to hell, and I hope that it be Camargo's  wish too.

Don't bet your devaluated money on FHC political survival, Camargo!   The 
dominant classes have already realized that a very heavy social turmoil lies 
ahead and they need   "to make the revolution before the people does it", in 
the best Brazilian tradition...    Cardoso is soon to play the role of 
scapegoat, as Collor did some years ago.  They already are beginning to 
promote the impeachment of Cardoso on charges of  mismanagement and 
political irresponsability  (and perhaps on corruption charges, related to 
the Telebr?s/Telef?nica de Espa?a affair and to the mysterious Cayman funds).   

Take the following examples.  Last Friday, the editorial of the conservative 
and monarchist newspaper  "Jornal do Brasil" was short of saying  "Cardoso, 
step down!"  The mild reactionary newspaper  "Folha de S?o Paulo" is now 
turning its batteries against Cardoso.   The president of the Rio de Janeiro 
Stock Exchange declared that if Cardoso insists in remaining loyal to the 
IMF policies  (what he will certainly do) he should go away.

To the Brazilian people is of no interest to overplace Cardoso with 
vice-president Marco Maciel.  Maciel is a very reactionary politician that 
served quite well to the military dictatorship of 1964/1985 and he is linked 
to the archreactionary great landlords of the impoverished Brazilian 
Northern-East.  The whole gang of  bankers and latifundists must go and a 
popular government endowed with dictatorial powers, as in 1889 and 1930, 
must take the necessary steps to reverse the worst features of the 
neoliberal chaos.  A popular dictatorship, however a transient one, is needed.

Alternatives  // There already is a general moratorium in Brazil
**************************************************************************
CAMARGO.	I understand that global economy is not run for the well being of 
people in general, as it is very clearly exposed by Marilyn Waring in her 
video Who's Counting , but it is also clear that the options to oppose  
neoliberalism are not presented with clear basis. It is not enough to say 
moratorium is the solution

FAWCETT.	You are of course right to say there is no clear solution to the 
chaos of the "new world order". The best hope is that MANY people are 
questioning it.

MAGELLAN.	Oh, it is damn good to know that globalism (the present stage of 
capitalism, better saying)  "is not run for the well being of people in 
general".    But...   in general?   Camargo, would this mean that there are 
exceptions which sometimes make the global economy DOES RUN  "for the well 
being of people"?  Who runs it in such philantropic occasions and how it is 
so managed? 

I never said that  "moratorium is the solution".  Camargo is putting words 
in my mouth  What I clearly said in two languages was:  

		We must clearly say to the people that the coming situation, even with a 
government of the present opposition, will be very difficult.  The general  
default on debts (moratorium) must be decreed, both internal and external,  
as well as the mandatory reduction of debts and the confiscation of the 
financial system.  A harsh repression against economic and social saboteurs 
and speculators must be launched.   .
.
The accumulation of  public wealth in the hands of the financial 
speculators, both Brazilian and foreign, has backlashed on the economy 
causing assets and people standing idle and increasing business closures, 
layoffs and corporate bankruptcies.  As it necessarily happens in such 
situations, there is an accompanying collapse in the standard of living that 
feedbacks the vicious circle of permanent crisis.  

For instance, flats and houses are left by their former tenants who are 
forced to live in slums for having no money to pay rents.   Slums in the 
city of Rio de Janeiro increased about 50 times   ---I said fifty, not 
five---    between 1992 and 1997   (good years, according to the neoliberal 
standards!).   In this city alone more than 800 thousand dwellings, pieces 
of land and business premises   (that is to say the most part of the city)  
are subject to mandatory public auction for paying the real estate tax on 
arrears   ---but even so they will hardly find buyers!

Quite ironically, financial institutions are being backfired by their own 
behavior.  Bankers think that interest grows in trees...     A  __de facto__ 
 moratorium is already a reality in Brazil, but Camargo seems to ignore it.  
 Let's see:

a) the level of nonperforming loans to companies (including big ones) and to 
individuals is by far the highest in our history and keeps growing;
b) the bad debts allowances also are the highest, according to auditors;   
c) a growing number of employers are paying only part of salaries or are 
illegally reducing them and are delaying the payment of taxes;   
d) other companies are illegally paying salaries with their own goods, so 
turning workers into sellers;   
e) several State governors are saying that from March on they will not be 
able to pay the wages of civil servants, even in those cases that wages are 
already in arrears;  
f) in many places public hospitals are without fuel for their ambulances, 
police cars are kept permanently parked, children are without schools, etc., 
because States and Municipalities must give priority to the payment of interest;
g) the courts are overflooded with judicial suits against usury and 
anatocism and now against payments with dollar-indexation clauses.    

It is a Russian-like situation !   A formal and generalized moratorium 
decree, both on internal and external debts, will solely recognize a 
situation that has already became a snowball and will legally give everybody 
a pause to breathe.  It will be the only means to put the economy back to 
work in a higher level.   Moratorium already is an economic necessity.  Of 
course, the Shylocks, both Brazilian and foreign, must pay for the crisis.  
That is the minimum that a decent government would do, but this is not the 
case of Cardoso and of the financial gangsters around him.

The options to oppose  neoliberalism are quite clear:  they lie in opposing 
the social formation that has liberalism embodied in its working logic, what 
means to oppose capitalism, be it private capitalism or state capitalism.  
There is no clear    __path__   to sort out from the chaos of the  New World 
Disorder, but the solution is clear:  ENTWEDER SOZIALISMUS, ODER BARBAREI !   

The privatization scam  // Revolution //  
Cardoso's dictatorial backwardness 
**********************************************
CAMARGO.	The wild privatization is one of the aspects where one can clearly 
see the contradictions. At one side are the people against privatization for 
reasons that goes from private interest to philosophycal conviction, at the 
other side are also people with the same kind of reasons, together with 
neoliberalism. The final result being Bad Privatization because no one 
really care about the format of privatization. The essencially question 
being to gain or to loose politically.    We do not need to go backwards 
with a revolution which needs strong government, we ought to improve our 
political culture and in this sense the oposition has the most relevant 
contribution to give, showing how privatization has to be done, what 
conditions must be imposed.

MAGELLAN.	Why a revolution would make Brazil goes backward, dear Camargo?   
Are revolutions backward movements or they are rather movements against 
backwardness?   Libert?, ?galit?, fraternit? ! The Brazilian people is 
awakening and they themselves will decide in the streets, as they are 
already deciding in a revolutionary way in the countryside, with MST (the 
Landless Movement).   Revolutions, either peaceful or violent ones, are the 
best way to improve the political culture and the life of whichever people.  
Better saying:  they are THE improvement itself.

Brazil is going backwards pretty well under the neoliberal governments, 
beginning with Collor and now under Cardoso. Camargo, forget everything else 
and think, for instance, about a sole thing:  epidemic diseases that had 
been throughout eliminated around the year 1900 by the great sanitarian 
doctor Osvaldo Cruz   ---malaria, yellow fever and cholera morbus---   are 
back in full glamour 100 years later and with new sisters  (dengue and 
AIDS), and as a special gift, a mass upsurge of that old disease of the 
romantic poets, tuberculosis  (today meaning, as in Russia, malnutrition and 
not poetry).

Camargo forgets that the Cardoso government has been up to now a strong 
government, practically in the dictatorial sense.  He has ruling since 1994 
under decree-laws, which are often being used in an unconstitutional way  
(what is also happening in Argentina).  He has been successful into making 
the 1988 Constitution, that was the most progressive bourgeois constitution 
in the world, in a mockery of dozens of casuistic amendments dictated by the 
financial capital, and at least one of them through bribery.   Cardoso has 
transformed the ordinary Federal Congress (parliament) into an incredible 
permanent constitutional assembly, what is in itself completely 
unconstitutional !    We already live under the neoliberal dictatorship, 
Camargo!   It is a common saying in Brazil, do you forget?

Even the freedom of speech is denied, since the press  (both the common and 
the specialized press), the book industry, radio and TV lie in the hands of  
some great private monopolies.  Among them the nefarious Globo group, one of 
the world's largest and surely the most shameful manipulator of them all.   
These Big Brother  monopolies have been able in keeping the people ill 
informed on purpose, as Camargo himself is an example.

Camargo, I don't believe that you write that  the  "opposition has the most 
relevant contribution to give, showing how privatization has to be done, 
what conditions must be imposed".   Hell, why the mission of the left-wing 
parties would be to help the bourgeoisie, both Brazilian and foreign?  Why 
our mission should be to enrich the plunderers of the Brazilian people by 
supporting the criminal process of privatization, that is throwing away at 
vile prices more than 50 years of building an industrial economy, that is 
reducing us to a new colonial status and that is eliminating the chances of 
social advancement of the workers?

You can't put as equals those who favour privatization of the state 
functions  (even police and schools !!) and of state-owned enterprises with 
those who oppose it.   Yours is not a political judgement.   You are 
completely ill informed when you say  "no one really care about the format 
of privatization".    The  PT (Workers Party)  proposal    ---ironically, 
with the silent support of the Armed Forces-- opposed the privatization of 
the strategic sectors, as electricity, oil and communication.   Since 
privatization seemed to be politically invincible, there was another 
proposal written by Tarso Genro and other PT leaders together with experts: 
to turn the state-owned companies   (many of them were partially 
state-owned) into really public companies, under the direct control of 
organized workers and representative institutions.

Privatization in the whole world  has probably been the most massive 
transfer of  state and public wealth in short term to the purses of big 
capitalists at bargain prices.  It began in the days of Thatcher, the Milk 
Snatcher, as the children of the British working class referred to her.   In 
certain cases, as in the enormous privatization processes of Russia and 
Brazil, privatization was rather a scam.  

The sale of the Telebr?s group in the mid-98   (a mixed-owned corporation)  
was an example.  It was said to be the largest single privatization ever in 
the world.   Its selling price  fell suddenly, without intelligible 
explanation, to about 1/3 of the initial target price.  The federal 
ministers practiced actively and shamelessly the sponsorship of the opposing 
bidders.  The great winner, Telef?nica de Espa?a, will be financed with 
Brazilian federal resources at low interest rates   ----   a true colonial 
dealing!   The price of the sale disappeared in less than a week during the 
first great flight of speculative capital, in September, 1998.  Now, 
Telef?nica paid the second instalment  __after__  the devaluation of the 
real, what in practice 
meant a  40%  discount.  Jurists said that the federal government could 
revert the unexpected loss in the courts based on the  __rebus sic 
stantibus__    doctrine of keping the equilibrium among the contracting 
parties, but the Cardoso government is too much colonially-minded to act 
accordingly.

One must keep in mind that the privatization is just a feature of the 
colonial dominantion of the world by the big corporations.    Gustavo 
Franco, the former arrogant president of the Brazilian Central Bank, dared 
to say in an interview that the Real Plan has made great private Brazilian 
corporations too cheap and so they should be bought by foreign investors   
(well, the Plan led many of them to become technically broken). So, 
privatization also means the expropriation of the local entrepeneurs.  Let's 
finish with Chossudovsky lessons on this issue: 

                "The programmed bankruptcy" of domestic producers has been 
instrumented through the credit squeeze (ie. extremely high interest rates), 
not to
mention the threat by Finance Minister Pedro Malan to allow for trade
liberalisation and (import) commodity dumping with a view to "freezing
price increases" and obliging domestic enterprises "to be more
competitive"    Combined with interest rates above 50 percent, the
consequence of this policy for many domestic producers is tantamount to
bankruptcy, -- ie. pushing domestic prices below costs..."

                "This ruthless demise of local industry --engineered by 
macro- economic
reform-- has also created an "enabling environment" which empowers foreign
capital to take over the internal market, reinforce its stranglehold over 
domestic banking and enable it to pick up the most profitable productive 
assets at bargain prices..."

                "In other words, the financial crisis (evolving from the 
inception of the
Real Plan in 1994) has created conditions which favour the  rapid 
recolonisation of the Brazilian economy. The depreciation of the Real will 
speed up the privatisation programme as well as depress the book value (in 
Reales) of State assets. The IMF's "up- front fiscal adjustment" --combined 
with mounting debt and continued capital flight-- spells economic disaster, 
fragmentation of the federal fiscal structure and
social dislocation."

The present Brazilian situation    ---a crisis within a permanent crisis 
that comes back to 1978---   is one more step in the general crisis of the 
last stage of world capitalism, under which the financial capital assumes 
full control over the economic system.   Its main feature is the so called 
"social exclusion":   the end of the labor system based upon wages 
(salaries) and the widespread, growing and irreversible mass unemployment 
all over the world  (I prefer to use  __unoccupation__   or  
__disocuppation__ , both of them horrendous  English neologisms of mine that 
avoid the juridical narrowness of the word  "unemployment")

In solidarity,  
Roberto Magellan
 
Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans  (....)
Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand PARTI DES TRAVAILLEURS.  (L' Internationale)



               



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Feb  2 02:19:55 1999
From: lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk (Lew)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:19:55 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <h3$TMAA8RZt2Ew+E@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <8yuEdAA7Mst2EwNY@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>

In article <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c at pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris
Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> writes

>Now if Engels, having edited Volume 3 of Capital, has appended an essay
>which flies in the face of everything Marx wrote about the law of value,
>this is interesting indeed. Perhaps worthy even of the pages of the more
>intellectual Sunday newspapers. Comparable to Freud allegedly concealing
>the evidence of childhood sexual abuse.

Not new. I have earlier mentioned Chris Arthur's book _Engels
Today_(1996) which covers this point. It is also dealt with in detail in
an article by Cyril Smith in the Summer 97 issue of _Capital & Class_.
Smith comments on the passage of Engels I quoted:

"It is remarkable how directly this conclusion drawn by Marx's closest
collaborator contradicts clear statements of Marx himself. Certainly,
Marx made deep studies of the historical development of commodities,
money and capital. But these must be seen as illustrations of his
logical analyses, not explanations or 'proofs' of them."

At the time of this publication of _Capital & Class_, you wrote to
thaxis in June 97, quoting the same passage from Engels:

>Lew stated on 26th May:
>
>"The
>economic law of capitalism, Marx's law of value, is in fact quite
>specific to capitalism."
>
>
>
>
>Now Engel's in the "LAW OF VALUE AND RATE OF PROFIT" 1895
>published as an addendum to volume III of capital 
>wrote:
>
>"Thus, the
>Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a period lasting
>from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products into
>commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era."
>
>In the same article he says: " the
>law of value has prevailed during a period of from five to seven
>thousand years"
>
>
>No one challenged Lew at the time, and I presume
>his statement did not stick in anyones eye so it may have been
>accepted by a number of people as an uncontroversial
>marxist statement. I raise this now not
>really to point score, but I would be interested in 
>how Lew, and others, think we should think about this 
>discrepancy. 
>
>Comments?

No comment.
-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Tue Feb  2 05:36:34 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 99 12:36:34 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <199902021236.MAA11391@vertigo.derby.ac.uk>

>"Thus, the
>Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a period lasting
>from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products into
>commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era."
>
>In the same article he says: " the
>law of value has prevailed during a period of from five to seven
>thousand years"

Yes n No. Bit of a dialectic here. Aristotle gets ripped off buying a 
Delphian knife sandals and houses etc- law of value in operation. Law of 
value acting in Ancient Greece? Not particularly- Commodity production is 
not the general form of production there. It's specific to capitalism.
Make commodities only specific to capitalism is to deny reality. But to 
therefore universalise them, is to make capitalism transhistoric. Ooh-er 
no missus.

'Always historicize, the one transhistoric imperative' Jameson


Russ


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb  2 07:17:14 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 09:17:14 -0500
Subject: M-TH: commodities and organic bodies
Message-ID: <s6b6c2b0.028@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Yes, Chris, Marx sprinkles these through his writing, and I agree with you that he doesn't do it as superficial decoration ;or even worse, it effectively would amount to a mystification and misleading of people. Why would he put little tricks to fool some people , lead them up blind allies ? If they are superficial then they have a tendency to mislead.

 The dialectic of natural history is a heuristic for Marx in elucidating the dialectic of human class history. The opposite of the Hegelian dialectic that he is attempting is exactly to substitute for the anthropocentric, subject self-reflection dialectic,  an objective , social dialectic; he is formulating an object-subject dialectic in place of the Hegelian subject-object. And he uses dialectics he discovers in natural sciences as a way to think about the artificial but naturallike dialectic which class antagonisms impose on human society. I think also that the Hegelian dialectic is too individualist and not social enough. Hegel's master/slave trope is about the same as Robinson Crusoe and Friday, not fully social  or relations of production.  Anyway, I appreciate your collecting these illustrations or emblematic  teaching tools.

Charles Brown

Detroit

>>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 02/01 5:08 PM >>>
At 19:35 31/01/99 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>
>Chris does not understand the concept of illustration, does he?
>
>Incredible!

So Andrew has to argue that for Marx this is mere illustration, a mere
coincidence of forms, with no implied comparison of underlying structure.

Marx the materialist, the devotee of dialectics, the fan of science and the
student of political economy, must have been very diligent in keeping his
illustrations which imply a comparison between the natural world and the
human world, strictly superficial with absolutely no implication that the
underlying structure of the inanimate world might be conducive to
dialectical analysis too. Because if he did not, Andrew's arbitrary
distinction between Marx and Engels on the question of dialectics in the
natural world, would fall to the ground.

That Andrew can persuade himself that he can read the passage merely as a
superficial illustration, is not surprising. 

That he expects every other would-be Marxist to read the passage and assume
Marx had a separate analytical technique for the natural world and the
economic world, *is* surprising.


Chris Burford

London




>
>Andy
>
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Chris Burford wrote:
>
>>A further example from Marx of the way he conceived his mode of analysis of
>>economics as inseparable from and directly comparable with his mode of
>>analysis of the natural world:
>>
>>>From the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859):
>>(Section 1 Chapter 1, app 4th page)
>>
>>"The dissolution of all commodities into labor time is no greater an
>>abstraction, and no less real, than the dissolution of all organic bodies
>>into air."
>>
>>Incredible!
>>
>>
>>Chris Burford
>>
>>London
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From magellan at netrio.com.br  Tue Feb  2 08:33:15 1999
From: magellan at netrio.com.br (R. Magellan)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:33:15 -0200
Subject: M-TH: (ing) BRAZIL: SOROS RULES
Message-ID: <199902021533.NAA20576@lin.momentus.com.br>


This Tuesday morning Arm?nio Fraga Neto, the Soros man in Brazil, overplaced 
Francisco Lopes as the new president of the BCB  -- the Brazilian Central 
Bank. The nomination of a Soros agent for the second financial federal 
function in importance is going to backfire against president Fernando 
Henrique Cardoso.  It will be another nail in his political coffin, since 
indignation has been the most common first reaction at the left and, to a 
lesser extent, at the right too. According to the well informed JB radio, of 
Rio de Janeiro, Soros's  first words of "surprise" recommend Brazil to prove 
now to be a trustworthy   __partner__  of the international financial   
__community__.   Bad joke!

Finance Minister Pedro Malan, the closest ally of US banks in Brazil, has 
menaced to resign if he could not be allowed to fire Lopes. President FH 
Cardoso, that is pathetically being weakened each passing day, accepted the 
former's  ultimatum.  
Lopes had just overplaced about two weeks ago Gustavo Franco as president of 
the BCB.  Lopes was the mind behind the recent devaluation of the real, 
though Franco, an ultraorthodox neoliberal, sternly opposed it.  

Once in office, Lopes soon entered into a public collision course with the 
Argentinian president Carlos Menem as this latter required financial 
compensations from Brazil over the real devaluation affair and strongly 
advised the Cardoso team on the needing of a semiconfiscation of debts 
through dollarization and on the adoption of the currency board system  (the 
so called Bonex plan as applied in Argentina).  Menem even suggested that 
the whole Latin America substitutes the US dollar for its national 
currencies as soon as possible.  To this last remark Lopes wittily answered 
in an interview:  why Menem doesn't propose outrightly that we all adopt the 
Constitution of Puerto Rico?

So, the dismissal of Francisco Lopes was another victory of neoliberal 
colonialism over the Brazilian people.  Oh, needless to say that Menem often 
thinks that he is the Viceroy of Latin America too...

In solidarity,  
Roberto Magellan
 
Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans  (....)
Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand PARTI DES TRAVAILLEURS.  (L' Internationale)



               



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb  2 09:04:14 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 11:04:14 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <s6b6dbbf.019@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Class struggle is a transhistoric imperative. See first sentence of _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_.

Charles

>>> Russ <r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> 02/02 7:36 AM >>>
>"Thus, the
>Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a period lasting
>from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products into
>commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era."
>
>In the same article he says: " the
>law of value has prevailed during a period of from five to seven
>thousand years"

Yes n No. Bit of a dialectic here. Aristotle gets ripped off buying a 
Delphian knife sandals and houses etc- law of value in operation. Law of 
value acting in Ancient Greece? Not particularly- Commodity production is 
not the general form of production there. It's specific to capitalism.
Make commodities only specific to capitalism is to deny reality. But to 
therefore universalise them, is to make capitalism transhistoric. Ooh-er 
no missus.

'Always historicize, the one transhistoric imperative' Jameson


Russ


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Tue Feb  2 09:18:49 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 99 16:18:49 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <199902021618.QAA11757@vertigo.derby.ac.uk>

>Class struggle is a transhistoric imperative. See first sentence of _The
>Manifesto of the Communist Party_.


Blistering barnacles. Abandon ship we're doomed!

unless 'all *hitherto* known societies...' has any especial meaning!!!

Russ




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb  2 09:34:48 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 11:34:48 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <s6b6e2f9.008@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Not "all" hitherto existing societies, "some 
more than one", would constitute "transhistoric". 

trans - across, on the other side; beyond.

Not necessarily across ALL, just across more than one.

Thus, something common to the different historical periods of slavery, feudalism and capitalism , is transhistoric. 

It doesn't have to be universal in human history to be transhistoric.

The famous footnote added by Engels limits class struggle as not universal to human societies. after the breakup of the ancient communes or something like that.

Class struggles exist across several historic epochs, each with its own law of motion , but a  species of  class struggle. Thus, class struggle is transhistoric. Ancient communism was not and the hoped for future communism will not be class antagonistic socieities.


CB

>>> Russ <r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> 02/02 11:18 AM >>>
>Class struggle is a transhistoric imperative. See first sentence of _The
>Manifesto of the Communist Party_.


Blistering barnacles. Abandon ship we're doomed!

unless 'all *hitherto* known societies...' has any especial meaning!!!

Russ




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb  2 14:46:17 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 16:46:17 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Who's Sticking to
Message-ID: <s6b72beb.009@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Who's Sticking to the Union?

ANDREW HACKER 

New York Review, February 18, 1999 

(Complete article is at http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/index.html)

--From the Ashes of the Old: American Labor and America's Future by Stanley
Aronowitz 246 pages, $25.00 (hardcover) published by Houghton Mifflin 

--Combating the Resurgence of Organized Labor: A Modern Guide to Union
Prevention by Alfred T. DeMaria, 544 pages, $125.00 (paperback), published
by Communications Training Institute 

--The Unions and the Democrats: An Enduring Alliance by Taylor E. Dark, 233
pages, $37.50, published by Cornell University Press 

--Graduate Student Unionization Controversy at Yale University by the Yale
University Office of Public Affairs and
www.yale.edu/opa/gradschool/gradschool.html 

The statistics are striking. At the end of 1997, when the most recent
complete count was made, 14.1 percent of employed Americans belonged to
unions, the lowest proportion since 1936. At the close of World War II,
when membership was at its height, 35.3 percent of working men and women
carried union cards. 

Currently, 41.9 percent of union members are in the public sector, up from
25.8 percent twenty years ago. During this period, also, the number of
women rose from 22.7 percent to 39.4 percent of total membership rolls.
Moreover, 55.7 percent of union members have attended college, almost
exactly the ratio for the workforce as a whole. Among the most strongly
organized occupations are firefighters (71.6 percent), flight attendants
(69.4 percent), and high school teachers (56.1 percent). Only 28.6 percent
of coal miners now belong to unions, and only 19.5 percent of truck drivers. 

The teamsters union, with the son of Jimmy Hoffa as its new president,
currently has 1.4 million members, down from 2.3 million when his father
was its head. (Nor is there much likelihood that these losses will be
reversed, as Hoffa's support comes largely from local satraps who have
shown little interest in mounting organizing drives.) During the last two
decades, the wage advantage for unionized workers with private jobs has
fallen by 44.1 percent, although in the public sector it has moved up 9.5
percent.1 

The reasons for the fall in membership have been much discussed. One cause,
clearly, has been the decline of manufacturing in America and the transfer
of much manufacturing work abroad. Because of labor-saving innovations,
moreover, fewer people are needed to make steel or assemble cars. As a
result, 16.1 percent of US workers now work in factories, down from 22.8
percent twenty years ago. There are also fewer people on corporate
payrolls, which in the past were more likely to sign industrywide
contracts. In the latest available count, the 800 largest US firms employed
17.0 percent of the overall workforce, against 25.7 percent twenty years
earlier. Many of these companies now have much of their work done abroad or
farm it out to relatively small domestic suppliers. Nike does not make a
single sneaker in the United States; many publishers are sending
typesetting overseas; insurance companies are having paperwork processed
abroad. 

At home, corporate jobs are frequently assigned to temporary workers, who
are often classed as "independent contractors," and are not easily reached
in union organizing campaigns. Indeed, there are fewer long-term jobs,
something union seniority could once guarantee. Last year, among men aged
forty to forty-five, only 39.1 percent had worked ten or more years for
their current employer, compared with 51.1 percent in 1983. 

"Back to the Future" could have been an alternate title of Stanley
Aronowitz's plea for a revitalized labor movement. The famous labor leaders
of the 1930s-Walter Reuther of the auto workers, John L. Lewis of the
miners, Harry Bridges of the longshoremen-haunt his pages. (How many of
today's union heads can we name?) So do the heady days of sit-down strikes
and face-offs with National Guardsmen. Hence, too, Aronowitz's epigraph,
from the old anthem: "Solidarity forever, for the union makes us strong!" 

Reviving the labor movement won't be easy. Only one in seven workers now
belongs to unions, and in the private sector it is one in ten. True, the
AFL-CIO signed up 400,000 new members in 1997, ranging from hotel workers
in Las Vegas and janitors in Denver to nurses in San Diego. Yet during the
same year, unions lost 200,000 members, because locals were decertified or
(more likely) plants and companies closed or moved away. Given the size of
today's workforce, unions would have to find 15 million new members to
return to their 1945 high.2 1 Most of these figures and those in the tables
accompanying this review are from Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson,
Union Membership and Earnings Data Book (Bureau of National Affairs, 1998)*



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb  2 17:18:12 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 00:18:12 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <8yuEdAA7Mst2EwNY@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <h3$TMAA8RZt2Ew+E@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990203001812.01300714@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 09:19 02/02/99 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c at pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris
>Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> writes
>
>>Now if Engels, having edited Volume 3 of Capital, has appended an essay
>>which flies in the face of everything Marx wrote about the law of value,
>>this is interesting indeed. Perhaps worthy even of the pages of the more
>>intellectual Sunday newspapers. Comparable to Freud allegedly concealing
>>the evidence of childhood sexual abuse.
>
>Not new. I have earlier mentioned Chris Arthur's book _Engels
>Today_(1996) which covers this point. 



Kindly requote, and not only explain your argument, but explain why, even
if your argument is correct, Engels's statement should be contemptuously
dismissed as "another dumb statement".



>It is also dealt with in detail in
>an article by Cyril Smith in the Summer 97 issue of _Capital & Class_.
>Smith comments on the passage of Engels I quoted:
>
>"It is remarkable how directly this conclusion drawn by Marx's closest
>collaborator contradicts clear statements of Marx himself. Certainly,
>Marx made deep studies of the historical development of commodities,
>money and capital. But these must be seen as illustrations of his
>logical analyses, not explanations or 'proofs' of them."

Indeed not mere "illustrations". Interesting how the word came up with Andy
denying anything structural in Marx's comparison of the dissolution of
organic substances into air and that of the dissolution of commodities into
labour time. 

Smith claims that there is a paucity of references in Marx to Engels's type
of historical analysis. Marx discusses in the Introduction to the
Grundrisse, in Section 3 on the Method of Political Economy, the detailed
nature of the continuity and the qualitative shifts between different
historical stages. 

Any serious, realist, reading of Engels's essay on the Law of Nature, has
to concede he describes unmistakably those qualitative shifts. (By realist,
I mean, reading the text not as disembodied ideas that are right or wrong,
but as an attempt to describe an objectively existing external reality.)

Marx also wrote in the Introduction to the Grundrisse:

"Bourgeois society is the most developed and the most complex historic
organization of production. The categories which express its relations, the
comprehension of its structure, thereby also allows insights into the
structure and the relations of production of all the vanished social
formations out of whose ruins and elements it built itself up, whose partly
still uncovered remnants are carried along within it, whose mere nuances
have developed explicit significance within it, etc. Human anatomy contains
a key to the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development
among the subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after
the higher development is already known. 

This is not mere superficial "illustration". This is a dialectical and
historical dynamic analysis.

Now it is true that Marx wrote in Vol 1 of Capital (Lawrence and Wishart
p536) (Section on Value of Labour Power and Wages) "the law of value ...
only begins to develop itself freely on the basis of capitalist
production". It is true there is a certain contradiction between that and
Engels's statement: 

"the Marxian law of value holds generally, as far as economic laws are
>valid at all, for the whole period of simple commodity
>production..."

But that is not a logical contradiction, but a dialectical contradiction.
It certainly  does not justify the response by Lew:

>Is the law of value thousands of years old? I don't think so! Another
>dumb statement by Engels that only obscures Marx's theory.


Where does the passion come from for this attack on Engels. I suggested
yesterday that probably Lew is imposing idealist categories on his reading
of Marx. Perhaps the reference to Cyril Smith provides a clue. Writing in
the earlier 90's Smith was keen to rescue Marxism from the collapse of the
eastern bloc, by saying Marx had been misread to the neglect of a true,
Marxist, humanism.

Thus ("Marx at the Millenium" p 40) "Plekhanov installed a materialism
which left no room for will at all and this is what he foisted onto Marx." 

And in the last two pages: "For over two centuries, wage-workers have been
combining in the fight against the power of capital. Marx was effectively
the first to connect this movement with the conception of a truly human way
of life. We have seen how the many varieties of 'Marxist' long ago lost
sight of Marx's central notion of humanity."

"The task is to discover, hidden inside the chaos of modern life, the
elements of a set of relations between human beings, including their
relations with the natural world, which are 'worthy of their human nature'".

I by contrast would wish us to see a pulse of history and see the
development of humans in relation to their environment as that of the most
complex of animals,  but animals nonetheless, many of whose psycho-social
dynamics are only partially conscious at best. These dynamics, like other
dynamics in the natural world, have momentum of their own which needs to be
analysed carefully, and dialectically, if we are to understand best how to
change things.  


Perhaps this old issue of "Marxism" denying "human will" is part of the
intense opposition to Engels and the attempt to split him from Marx, and
thereby distort Marx.

I think Charles puts this somewhat better in his supportive post on
commodities and organic bodies. 



>At the time of this publication of _Capital & Class_, you wrote to
>thaxis in June 97, quoting the same passage from Engels:

I do not see the relevance of this. The quote demonstrates I was seeking
open and non-dogmatic discussion of the analysis. Lew states "no comment".
That is usually the remark  made when one is embarrassed, and is unwilling
to expose one's position further. If Lew wishes to defend the arbitrary
nature of his attacks on Engels, he does indeed need to comment in a more
reasoned way. Let us consider the argument in the round preferably without
the arbitrary attacks which detract, I suggest, more from Lew's authority
than from Engels's.


Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Tue Feb  2 17:31:19 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:31:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990203001812.01300714@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990202192637.21580A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>


Chris supposes the discrepancy between Marx and Engels is a "dialectical
contradiction" rather than a "logical contradiction." Perhaps Chris would
like to explain to the list the difference between logical and dialectical
contradiction. And if he would be so kind as to use (what I assume to be) 
the *apparent* discrepancy between Marx and Engels.

Thanks,
Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From glevy at pratt.edu  Tue Feb  2 18:14:35 1999
From: glevy at pratt.edu (Gerald Levy)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:14:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Re: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <199902030020.RAA19852@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990202201245.12449A-100000@acnet>

Charles wrote:

> See first sentence of the _Manifesto of the Communist Party_.

Keep reading.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From dhenwood at panix.com  Tue Feb  2 20:12:37 1999
From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:12:37 -0500
Subject: M-TH: theory....
Message-ID: <v0401170bb2dd6efca71d@[166.84.250.86]>

What do the assembled theorists make of this intervention from another list?

>What, according to Herr Edgar, is capital?  The abstract identity called
>"dead labour" (according to the petty-bourgeois Hawkes, who FREEZES the
>nature of capital into an identity:  capital IS dead labour.
>
>A better definition of capital is:  Value in motion (a la Thomas Sekine in
>his "The Dialectic of Capital."  (See also Robert Albritton's "A Japanese
>Approach to Stages of Capitalist Development."

Doug


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Wed Feb  3 05:42:00 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 12:42:00 +0000
Subject: M-TH: theory....
Message-ID: <199902031241.MAA12840@vertigo.derby.ac.uk>

>What do the assembled theorists make of this intervention from another list?

>What, according to Herr Edgar, is capital?  The abstract identity called
>"dead labour" (according to the petty-bourgeois Hawkes, who FREEZES the
>nature of capital into an identity:  capital IS dead labour.
>
>A better definition of capital is:  Value in motion (a la Thomas Sekine in
>his "The Dialectic of Capital."  (See also Robert Albritton's "A Japanese
>Approach to Stages of Capitalist Development."


I thought that Capital is the social relation between people mediated by 
the relationship between things, or words to that effect.


Russ


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Wed Feb  3 06:01:33 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 13:01:33 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Transhistoric
Message-ID: <199902031301.NAA12886@vertigo.derby.ac.uk>

Webster:
Main Entry: transhistorical
Pronunciation: "tran(t)s-(h)is-'tor-i-k&l, "tranz-, -'t?r-
Function: adjective
Date: 1909
: transcending historical bounds 

see also Marcuse's _Aesthetic Dimension_ use as 'timeless' 'transcendent' etc


Russ



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb  3 06:42:05 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 08:42:05 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Transhistoric
Message-ID: <s6b80bfb.026@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

translation: transcending some historical bounds, including less than all historical bounds.

>>> Russ <r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> 02/03 8:01 AM >>>
Webster:
Main Entry: transhistorical
Pronunciation: "tran(t)s-(h)is-'tor-i-k&l, "tranz-, -'t?r-
Function: adjective
Date: 1909
: transcending historical bounds 

see also Marcuse's _Aesthetic Dimension_ use as 'timeless' 'transcendent' etc


Russ



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb  3 07:27:15 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 09:27:15 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Re: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <s6b81683.010@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Ok finished. What did you want to say ?

CB

Workers of the West , its our turn.

>>> Gerald Levy <glevy at pratt.edu> 02/02 8:14 PM >>>
Charles wrote:

> See first sentence of the _Manifesto of the Communist Party_.

Keep reading.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Wed Feb  3 07:39:46 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 14:39:46 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Transhistoric
Message-ID: <199902031439.OAA13060@vertigo.derby.ac.uk>

>translation: transcending some historical bounds, including less than all
>historical bounds.

Remind me never to take a transatlantic flight with you...

Russ


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From carob at dynamite.com.au  Wed Feb  3 07:48:30 1999
From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 01:48:30 +1100
Subject: M-TH: Re: theory....
Message-ID: <199902031444.BAA31052@mail.dynamite.com.au>

G'day Doug,

You ask:

>What do the assembled theorists make of this intervention from another
list?
>
>>What, according to Herr Edgar, is capital?  The abstract identity called
>>"dead labour" (according to the petty-bourgeois Hawkes, who FREEZES the
>>nature of capital into an identity:  capital IS dead labour.
>>
>>A better definition of capital is:  Value in motion (a la Thomas Sekine in
>>his "The Dialectic of Capital."  (See also Robert Albritton's "A Japanese
>>Approach to Stages of Capitalist Development."

Well, in this non-theorist's book, capital isn't not 'dead labour', but I do
agree the whole Marxian shebang depends entirely on dynamics - y'know:
M-C-M'-C-M"-etc.  Value rushing at its own expansion - all blind, pointless
motion.

And in a theorist's book:

'This social form is alienated, quasi-independent, exerts a mode of abstract
compulsion and constraint on people, and is in motion.  Consequently, Marx
accords it the attribute of agency.  His initial determination of capital,
then, is as self-valourising value, as the self-moving substance that is
subject ... Capital has no fixed, final form, but appears at different
stages of its spiraling path in the form of money and commodities.  Value,
then, is unfolded by Marx as the core of a form of social mediation that
constitutes social objectivity and subjectivity, and is intrinsically
dynamic: it is a form of social mediation that necessarily exists in
objectified, materialised form, but is neither identical with, nor an
inherent property of, its materialised form, whether in the shape of money
or goods.  The way in which Marx unfolds the category of capital
retrospectively illuminates his initial determination of value as an
objectified social relation, constituted by labour, that is carried by, but
exists 'behind,' the commodities as objects ... In dealing with the category
of capital, then, one is dealing with a central category of a society that
becomes characterised by a constant directional movement with no determinate
external telos, a society driven by production for the sake of production,
by a process that exists for the sake of process.  This expansion, this
ceaseless motion, is, within the framework of Marx's analysis, intrinsically
related to the temporal dimension of value.'  (Postone: 268 - 272, covers it
all nicely).

Which sounds densely persuasive to me.

Cheers,
Rob.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb  3 08:49:43 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 10:49:43 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Transhistoric
Message-ID: <s6b829e4.066@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

I'll transfer that memory responsibility back to you. Is the atlantic a historical period ?

>>> Russ <r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> 02/03 9:39 AM >>>
>translation: transcending some historical bounds, including less than all
>historical bounds.

Remind me never to take a transatlantic flight with you...

Russ


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Wed Feb  3 09:18:28 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:18:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Transhistoric
In-Reply-To: <199902031301.NAA12886@vertigo.derby.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990203105706.20042A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

"Transhistorical" is useful when conveying the sense that certain general
sorts of relationships, understanding these to be, in part, abstractions,
are present in more than one historical epoch or species of society. So
social class is transhistorical in the sense that social class and the
struggle of classes is not unique to capitalism. What is unique is the
particular, concrete form of struggle under capitalism. But class and
class struggle are transhistorical because they extends across historical
epochs. Marx emphasizes that there is no real general concrete thing, but
that at the same time epochs share features, and so transhistorical
abstraction is a legitimate procedure in scientific production. 

What we must avoid is *suprahistorical* thinking, i.e., thinking that
attempts to stand outside, or above history. This is idealism. This was
the error of the bourgeois economist. What Russ is reacting to is his
equivalence of transhistorical with suprahistorical, that is, his
substitution of the general, abstract relations that are shared by some
historical epochs with idealistic, ahistorical relations. 

This is, in part, a matter of definition. If by transhistorical one means
this, then that's one thing; if by transhistorical one means something
else, that's another. If we agree on the meaning of the term, then it
becomes useful in discourse. Clearly Marx saw the importance in both
recognizing the concrete and the abstract in scientific production. I
would stress the roots of the word transhistorical, which means, to me,
"across history." There are concrete historical forms that share features
with other concrete historical forms, just as there are features of Homo
sapiens that are shared with other primates, and so forth. The realist
position is that the categories we have managed to develop in our
classifying the world correspond in some fashion to the real
stratification and differentiation of the world. This is to say that
chimps really are more like people than ants are like people. This was
Marx's view, after all, that consciousness arose from the surroundings,
from experience, as well as from socialization.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Wed Feb  3 09:20:10 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:20:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Transhistoric
In-Reply-To: <s6b829e4.066@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990203111940.20042B-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Charles Brown wrote:

>I'll transfer that memory responsibility back to you. Is the atlantic a
>historical period ? 

It is if you are a nominalist.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb  3 09:44:47 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 11:44:47 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Transhistoric
Message-ID: <s6b836c3.010@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

One issue complicating this little ditty, is that in the first sentence of _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ , when it was first written, Marx and Engels anthropological study had not yet reached the point where they had a lot of evidence on human society before and outside of European class society. "History" in that first sentence is especially European class society history. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Later with more ethnographic study, Engels added a footnote after the word "society": "That is , all WRITTEN history. In 1837, the pre-history of society, the social organization existing prior to recorded history was all but unknown"... and they there were plenty of non-class antagonistic societies "before."   So, class struggle is transhistoric within a certain series of modes of production (Engels and Marx especially investigated European slave-feudal-capitalist modes), but it does not transcend these to many societies that don't have writing. 

Charles Brown

>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 02/03 11:18 AM >>>
"Transhistorical" is useful when conveying the sense that certain general
sorts of relationships, understanding these to be, in part, abstractions,
are present in more than one historical epoch or species of society. So
social class is transhistorical in the sense that social class and the
struggle of classes is not unique to capitalism. What is unique is the
particular, concrete form of struggle under capitalism. But class and
class struggle are transhistorical because they extends across historical
epochs. Marx emphasizes that there is no real general concrete thing, but
that at the same time epochs share features, and so transhistorical
abstraction is a legitimate procedure in scientific production. 

What we must avoid is *suprahistorical* thinking, i.e., thinking that
attempts to stand outside, or above history. This is idealism. This was
the error of the bourgeois economist. What Russ is reacting to is his
equivalence of transhistorical with suprahistorical, that is, his
substitution of the general, abstract relations that are shared by some
historical epochs with idealistic, ahistorical relations. 

This is, in part, a matter of definition. If by transhistorical one means
this, then that's one thing; if by transhistorical one means something
else, that's another. If we agree on the meaning of the term, then it
becomes useful in discourse. Clearly Marx saw the importance in both
recognizing the concrete and the abstract in scientific production. I
would stress the roots of the word transhistorical, which means, to me,
"across history." There are concrete historical forms that share features
with other concrete historical forms, just as there are features of Homo
sapiens that are shared with other primates, and so forth. The realist
position is that the categories we have managed to develop in our
classifying the world correspond in some fashion to the real
stratification and differentiation of the world. This is to say that
chimps really are more like people than ants are like people. This was
Marx's view, after all, that consciousness arose from the surroundings,
from experience, as well as from socialization.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb  3 09:58:06 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 11:58:06 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Neoliberalism isn't permanent
Message-ID: <s6b839d9.043@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Neoliberal globalization
will only last a few decades

* Sooner or later, it will have to come to an end

CLOSING SPEECH GIVEN BY FIDEL CASTRO RUZ, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILS OF STATE
AND MINISTERS AND FIRST
SECRETARY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CUBA, AT THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
OF ECONOMISTS, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER, ON JANUARY 22, 1999,
YEAR OF THE 40TH
ANNIVERSARY OF TRIUMPH OF THE REVOLUTION.
(TRANSLATION OF THE TYPESCRIPT OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE)

Distinguished delegates, observers and invited guests:

Since you are doing me this honor, I am not going to make a speech; I will
restrict
myself to expounding a paper. (APPLAUSE)

I shall do it in the language of dispatches and, to a large extent, it will
be a dialogue with
myself.

July. Meeting of Latin American and Caribbean Economists. Theme: a grave
world
economic crisis in sight. Need to convene an international meeting. Central
point: the
economic crisis and neoliberal globalization.

Extensive debate.

All schools.

Confronting arguments.

Labors were in that direction.

Maximum possible reduction of costs for everyone.

Working morning, noon and night.

Exceptional seriousness and discipline have reigned in these five days.

Everyone talking with absolute freedom. We have achieved that. We are
gratified.
We have learnt a lot listening to you.

A great variety and diversity of ideas. Extraordinary exhibition of spirit
of study, skill,
clarity and beauty of expression.

We all have convictions.

We can all influence each other.

In the end, we will all come to similar conclusions.

My profoundest convictions: the incredible and hitherto unknown
globalization that
concerns us is a product of historical development; a fruit of human
civilization; it was
attained in an exceedingly short space of only 3000 years in the long life
of our
antecedents on the planet. They were already a completely evolved species.
Contemporary humans are not more intelligent than Pericles, Plato or
Aristotle,
although we do not yet know if they are sufficiently intelligent to solve
the extremely
complex problems of today. We are betting that they can achieve it. Our
meeting has
been about that.

One question: is it an irreversible process? My answer, the one I give
myself, is: no.
What type of globalization do we have today? A neoliberal globalization;
that is what
many of us are calling it. Is it sustainable? No. Can it survive for much
time? Absolutely
not. A matter of centuries? Categorically not. Will it only last a few
decades? Yes, only
decades. But sooner or later it will have to come to an end.

Maybe you think I*m a kind of prophet or fortune-teller? No. Do I know much
about
economy? No. Virtually absolutely nothing. To affirm what I said it*s enough
to know
how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Children learn that in elementary
school.

How is the transition going to come about? We don*t know. Through widespread
violent
revolutions or great wars? That would seem improbable, irrational and
suicidal.
Through profound and catastrophic crises? Unfortunately that seems the most
likely,
almost, almost inevitable outcome, and it will come about in many diverse
ways and
through many forms of struggle.

What kind of globalization will it be? It couldn*t be any other than jointly
shared, socialist,
communist, or whatever you want to call it.

Does nature and, with it, the human species, have much time to survive the
absence of
such a change? Very little. Who will be the creators of that new world? The
men and
women who people our planet.

What will be the essential weapons? Ideas; minds. Who will sow them,
cultivate them
and make them invincible? You. Is this about a utopia, one more dream among
so
many others? No, because it is objectively inevitable and there is no
alternative. It was
already dreamed not so long ago, only perhaps prematurely. As Jos? Mart?,
the most
enlightened of the sons of this island, said: "The dreams of today will be
the realities of
tomorrow."

I have concluded my paper. Now I am at your disposition, if you*d like to
ask questions.
(OVATION)



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Feb  3 12:51:12 1999
From: lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk (Lew)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:51:12 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990203001812.01300714@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201073753.012df050@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <h3$TMAA8RZt2Ew+E@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>
 <3.0.2.32.19990201221304.012e886c@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <8yuEdAA7Mst2EwNY@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>
 <3.0.2.32.19990203001812.01300714@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <SkPvIAAwiKu2Eww1@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>

In article <3.0.2.32.19990203001812.01300714 at pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris
Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> writes

>explain why, even
>if your argument is correct, Engels's statement should be contemptuously
>dismissed as "another dumb statement".

First we need to understand Marx's law of value. This could fill a whole
library, but for our purposes I suggest the following working
definition. 

The law of value, as discovered by Marx, states that the magnitude of
value is determined by socially necessary labour time. It is around a
point regulated by value that the price of a commodity fluctuates
according to market conditions.

Underpinning this is a number of associated and historically specific
concepts, such as abstract labour, labour power, price of production and
surplus value. Without these the law of value makes no sense.

But this is inseparable from the method of inquiry presented in
_Capital_ and elsewhere. Capitalism is identified as a historically
generalised system of commodity production in which, largely due to the
introduction of factory production and machinery, the products of
individual concrete labour are expressed, in exchange, as abstract
social labour. Privileged income is derived from surplus labour, which
now takes the form of surplus value, even though workers are generally
paid the full value of their labour power.

Marx explained, moving from the abstract to the concrete, how the
averaging of profit rates led to movements of surplus value from values
to prices of production and then to market prices.

End of working definition.

None of this is to deny that prior to capitalism commodities sold at
prices approximating to the labour expended on them. But Engels is
claiming much more than this. He claimed that law of value, as outlined
above, is much older than capitalism:

"In a word: the Marxian law of value holds generally, as far as economic
laws are valid at all, for the whole period of simple commodity
production, that is, up to the time when the latter suffers a
modification through the appearance of the capitalist form of
production. Up to that time prices gravitate towards the values fixed
according to the Marxian law and oscillate around those values, so that
the more fully simple commodity production develops, the more the
average prices over long periods uninterrupted by external violent
disturbances coincide with values within a negligible margin" (Volume
3).

Here Engels claims that, for several thousand years, prices have
gravitated to or oscillated around values according to the Marxian law
of value. But how? By what process did prices vary from values
"according to the Marxian law"? Different organic compositions of
capital? Even if he is only suggesting the beginnings of a process this
does not resolve the puzzle. Engels did not explain further, and the
reader is left with the impression of a metaphysical process at work. 

According to Chris Arthur (_Engels Today, 1996_), the concept of "simple
commodity production" was not used by Marx but was invented by Engels to
indicate a distinct, self-replicating mode of production. Arthur
suggests this concept has been detrimental to Marxism.

But Engels goes on:

"Thus the Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a
period lasting from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products
into commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era. But the
exchange of commodities dates from a time before all written history,
which in Egypt goes back to at least 2,500 BC, and perhaps 5,000 BC, and
in Babylon to 4,000 BC, perhaps 6,000 BC; thus the law of value has
prevailed during a period of from five to seven thousand years" (Ibid).

Here the paradoxes abound. Since the (Marxian) law of value is thousands
of years old, presumably it could have been discovered at any point in
that time. And whoever discovered it could have predicted the advent of
capitalism. However, on this interpretation of the (Marxian) law of
value there is nothing specific about capitalism and different what went
before.

It goes on. Does this mean Tutankhamen could have lived off a
rudimentary form of surplus value? Should Socrates have worried about
the transformation problem? Was the Peloponnesian War really
precipitated by the falling rate of profit?. Of course not. But that is
a possible implication in Engels' account. 

That is why it was a dumb thing to say.

-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb  3 13:20:25 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 15:20:25 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <s6b8695c.067@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

When you say "law" of value, are you using jurisprudential law as a heuristic ? Do you mean a tendency ?


Charles Brown

>>> Lew <lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk> 02/03 2:51 PM >>>
In article <3.0.2.32.19990203001812.01300714 at pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris
Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> writes

>explain why, even
>if your argument is correct, Engels's statement should be contemptuously
>dismissed as "another dumb statement".

First we need to understand Marx's law of value. This could fill a whole
library, but for our purposes I suggest the following working
definition. 

The law of value, as discovered by Marx, states that the magnitude of
value is determined by socially necessary labour time. It is around a
point regulated by value that the price of a commodity fluctuates
according to market conditions.

Underpinning this is a number of associated and historically specific
concepts, such as abstract labour, labour power, price of production and
surplus value. Without these the law of value makes no sense.

But this is inseparable from the method of inquiry presented in
_Capital_ and elsewhere. Capitalism is identified as a historically
generalised system of commodity production in which, largely due to the
introduction of factory production and machinery, the products of
individual concrete labour are expressed, in exchange, as abstract
social labour. Privileged income is derived from surplus labour, which
now takes the form of surplus value, even though workers are generally
paid the full value of their labour power.

Marx explained, moving from the abstract to the concrete, how the
averaging of profit rates led to movements of surplus value from values
to prices of production and then to market prices.

End of working definition.

None of this is to deny that prior to capitalism commodities sold at
prices approximating to the labour expended on them. But Engels is
claiming much more than this. He claimed that law of value, as outlined
above, is much older than capitalism:

"In a word: the Marxian law of value holds generally, as far as economic
laws are valid at all, for the whole period of simple commodity
production, that is, up to the time when the latter suffers a
modification through the appearance of the capitalist form of
production. Up to that time prices gravitate towards the values fixed
according to the Marxian law and oscillate around those values, so that
the more fully simple commodity production develops, the more the
average prices over long periods uninterrupted by external violent
disturbances coincide with values within a negligible margin" (Volume
3).

Here Engels claims that, for several thousand years, prices have
gravitated to or oscillated around values according to the Marxian law
of value. But how? By what process did prices vary from values
"according to the Marxian law"? Different organic compositions of
capital? Even if he is only suggesting the beginnings of a process this
does not resolve the puzzle. Engels did not explain further, and the
reader is left with the impression of a metaphysical process at work. 

According to Chris Arthur (_Engels Today, 1996_), the concept of "simple
commodity production" was not used by Marx but was invented by Engels to
indicate a distinct, self-replicating mode of production. Arthur
suggests this concept has been detrimental to Marxism.

But Engels goes on:

"Thus the Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a
period lasting from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products
into commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era. But the
exchange of commodities dates from a time before all written history,
which in Egypt goes back to at least 2,500 BC, and perhaps 5,000 BC, and
in Babylon to 4,000 BC, perhaps 6,000 BC; thus the law of value has
prevailed during a period of from five to seven thousand years" (Ibid).

Here the paradoxes abound. Since the (Marxian) law of value is thousands
of years old, presumably it could have been discovered at any point in
that time. And whoever discovered it could have predicted the advent of
capitalism. However, on this interpretation of the (Marxian) law of
value there is nothing specific about capitalism and different what went
before.

It goes on. Does this mean Tutankhamen could have lived off a
rudimentary form of surplus value? Should Socrates have worried about
the transformation problem? Was the Peloponnesian War really
precipitated by the falling rate of profit?. Of course not. But that is
a possible implication in Engels' account. 

That is why it was a dumb thing to say.

-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From glevy at pratt.edu  Wed Feb  3 16:01:39 1999
From: glevy at pratt.edu (Gerald Levy)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:01:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Re: theory ....
In-Reply-To: <199902032004.NAA21502@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990203175108.14759B-100000@acnet>

> >What, according to Herr Edgar, is capital?  The abstract identity called
> >"dead labour" (according to the petty-bourgeois Hawkes, who FREEZES the
> >nature of capital into an identity:  capital IS dead labour.

Capital is not dead labour, capital under capitalism is living + dead
labour. 

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From dhenwood at panix.com  Wed Feb  3 17:49:00 1999
From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:49:00 -0500
Subject: M-TH: theory....
In-Reply-To: <199902031241.MAA12840@vertigo.derby.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <v04011724b2de9ee3d193@[166.84.250.86]>

Russ wrote:

>I thought that Capital is the social relation between people mediated by
>the relationship between things, or words to that effect.

Here's a nice quote:

[C]apital is not a thing, it is a definite social relation of production
pertaining to a particular historical social formation, which simply takes
the form of a thing and gives this thing a specific social character.
Capital is not the sum of the material and produced means of production.
Capital is the means of production as transformed into capital, these being
no more capital in themselves than gold or silver are money. It is the
means of production monopolized by a particular section of society, the
products and conditions of activity of labour-power, which are rendered
autonomous vis-a-vis this living labour-power and are personified in
capital through this antithesis. It is not only the workers' products which
are transformed into independent powers, the products as masters and buyers
of their producers, but the social powers and interconnecting form of this
labour also confront them as properties of their product. Here we therefore
have one factor of a historically produced social production process in a
definite social form, and at first sight a very mysterious form.

 - Capital vol. 3, chap. 48 (pp. 953-954 of the Vintage/Penguin edition)


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Thu Feb  4 00:09:43 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 07:09:43 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990202192637.21580A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990203001812.01300714@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990204070943.01316ae8@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 19:31 02/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Chris supposes the discrepancy between Marx and Engels is a "dialectical
>contradiction" rather than a "logical contradiction." Perhaps Chris would
>like to explain to the list the difference between logical and dialectical
>contradiction. And if he would be so kind as to use (what I assume to be) 
>the *apparent* discrepancy between Marx and Engels.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy


Andrew's self-important schoolmasterly tone is disingenuous. Reminiscent of
Marx's comments about the bumptiousness of D?hring. 

There is no way to have a head count or see the body language on this list,
I almost said 'class' because it is clear Andrew needs to write as if he
was conducting it. 

We know for certain no arguments could convince Andrew. He is in fact here
merely to heckle in support of a fundamental split between Marx and Engels.


If Andrew approached this with rigour and genuine discussion, he would
explain why Marx, though a materialist, though a committed dialectician,
though an avid reader of latest developments in the natural sciences,
nevertheless carefully reserved the use of dialectics to the conscious
human world, and excluded it from the non-conscious world.

Interesting though in terms of political orientation, how Andrew has seen
parallels with his approach and that of Lew's, both belittling Marx's
dialectical analysis as random scattered "illustrations". No wonder they
cannot make sense of what Marx and Engels were trying to express. 

Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Thu Feb  4 00:54:42 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:54:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990204070943.01316ae8@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990204025404.22815A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>


This was not even a skillful dodge, Chris. In other words, you don't know
the difference. Didn't think so.

Andy

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Chris Burford wrote:

>At 19:31 02/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>Chris supposes the discrepancy between Marx and Engels is a "dialectical
>>contradiction" rather than a "logical contradiction." Perhaps Chris would
>>like to explain to the list the difference between logical and dialectical
>>contradiction. And if he would be so kind as to use (what I assume to be) 
>>the *apparent* discrepancy between Marx and Engels.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Andy
>
>
>Andrew's self-important schoolmasterly tone is disingenuous. Reminiscent of
>Marx's comments about the bumptiousness of D?hring. 
>
>There is no way to have a head count or see the body language on this list,
>I almost said 'class' because it is clear Andrew needs to write as if he
>was conducting it. 
>
>We know for certain no arguments could convince Andrew. He is in fact here
>merely to heckle in support of a fundamental split between Marx and Engels.
>
>
>If Andrew approached this with rigour and genuine discussion, he would
>explain why Marx, though a materialist, though a committed dialectician,
>though an avid reader of latest developments in the natural sciences,
>nevertheless carefully reserved the use of dialectics to the conscious
>human world, and excluded it from the non-conscious world.
>
>Interesting though in terms of political orientation, how Andrew has seen
>parallels with his approach and that of Lew's, both belittling Marx's
>dialectical analysis as random scattered "illustrations". No wonder they
>cannot make sense of what Marx and Engels were trying to express. 
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk  Thu Feb  4 04:04:11 1999
From: lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk (Lew)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:04:11 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <s6b8695c.067@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <s6b8695c.067@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <KJJ5jBAr6Xu2EwhZ@lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>

In article <s6b8695c.067 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes

>When you say "law" of value, are you using jurisprudential law as a heuristic ? 
>Do you mean a tendency ?

None of them. As I understand it, the law of value is "realist" in that
it accurately describes a deep underlying process.

I take this to mean, at least in part, Marx's declared aim in _Capital_
of laying bare the law of motion of "modern society" (i.e. capitalism).
Note that in his attack on Marx, Popper substituted the term "human
society" (i.e. all societies). One result of this falsification by
Popper is that some who regard themselves as Marxist have felt honour
bound to defend a position which was not Marx's.

Did I mention that the law of value is not a theory of price?

-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb  4 07:48:34 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 09:48:34 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Re: theory ....
Message-ID: <s6b96cff.029@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

v and c

CB

>>> Gerald Levy <glevy at pratt.edu> 02/03 6:01 PM >>>
> >What, according to Herr Edgar, is capital?  The abstract identity called
> >"dead labour" (according to the petty-bourgeois Hawkes, who FREEZES the
> >nature of capital into an identity:  capital IS dead labour.

Capital is not dead labour, capital under capitalism is living + dead
labour. 

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From GerDowning at aol.com  Thu Feb  4 10:21:39 1999
From: GerDowning at aol.com (GerDowning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:21:39 EST
Subject: M-TH: Re: theory ....
Message-ID: <1f43af1f.36b9d723@aol.com>



ubsubscribe marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb  4 14:05:33 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 16:05:33 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Castro cheered in Venezuela
Message-ID: <s6b9c55c.006@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Radio Havana Cuba, Weds, February 3, 1999

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

                    CUBANEWS FROM RADIO HAVANA CUBA

                        E-mail: rhc at radiohc.org 
                        http://www.radiohc.org 

The following items are taken from Radio Havana Cuba's news
service for Wednesday, February 3, 1999.  Today's stories:

1.- MORE THAN ONE MILLION VENEZUELANS CHEER CUBAN PRESIDENT 
    FIDEL CASTRO IN CARACAS 

2.- VISITING CUBAN VICE PRESIDENT CARLOS LAGE SIGNS        
    IMPORTANT ECONOMIC ACCORD WITH MADRID

3.- FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION SAYS ONLY THE RICH   
    HAVE ACCESS TO BIOTECHNOLOGY

4.- PEDAGOGY '99 CONFERENCE CONTINUES IN HAVANA

5.- FIRST SECRETARY OF HAVANA'S COMMUNIST PARTY URGES ALL  
    WORKERS IN THE CUBAN CAPITAL TO HELP FIGHT CRIME

6.- CUBA'S NEW 1999 TOURISM DIRECTORY OFFICIALLY RELEASED

7.- SECRETARY GENERAL OF AUSTRIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY VISITS CUBA

MORE THAN ONE MILLION VENEZUELANS CHEER CUBAN PRESIDENT
FIDEL CASTRO IN CARACAS 

Caracas, February 3(RHC)-- More than one million Venezuelans
cheered Cuban President Fidel Castro late Tuesday during and 
following a speech by new Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. 
During what has been called an unprecedented assumption of
power -- following the swearing-in ceremony at Venezuela's
Congress -- Chavez was interrupted on several occasions by
massive expressions of solidarity with Cuba and its leader.

After the new Venezuelan president's speech, the crowd
called on Fidel Castro to also take the podium.  The Cuban
leader declined, however, despite an invitation by Chavez
himself.  Numerous Venezuelans, carrying posters proclaiming
solidarity with Cuba, also shouted slogans against
Washington's blockade of the island.

In statements to reporters following the popular
demonstration, President Castro termed the speech by
President Chavez "wise, intelligent and even-tempered."  
The Cuban leader said that he has had the honor to struggle
during 40 years in defense of the ideas of Latin American
independence heroes Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti, and that
now the dream of seeing their rebirth in Venezuela has come
true.

Commenting on the numerous references to Marti during the
Venezuelan president's speech, Fidel Castro said that when
the political ideas of Cuba's national hero concerning the
Americas and Latin American unity were expressed, they were
only a dream.  But now, he said, "that unity is an
necessary."

Chavez proclaimed that Venezuela will now become the
standard bearer of Latin American unity.  The Cuban leader
declined to make any comparisons between the Cuban
Revolution and the peaceful Venezuelan revolution proclaimed
by Chavez, saying that every government "must design its own
strategies to respond to its own challenges."

President Fidel Castro met this evening with Cuba solidarity
activists in Venezuela at the country's Central University. 
Afterwards, he gathered with several hundred business
executives in an encounter sponsored by the Venezuelan
Chamber of Commerce. 

In related news, the new Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jose
Vicente Rangel has called on the United States to lift its
economic blockade against Cuba.  

According to Venezuela's official press agency, VENPRES,
Rangel called Washington's economic measures against the
island "an ominous threat by a huge power against a
fraternal people."  

Venezuela's new foreign minister affirmed that there are
many investors in his country that are interested in doing
business with Cuba, adding that the incoming administration
of President Hugo Chavez hopes to broaden its relations with
Havana.

VISITING CUBAN VICE PRESIDENT CARLOS LAGE SIGNS IMPORTANT 
ECONOMIC ACCORD WITH MADRID

Madrid, February 3(RHC)-- Visiting Cuban Vice President 
Carlos Lage has signed an important economic accord with
Spanish Vice President and Economy Minister Rodrigo Rato. 
The agreement is aimed at eliminating double taxation on
exports between the two countries, which is expected to
further enhance bilateral trade relations.  This is the
first such agreement that Cuba has signed with another
nation.

The Spanish official also announced important advances in 
negotiations concerning arrears in the payment of Cuba's
debts to Spain, which will allow Madrid to convert Cuba's
debt into investment programs.  Lage pointed out that trade
with Spain -- Cuba's leading commercial partner -- has
tripled in recent years.

Of the 340 mixed enterprises in Cuba, 65 are with Spanish
firms, while Spain has some 200 diverse agencies operating
on the island.   
During a news conference following talks with the Spanish
vice president and cabinet members, Lage reiterated Cuba's
insistence that Washington has not eased its blockade
against the island, as was interpreted by some following a
recent announcement by President Bill Clinton.

He recalled that months after the White House announced last
year that restrictions on Cuba's purchase of medicines in
the U.S. would also be eased, Cuba has still not been able
to buy a single American aspirin.  Lage, who arrived in
Spain Tuesday evening for an official visit, will meet with
diverse Spanish political leaders and members of the
country's business community.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION SAYS ONLY THE RICH HAVE
ACCESS TO BIOTECHNOLOGY

Havana, February 3(RHC)-- The United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that biotechnology is
a powerful instrument capable of feeding the world's
population, but that it must be made available to poorer
nations that do not have access to such technology.

A report issued by the FAO reveals that in many
underdeveloped countries, the funds earmarked for research
in agriculture are reduced or privatized.  According to the
study, this cuts off poorer countries from biotechnology,
making it available only to rich nations. 

The FAO report adds that research and policies regarding
biotechnology must concentrate on the needs of the poor --
many of whom are dependent on agriculture and live in
marginalized areas where production is difficult.

According to UN predictions, by the year 2020, the world's
population will reach seven billion, with 6.3 billion living
in Third World countries.

PEDAGOGY '99 CONFERENCE CONTINUES IN HAVANA

Havana, February 3(RHC)-- The International Conference
Pedagogy '99 is finishing the third day of sessions at
Havana's International Convention Center with a presentation
on the importance of education in the national health care
system.  Many of the conference participants also attended
a lecture entitled "Jose Marti and the Challenges of the
21st Century."

A special commission met on Tuesday to discuss the training
of values in schools.  During Tuesday evening's sessions,
participants from Cuba, Brazil and Venezuela discussed
environmental education and the importance of teaching young
people about protecting the country's flora and fauna as
well as sustainable development.

FIRST SECRETARY OF HAVANA'S COMMUNIST PARTY URGES ALL
WORKERS IN THE CUBAN CAPITAL TO HELP FIGHT CRIME

Havana, February 3(RHC)-- The First Secretary of Havana's
Communist Party, Esteban Lazo, called on all workers in the
Cuban capital to contribute to the fight against crime.

Lazo made the statements during a meeting with the National
Council of the Confederation of Cuban Workers which was
broadcast on national television Tuesday evening.  Lazo, who
is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Party, said
that 7000 new recruits will be trained as police officers in
Havana.

The Cuban official explained that the National Revolutionary
Police is undergoing internal reorganization, stressing that
labor unions need to help fight against crime in the
capital. 

CUBA'S NEW 1999 TOURISM DIRECTORY OFFICIALLY RELEASED

Havana, February 3(RHC)-- Cuba's new 1999 Tourism Directory
was officially presented in Havana on Tuesday.  The 376-page
directory was edited and published by the Mexican Limusa
S.A. publishing house.  Limusa representative Cynthia
Martinez said that the new Tourism Directory contains more
updated information.

Martinez added that this year's edition contains useful
information for the visitor, including photographs and maps
of the island's main tourist facilities.  There is also an
Internet directory included in the new Tourism Directory. 

SECRETARY GENERAL OF AUSTRIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY VISITS CUBA

Havana, February 3(RHC)-- The Secretary General of Austria's
Foreign Ministry, Benita Ferrero-Walsner, is in Cuba on a
working visit.

In statements to journalists, the Austrian official
characterized relations with Cuba as "very good" and
reiterated Austria's support of Cuba's status as observer in
negotiations for a new Lome Convention.

During her stay on the island, the Austrian government
official has met with the President of the Cuban Parliament
Ricardo Alarcon, Culture Minister Abel Prieto, Justice
Minister Roberto Diaz and other government officials.

           [c] 1999, Radio Habana Cuba
               All rights reserved

Articles  cannot be reproduced, reprinted or published in
any system without the consent of RHC. This prohibition
includes the  distribution of this material via Usenet News,
"bulletin board" services, e-mail lists, print media, radio
and television. 

For the complete RADIO HAVANA CUBA NEWSCAST and other
features, please write for our daily broadcast schedule. We
welcome your comments and suggestions.

For further information, contact us at:

Postal Address:  Radio Havana Cuba
                 P.O.Box 6240
                 Havana, Cuba
     Telephone:  (53) (7) 791053
           Fax:  (53) (7) 795007
        E-mail:  rhc at radiohc.org 
           WWW:  http://www.radiohc.org 

  NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems 
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us          
              339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012             
  http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: nyt at blythe.org 

nytcari-02.03.99-21:36:42-4664



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb  4 14:56:40 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 16:56:40 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
Message-ID: <s6b9d15e.088@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> Lew <lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk> 02/04 6:04 AM >>>
In article <s6b8695c.067 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes

>When you say "law" of value, are you using jurisprudential law as a heuristic ? 
>Do you mean a tendency ?

None of them. As I understand it, the law of value is "realist" in that
it accurately describes a deep underlying process.
________

Charles: But "law" in science is a metaphor from jurisprudence, n'est-ce pas ?   This "law"is a generalization, isn't it ? Is it like the law of gravity ?



I take this to mean, at least in part, Marx's declared aim in _Capital_
of laying bare the law of motion of "modern society" (i.e. capitalism).
Note that in his attack on Marx, Popper substituted the term "human
society" (i.e. all societies). One result of this falsification by
Popper is that some who regard themselves as Marxist have felt honour
bound to defend a position which was not Marx's.
_______

Charles: I haven't followed this thread, but I think commodities were exchanged at the boundaries of communities in pre-capitalist societies, but of course, commodity production was not the main form of production. The "tendency" of value , exchange of use-values based on labor time in them ,operated mildly. Capitalism is distinguished by labor power itself becoming a commodity.




Did I mention that the law of value is not a theory of price?
______

Charles: But prices fluctuate around value ? Supply and demand knock price off of the value it is connected to.

Charles Brown
-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Thu Feb  4 16:39:34 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:39:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: On Clarifying the Concept of Scientific Law (Re: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990204025404.22815A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990204183502.4836A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

A scientific law is conceptualized in two basic ways. (1) A scientific law
is a general statement that describes an invariable order or relations,
often described as a regularity, existing between phenomena under
specified conditions. Putting this another way, a scientific law is a
statement about a sequence or a relation of events or phenomena invariable
under identical or very similar circumstances, conditions, or situations. 
Such a statement, or set of statements, constitute an explanation of how
things occur. 

(2) A scientific law is also the actual order or relation which is then
described by the statement(s) of a scientific law; here it is seen a
principle based on predictable consequences of an event or a set of
conditions, a given state of things (such as the law of value). In this
sense the law is a rule (of sorts) that objects subsumed under this law
must obey, given certain conditions, and absent countervailing forces. 
This second sense is the realist sense Lew discusses, and it is clearly
Marx's position on the matter. For Marx, scientific law is not a mental
association between empirical referents, but rather is a generative
mechanism or principle of development that exists in a thing/system as a
consequence of the organization of a thing/system. This means that the
absence of expected empirical outcomes does not falsify the law, since
countervailing forces (which must be specified, of course) may and do act
to suppress or obviate the primary law. So, for example, we don't suppose
that the law of gravity has been falsified when we see airplanes fly; 
rather we understand that the manner in which planes accomplish their
defiance of gravity is by setting up a countervailing principle, which can
in turn be defined in terms of another set of laws. 

Scientific laws may be of a simple sort, such as under certain conditions
water will turn into steam at a certain temperature. These are statements
about empirical regularities, and conceptualize laws as empirical/factual
generalizations. They may be of more complex sorts of statements, such as
the law of thermodynamics, the law of gravitation, or Newton's laws of
classical mechanics, which apply to more than one object or relation; that
is, Newton's laws are supposed to hold true for all objects. Finally, laws
may be quite complex mathematical statements from which may be derived, in
a deductive fashion, statements that assert relations among things.
Mathematical laws are relevant here because they are precise logical
operations and rules. A simple example is the law of sines, used in
spherical trigonometry, which holds that an equation stating that the
ratio of a side of a plane triangle to the sine of the opposite angle is
constant for any given triangle (this holds good for any analogous
equation).

Traditionally, laws are said to possess several characteristics inter alia
they are stated in a precise manner, with a clearly defined conceptual
apparatus, both theoretically and empirically operationalized or
operationalizable; they usually take the form of a universal statement,
tending to be supratemporal and supralocational (transtemporal and
transpatial are appropriate here); they must refer to empirical referents,
though they need not be reducible to empirical referents nor do the
relations among empirical referents need to be conceptualized as mental
events or associations; they are typically organized in a contingent or
hypothetical manner, i.e., in the form of an if-then, a conditional, and
they must be posed in such a way that their theoretical negation may be
supposed; they are typically highly general in their wording, stated in
ideal terms, but at the same time applicable in concrete situations
subject to empirical confirmation, verification, or falsification; finally
(although this list is not exhaustive), a law is typically stated without
exception, with counterinstances either modifying the law or rejecting the
law.

Marx's concept of physical laws conforms to this outline. However, for
social processes, which are uniquely dialectical, Marx modifies the
concept of scientific law appropriate to historical science. Here laws are
not supratemporal, specifically they are not suprahistorical, nor are they
supralocational. Laws are specific to concrete, organic wholes, namely
social formations or historical systems (epochs). Rather than all society
operating according to a law such as we find in the physical sciences, a
form of society operates according to its own logic of development, a
logic or principle of development unique to that system. This, Marx
argues, is analogous though not commensurable with biological principles,
*not* the logic of natural selection, but the development of an organism.

It should be noted that Charles Brown's constant repeating of the notion
that scientific law borrows its language from jurisprudence is untrue. The
word comes from several languages and all of them basically define the
concept as "thing laid down" or "that which is laid down." This word
applies to any final or universal principle, which clearly applies to
natural and social processes.

Hope this helps.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From glevy at pratt.edu  Thu Feb  4 17:48:49 1999
From: glevy at pratt.edu (Gerald Levy)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:48:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Re: theory ...
In-Reply-To: <199902042106.OAA23305@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990204193416.4778E-100000@acnet>

Charles wrote:

> v and c

Yes ... although one could expand on this in a way that I didn't do in my
original reply to the question asked.

My first response was to suggest that capital should not be considered to
be synonymous with what Marx called constant capital (c). This supposed
identity between capital and fixed capital (itself only a part of c, since
there is also circulating c) was a failing of certain writers in classical
political economy (Amongst others, Marx discusses this error in
relationship to Ricardo, Torrens, McCullough, etc. in _TSV_, if I recall
correctly).

However, getting back to the original question asked, one should remember
that v + c represent *money capital* used to purchase labour power and
means of production respectively before a "period of production" can
commence. During the course of production you have the creation of value
and s (surplus value) by (productive) labour and the transfer of value by
means of production. At the end of the production period, assuming that
the commodity values are realized (by being sold on the market) and the
capitalist, once again, has money capital with which to purchase v + c
and, thus, continue to the next period of production.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Fri Feb  5 00:40:54 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 07:40:54 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value
In-Reply-To: <s6b9d15e.088@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990205074054.012f6ad8@pop.gn.apc.org>

There is no one definitive statement by Marx or Engels about what the law
of value is.

That does not mean they did not think it existed, or we should not think it
exists.

Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Fri Feb  5 00:40:29 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 07:40:29 +0000
Subject: M-TH: point scoring
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990204025404.22815A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu
 >
References: <3.0.2.32.19990204070943.01316ae8@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990205074029.012f6ad8@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 02:54 04/02/99 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>
>This was not even a skillful dodge, Chris. In other words, you don't know
>the difference. Didn't think so.
>
>Andy
>
>On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Chris Burford wrote:
>
>>At 19:31 02/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>Chris supposes the discrepancy between Marx and Engels is a "dialectical
>>>contradiction" rather than a "logical contradiction." Perhaps Chris would
>>>like to explain to the list the difference between logical and dialectical
>>>contradiction. And if he would be so kind as to use (what I assume to be) 
>>>the *apparent* discrepancy between Marx and Engels.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Andy
>>
>>
>>Andrew's self-important schoolmasterly tone is disingenuous. Reminiscent of
>>Marx's comments about the bumptiousness of D?hring. 
>>
>>There is no way to have a head count or see the body language on this list,
>>I almost said 'class' because it is clear Andrew needs to write as if he
>>was conducting it. 
>>
>>We know for certain no arguments could convince Andrew. He is in fact here
>>merely to heckle in support of a fundamental split between Marx and Engels.
>>
>>
>>If Andrew approached this with rigour and genuine discussion, he would
>>explain why Marx, though a materialist, though a committed dialectician,
>>though an avid reader of latest developments in the natural sciences,
>>nevertheless carefully reserved the use of dialectics to the conscious
>>human world, and excluded it from the non-conscious world.
>>
>>Interesting though in terms of political orientation, how Andrew has seen
>>parallels with his approach and that of Lew's, both belittling Marx's
>>dialectical analysis as random scattered "illustrations". No wonder they
>>cannot make sense of what Marx and Engels were trying to express. 
>>
>>Chris Burford
>>
>>London


I think it is right to say that Rob has written to both Andrew and myself
regretting what he sees as the amount of finger wagging and point scoring.

I regard Andrew as a disingenuous debater. While in general, debate on
e-mail lists should try to assume that most people can be won over by
reasonable argument, even if they cannot, it would be idealist and
unmarxist to assume that the struggle for ideas could never include people
with entrenched positions for motives of their own, whether personal or
ultimately class, who are there to obstruct the clarification of issues,
and essentially to heckle. Heckling is a common political activity, but it
is unlikely to be productive on a theoretical e-mail list.

I have no intention of being cornered into supporting the relevance of
dialectics in nature, *on a dogmatic basis*. The more Andrew seeks to
polarise the question the more he may succeed in doing so. I have no
interest in beating people over the head that they must see nature in a
dialectical way. I will maintain my position that it is indeed relevant,
and that the approaches of Marx and Engels have been still further endorsed
*in general terms* by further scientific discoveries since Lenin wrote. 

If Andrew is determined to show contempt for such a position, I will show
contempt in return for the idea of wasting time discussing with him. 

>In other words, you don't know the difference. Didn't think so.

This sort of adolescent debating taunt exposes the disingenuousness of his
previous question. No, he is by no means able to claim convincingly that my
failure to reply on the question put, is because I do not know "the"
answer, just that I do not consider him to be a serious correspondent.

My more central challenges were put in the post above, to which he also has
declined to answer.

I do not think a moderator can do more than ask correspondents to pursue
issues to the point at which there is either unity, or an acceptance of
differences which cannot be taken further at least for the time being.

Chris Burford

London




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Feb  5 07:30:42 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 09:30:42 -0500
Subject: On Clarifying the Concept of Scientific Law (Re: M-TH: Marx
	and Engels on Law of Value)
Message-ID: <s6baba56.073@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Is this universally true ? Do you have any doubts ? Is this absolutely true ? Invariably true ? An ironclad "law" ?  Are the propositions below  falsifiable ? How could it be falsified ?

Did the scientists get "law" from jurisprudence ?

John Henry 

>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 02/04 6:39 PM >>>
A scientific law is conceptualized in two basic ways. (1) A scientific law
is a general statement that describes an invariable order or relations,
often described as a regularity, existing between phenomena under
specified conditions. Putting this another way, a scientific law is a
statement about a sequence or a relation of events or phenomena invariable
under identical or very similar circumstances, conditions, or situations. 
Such a statement, or set of statements, constitute an explanation of how
things occur. 

(2) A scientific law is also the actual order or relation which is then
described by the statement(s) of a scientific law; here it is seen a
principle based on predictable consequences of an event or a set of
conditions, a given state of things (such as the law of value). In this
sense the law is a rule (of sorts) that objects subsumed under this law
must obey, given certain conditions, and absent countervailing forces. 
This second sense is the realist sense Lew discusses, and it is clearly
Marx's position on the matter. For Marx, scientific law is not a mental
association between empirical referents, but rather is a generative
mechanism or principle of development that exists in a thing/system as a
consequence of the organization of a thing/system. This means that the
absence of expected empirical outcomes does not falsify the law, since
countervailing forces (which must be specified, of course) may and do act
to suppress or obviate the primary law. So, for example, we don't suppose
that the law of gravity has been falsified when we see airplanes fly; 
rather we understand that the manner in which planes accomplish their
defiance of gravity is by setting up a countervailing principle, which can
in turn be defined in terms of another set of laws. 

Scientific laws may be of a simple sort, such as under certain conditions
water will turn into steam at a certain temperature. These are statements
about empirical regularities, and conceptualize laws as empirical/factual
generalizations. They may be of more complex sorts of statements, such as
the law of thermodynamics, the law of gravitation, or Newton's laws of
classical mechanics, which apply to more than one object or relation; that
is, Newton's laws are supposed to hold true for all objects. Finally, laws
may be quite complex mathematical statements from which may be derived, in
a deductive fashion, statements that assert relations among things.
Mathematical laws are relevant here because they are precise logical
operations and rules. A simple example is the law of sines, used in
spherical trigonometry, which holds that an equation stating that the
ratio of a side of a plane triangle to the sine of the opposite angle is
constant for any given triangle (this holds good for any analogous
equation).

Traditionally, laws are said to possess several characteristics inter alia
they are stated in a precise manner, with a clearly defined conceptual
apparatus, both theoretically and empirically operationalized or
operationalizable; they usually take the form of a universal statement,
tending to be supratemporal and supralocational (transtemporal and
transpatial are appropriate here); they must refer to empirical referents,
though they need not be reducible to empirical referents nor do the
relations among empirical referents need to be conceptualized as mental
events or associations; they are typically organized in a contingent or
hypothetical manner, i.e., in the form of an if-then, a conditional, and
they must be posed in such a way that their theoretical negation may be
supposed; they are typically highly general in their wording, stated in
ideal terms, but at the same time applicable in concrete situations
subject to empirical confirmation, verification, or falsification; finally
(although this list is not exhaustive), a law is typically stated without
exception, with counterinstances either modifying the law or rejecting the
law.

Marx's concept of physical laws conforms to this outline. However, forsocial processes, which are uniquely dialectical, Marx modifies the
concept of scientific law appropriate to historical science. Here laws are
not supratemporal, specifically they are not suprahistorical, nor are they
supralocational. Laws are specific to concrete, organic wholes, namely
social formations or historical systems (epochs). Rather than all society
operating according to a law such as we find in the physical sciences, a
form of society operates according to its own logic of development, a
logic or principle of development unique to that system. This, Marx
argues, is analogous though not commensurable with biological principles,
*not* the logic of natural selection, but the development of an organism.

It should be noted that Charles Brown's constant repeating of the notion
that scientific law borrows its language from jurisprudence is untrue. The
word comes from several languages and all of them basically define the
concept as "thing laid down" or "that which is laid down." This word
applies to any final or universal principle, which clearly applies to
natural and social processes.

Hope this helps.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Feb  5 08:59:15 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 10:59:15 -0500
Subject: M-TH: From: "Anwar Shaik
Message-ID: <s6bacf10.036@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

From: "Anwar Shaikh" <as63 at soas.ac.uk>
Organization: S.O.A.S.
To: JEFFTHOMPS at wdb.org 
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:47:47 GMT
Subject: long wave recovery
CC: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu, ts3 at soas.ac.uk, MaryMalloy at aol.com 
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01b)
Message-ID: <264F9529C at soas.ac.uk>

Jeff

My analysis of the US economy's recovery is not published. I am 
working on a book now, but am a long way from that particular 
section. 

Part of my work has involved showing that a secular fall in the rate 
of profit provides a theoretical foundation for long waves. The basic 
arguments and empirical evidence are in the papers listed below. 

One of the implications of this is that the recovery of profit growth 
(growth in the level of profits) is the foundation for a recovery. I also 
was able to show that we could link the changes in the amount of 
profit directly to movements in the stock market. The key in both 
cases is the rate of return on new investment, which can be related 
to the incremental profit rate r = D(P)/I(-1), where D(P) is the 
change in real gross profits, and I(-1) is the previous period's real 
gross investment. Such a link works very well empirically for a 
variety of issues, as I and various others working with me have 
been able to show. 

In the US, the mass of profit began a strong persistent upward 
trend in the early 1980's, and has been trending upward steadily 
since. For this reason, I trace the turnaround point in the US to the 
mid-1980's. There another also other quite remarkably consistent 
measure of long waves which I have been able to extend back 
about 200 years in the US and the UK, and it too pointed in much 
the same direction. Mary Malloy, at Iona College, is another person 
who has worked on linking long waves to profits, and has taken her 
data back almost 150 years. 

All such measures work best when smoothed somewhat to bring 
out trends. I tend to use simple centered moving averages, which 
does not distort major turning points too much, but the cost of that 
is of course that timing of a turnaround becomes clearest only a 
few years after the fact. Nonetheless, this was clear by the late 
1980's. 

Previous long waves show that recoveries can be interrupted by a 
sharp but relatively brief downturn. For instance, in the Great 
Depression (previous to this one) we found that a sharp recovery in 
profits took place by around 1933, long before the war and its 
further boost. But there was a sharp downturn in 1937, followed by 
an equally sharp recovery by 1938-9. 

A profit recovery in the US does not, of course, automatically raise 
the whole capitalist world. While Britain has also had a profit 
recovery (for much the same reasons), many other advanced 
countries have not (Japan), or at least not to the same degree. And 
of course, in certain major developing countries which have made 
successful forays into the world market, the takeoff has been 
grounded for the time being (S. Korea) or possibly aborted 
(Indonesia, Malaysia). Even there, I do not place much credence in 
the claim that the volatility of financial flows are to blame, since 
that kind of argument seldom confronts the huge internal problems 
of profitability and credit overhang in many of these countries. 

The greatly enhanced role of credit is one critical difference in the 
modern era -- both as a means of covering up a crisis, and as a 
threat to a recovery through a financial meltdown. The two aspects 
are obviously linked, not the least by the fact that states and 
international organizations plays a role on both sides, so to speak. 
But in the end the power of these capitalist institutions floats on a 
sea of profits. This power is the greatest when the tide is in, even 
though the need for intervention is generally greatest when the tide 
is out.  

A long wave recovery of course requires a settlement of class 
struggle in favor of the (surviving) big capitals. A sharp recovery of 
profits is only a (lagging) indicator of this. And here, in the 
advanced countries at least, the outcome seems clear to me. The 
decisive balance has been long in favor of capital, and even any 
resurgence of labor  militancy does not seem probable until well 
into a recovery.  

So, are we ultimately on a long wave upturn? On balance, I think 
so. Other advanced countries are beginning to move in the US and 
UK direction, and lamenting it does not change the facts. Even 
Japan, stuck as it is, is not likely to collapse and bring the whole 
system crashing down. And I never thought that the Asian Crisis 
would do so. 

As I began by saying, none of this precludes a sharp interruption in 
the process, triggered most likely by a financial crisis. 

Anwar


"The Stock Market and the Corporate Sector: A Profit-Based 
Approach", in a Festschrift for Geoffrey Harcourt, Malcolm Sawyer, 
Philip Arestis, and Gabriel Palma (eds.), Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1998. 


"The Falling Rate of Profit and Long Waves in 
Accumulation: Theory and Evidence", in Alfred 
Kleinknecht, Ernest Mandel, Immanuel Wallerstein 
(eds.), New Findings in Long Wave Research, 
London: Macmillan, 1992.

"The Falling Rate of Profit and the Economic Crisis 
in the U.S.", in Robert Cherry, et al., The Imperiled 
Economy, Book I, Union for Radical Political 
Economy, 1987.


 
Anwar Shaikh
Dept. of Economics
SOAS, Univ. of London
Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square
London WC1H OXG
0171 323-6166 (work)



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Feb  5 09:50:37 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:50:37 -0500
Subject: M-TH: My first post to Thaxis 3/98; For Vulgar Marxism
Message-ID: <s6badb2a.031@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>


>>> "Bob Malecki" <malecki at mail.bip.net> 03/17 11:47 PM >>>

Charles gleefully writes!


   By vulgar marxism I mean a constructive critic of fancy marxism and its
left-liberal cousins.  My general attitude is to extract the rational kernel
from the modern and post-modern left neo and paleo liberals from Hegel to
post-Foucaultists. So, I like the kernel of truth metaphor used in the list
discussion in the last day.
   As to the true universal Doug asked Yoshie for, I would build it. not on
a new idea, but Marx and Feuerbach's species-being. All of the workers and
other people represented by other social movements are human species-beingsAlthough biiology only limits us human beings because we have culture
(super-natures and natures ) this contradiction between biology and culture
is still where it is at in generating universals or big generals.
    Being determines consciousness is still a focal rule of thumb (guide to
action; heuristic) for building a universal, real common interests among huge numbers
of people, the masses.
     My first post-Marx development of species-being is to derive women's
libertion organically from historical materialism's premises, as Marx and
Engels derive workers' liberation from those species-being historical
premises.  It is a correction of classical Marxism, but based on Marxsim's
own premises. In ways its too vulgar for pomos and fancy marxists.
    However, the pomos and their old cousins, Frankfurt school, Gramsci,
exitentialists, et al. all the fancy marxists have taught us something:
being determines consciousness discontinuously, intermittmently, rarely.
Through most of the actual time of history, consciousness and being are
reciprocally determining. Only rarely, in revolutions, primarily and
ultimately does being utterly determine consciousness.
  Today, that means that the direct naked appeal to the working class' class
self-interest is inadequate in itself-necessary but not sufficient in the
formal logical sense -to inspire revolution.  That appeal cannot be
dropped - the vast majority are working class, wage laborers - but must be
complemented with appeals to other consciousness, other consciousness
determined by being (gender, for example) and consciousness that is
determined more by consciousness.
  Overall one wants to change the world based on interpreting it, changing
it through practical-critical activity, a unity of theory and practice
still.
     All Power to the People as a whole.

         Charles Brown, your new comrade





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From magellan at netrio.com.br  Fri Feb  5 17:34:27 1999
From: magellan at netrio.com.br (R. Magellan)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 22:34:27 -0200
Subject: M-TH: Unemployment and the Catholic Church in Brazil
Message-ID: <199902060034.WAA30149@lin.momentus.com.br>


                 "...    capitalism is an idolatric and materialist system, 
for the true God is overplaced by the idols of the boundless riches.... "   
---  the Brazilian Catholic Bishops, 1999   (see ahead)

A bird-eye's view of Christian progressives in Brazil
************************************************************
Brazil has the biggest catholic population in the world.  Since colonial 
times her history shows that the participation of the low clergy at the side 
of the popular causes was not infrequent.  Brazil also is the craddle of the 
Liberation Theology,  that intends to link socialism to christendom, being 
priest Leonardo Boff its best known thinker.  

Liberation Theology stems from the division of the Catholic Church between a 
church that is an opium on behalf of the rich people and a church that 
defends the poor, a division that has been in existence since the Roman 
Empire, though many times obscured.   It may have some tints of the feudal 
struggle against the nascent bourgeoisie, but nowadays with a changed signal 
and with no fear of socialism.

>From the Vatican II Council on  (1962/1963) and its accompanying call for   
__aggiornamento__   (to be switched on the daily needs of the people), the 
most part of the Catholic Church in Brazil stepped to the left and some 
sectors even to the far left.   Vatican II so originated a stance quite 
different from the reactionary Pope Leo XIII's  social encyclicals of a 
century ago, being the most conspicuous the __Rerum Novarum__ .
                                                    
Soon after the Vatican II Council the progressive government of Jo?o Goulart 
 (an anticipation of Allende's Popular Unity) was overthrown as part of the 
US strategy aimed against the spreading of the Cuban Revolution, in 
conjunction with local big entrepreneurs and great landlords.  During the 
ensuing military dictatorship of 1964/1985 it was knitted a close alliance 
between the progressive sectors of the Catholic Church and the organized 
movements of resistance, including the urban guerrilla ones.  Among these 
there was a formerly lay catholic organization, AP -- the People's Action.   
Its members justified the resource to weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas's  
right of rebellion against tyranny.  

Liberation Theology evolved from this characteristic political soup and has 
given origin to the CEBs-- the Ecclesial Base Communities, a grass root 
movement that once played a very important role into organizing people 
against the military dictatorship of 1964/1985 and that was at the origin of 
many workers' mass movements in Brazil, including the formation of PT (the 
Workers Party) and of MST (the Landless Movement).  Despite of the 
persecution launched by Pope John Paul II, Liberation Theology still 
pervades both the base and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Brazil, 
the lay movements and other Christian denominations too, specially 
Methodists and Lutherans (who have a stronghold in the populations from 
German stock).   

The Latin American Jesuits Manifesto of 1998, for instance, that emphasized 
the struggle against neo-liberalism and the needing of a new social order, 
is deeply embedded in the Liberation Theology.   CNBB --- the National 
Conference of the Brazilian Bishops, that is one of most respected 
institutions in Brazil, has relentlessly criticized neo-liberalism and the 
inhumane globalization process and not seldom it is short of repudiating 
capitalism altogether.  

The papacy, though remaining in the right-wing side, has recently made some 
advancements towards the catholic left.  For instance, at claiming for the 
annulment of the external debts of the poorest and smallest nations, what is 
being transformed into a revolutionary campaign  for the annulment of all 
the external debts of the improperly called Third World, not just the  
"poorest" countries' ones.  Other two examples are the sternly addresses 
from the Pope against  neo-liberalism, though he holds the 
social-democratic-like illusion that it would be possible to fight 
neo-liberalism while not fighting capitalism at the same time.

A condemnation of capitalism on ethical grounds
**********************************************************
>From now on I will be referring to an article that was written by priest 
Antonio Valentini Neto and that was originally published in a newslletter of 
CNBB --- the National Conference of the Brazilian Bishops. The article is 
the main text of the 1999 Brotherhood Campaign, an annual important 
political event in Brazil.   Its theme this year is the fight against 
unemployment.  The text has been widely distributed throughout the country.  
I don't send the Valentini text because its abridged form has 14 KB and it 
is not written in English. 

The article claims among its objectives:  a) "the denunciation of the 
social-political-economic models which bear unemployment and other justice 
problems";   b) "the announcement of the society according to evangelic 
criteria, where the individual is not a slave of the idolatric economic 
order".  Everybody knows that the author is very probably referring to 
capitalism and socialism respectively, but these names are deemed to be  
__shibbolet__  catchwords and 
so are diplomatically avoided, as a general rule.

Nevertheless, in the same text lies ahead a stern condenation of capitalism, 
albeit implictly giving room to the puerile illusion of an ethical 
capitalism and evoking the messianic promises of the New Jerusalem:

		"Capitalism without ethical breaks is a nefarious system, according to 
Pope Paul VI in the  __Populorum Progressio__.  It transforms profit into an 
essential motor of economic progress; competition into the supreme economic 
law;  and private property of capital goods into an absolute right, neither 
with limits nor with accompanying social obligations.  According to CNBB, 
capitalism is an idolatric and materialist system, for the true God is 
overplaced by the idols of the boundless riches, of the profit at whatever 
price, of the unrestrained consumption put to the service of a privilegiated 
minority.  This situation, that denies elementary rights to the majority of 
the people, it is a violence against the dignity of the Lord's sons.  More 
yet:   this situation is a strong obstacle and a tenacious resistance to the 
announcement and to the inauguration of the Kingdom of God amidst us."

The article even dares to border a communist suggestion that was very 
popular in the Middle Ages:   "unemployment .....  also contradicts the 
[ethical] principle of the universal destination of  goods in order to 
propiciate to everyone a life with dignity."

Unemployment in Brazil according to the Catholic Church
*******************************************************************
Unemployment is typical of the present stage of capitalism, says Valentini, 
on behalf of CNBB.

The article says that work and job are commonly regarded as synonyms and 
defines work as  "a full time and steadfast job, from the end of the 
schooltime up to retirement, which is paid with a regular salary and within 
a frame of prodution of goods and services."   These features are 
disappearing each passing day all over the world, according to Valentini, 
who also quotes the ILO (International Labor Organization) 1997 report that 
estimates 1 billion unemployed people in the whole world.

As to Brazil, Valentini quotes the trade-unions economic services DIEESE, 
that estimates that 13.9 % of the economically active population was 
unemployed as the average of 1997, jumping to 17.2 % in March, 1998.  He 
also quotes IBGE, that is the federal statistics office, which uses a very 
strange definition for unemployment:  if an individual remains unemployed 
after three consecutive months this automatically means that he or she have 
really got an occupation for the simple reason of  being still alive !   
Even so, IBGE recognizes that unemployment has increased twofolds in Brazil 
between 1994 and 1998    --the apex of the golden neo-liberal era, by the 
way---  what means 12 million unemployed Brazilians in August, 1998 
(optimistic official numbers, not DIEESE's). 

Valentini says that youngsters are half of the total of unemployed people, 
though many children are being compelled to work in order to add to the 
family income or even to supply it.   Blacks are most prone than whites to 
become unemployed as women are most prone than men.

Two economists are quoted without comments:   the left-wing Jorge Mattoso, a 
professor at the Campinas University (one of the Brazilian economic think 
tanks) and the right-wing Jos? Pastore, a professor at the S?o Paulo State 
University.  The former ascribes the growing unemployment in Brazil to:  a) 
the subordinate position of Brazil in the world economy  (what makes one 
remembers the "dependence theory" by president Cardoso, when he was a 
leftist);  b) the free trade policy, with no effective dumping controls;   
c) the high interest rate and the high exchange value of the real  (written 
before the recent devaluation).  The latter traces the growing unemployment 
to international competition, technological changes and changes in the 
production methods, low growth,  the lack of dumping controls and of trade 
barriers, low education patterns and hampering labor legislation.   At 
reading all this stuff, sometimes I wonder if economists really understand 
economics...

Slave labor and the reenactment of backward labor practices 
************************************************************************
Valentini also points out that the slave labor is back and on the rise, what 
is a feature of this final stage of capitalism  (globalization).  He adds:  
"it is very difficult to assess the real number of slave workers and to 
identify the victims."

By the way, I note that people in despair, who have lost every hope to find 
a regular job or even to be occasionaly hired to perform humble tasks, do 
accept slave labor without complain  in sweatshops, in agriculture, in 
domestic jobs, and even in fashionable retail outlets at stylistic shopping 
centers.  

The basic pattern of slave labor is as follows  (these remarks are mine, not 
Valentini's):

a) people are paid less than a living wage (the official minimum wage in 
Brazil is inferior to the living wage);
b) at the very best, they are paid the minimum wage with some very meager 
comissions on sales or production above a certain high volume;   
c) not seldom, the non-organized and "free" rural workers in remote areas 
are hired just for food;   
d) there are neither work schedules nor work shifts, and sometimes not even 
meal breaks, what may means to work  70 or more hours a week, including 
weekends and holidays;  
e) slave workers sleep in the streets or within the sweatshops  (this a 
normal rule in the case of building sites);  
f) the right to organize and to unionize is denied;   
g) harassment or sexual abuse of working women are an open possibility;  
h) intimidation and actual violence against those who complain to the boss 
or who seek outside help  (caucus groups, press, members of parliaments, 
labor courts etc.) are common;  
i) children aged 7 years old are put to work in agriculture and in the 
unecological coalification process of the vegetable coal industry that still 
exists in some backward rural areas;  
j) needless to say that the labor legislation  (which in Brazil is very 
detailed and intrincate) is not complied with, what means that some basic 
wage-related payments are not made, as severance pay, vacations, extra 
working hours, the 15 days sickness tolerance etc. etc.;
k) illegal fines and other illegal kinds of punishment are arbitrarily imposed;
l) a growing number of employers are illegally either reducing or delaying 
the payment of  salaries, what includes big companies, law offices etc.;   
m) there are companies which are illegally paying salaries with their own 
inventories, so turning workers into unwilling salespeople.

The slave labor is not restricted to the classic pattern of the clothing and 
textile industry sweatshops  (by the way, Asian and Central-American workers 
earn less !)  Some of its features   ---specially the relinquishment of 
maximum mandatory work schedules and the default on extra hours---  are 
becoming common even in some unheard of workplaces such as big auditing and 
consulting firms (including international ones) and airlines.  In the former 
case the excuses are deadlines and contracted hours which are made smaller 
each new year, allegedly to satisfy the client;  in the latter case (that 
has been the cause behind some plane crashes, specially in small companies) 
the reason is mad competition or just dumb greed.  

There also is another subtile example, that is rather a refined job torture 
in one of the most sucessful investment banks of Brazil.  Its open market 
desk is (or was) deemed to be the most profitable of all.   Its chairman 
once gave an explanation that would rather be fitted to a slave-owner:  at 
the end of each month he fired the last performer among the well paid open 
market dealers, no matter the reason for the "failure" (that could be a very 
profitable one, notheless). He did it  (or still does)  in a humiliating way 
and refusing to pay the wages due to his monthly victim.

The neo-liberal government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso has actually been 
pushing such backward practices with the so called  "flexibilization" and  
"partnership" schemes    ---- these catchwords of the new capitalist creed 
that have swiftly streched out all over the world---    and with the help of 
the yellow-dog practices of corrupt tradeunionists.   "Flexibilization" and  
"partnership" schemes  mean the abolishment of work practices that had been 
hitherto taken for granted as conquests of the civilization.  

It is worthwhile to remember that the "flexibilization" and  "partnership" 
policies are the same pratices which were shown as an anti-Marxist "proof" 
that the working conditions of the 19th.century capitalism, which would 
justify socialism, do not exist anymore in the modern capitalism of the 
second half of the 20th. century.  Nevertheless, practices alike to the 
19th. century ones still are in Brazil silly called "savage capitalism", as 
if it would be possible to exist a  "good" one.  

Other considerations
******************************
The article made by Valentini on behalf of CNBB analyzes the deep 
psychological consequences of continued unemployment on the individidual, 
and on his or her family and the societal disintegration as well.  It would 
have been interesting to translate into English the full inventory of 
disgraces, however being everywhere  well known or well imaginable ones .  I 
refrain from doing this for the lack of space. 

Valentini lists, for instance, severe depressions and suicides, which are 
said to be on the rise in Brazil.  Each new privatization is accompanied 
alongside by suicides of workers that think they will never recover from 
unemployment, because mass dismissals are the first acts of the new 
managements.  

It must be said that mass firing of employees have been occurring even in  
cases where they end up lowering the quality of services and goods, as it 
has been happening with the electricity shortages that begin soon after an 
energy company is sold.   As you know, the neo-liberal defintion of good 
management is the management that fires the most part of employees in the 
shortest span of time.  Even so, neo-liberal ideologues preach twaddle to 
the workers, as a magical solution, the need to find new and highly 
specialized  "niches"  (another neo-liberal hit word).   President Cardoso, 
during his reelection campaign, has even suggested  "afro coiffeurs" as an 
example !...

Since Valentini is writing on behalf of CNBB to a Brazilian audience, he 
fails to disclose that insurance against unemployment is a ridiculously low 
amount that lasts only three months, what adds to increase uneasiness.   
Self-employed people, who are also subject to long periods without work, 
including lawyers, physicians, dentists, etc., have no coverage at all.

Solutions proposed to end  unemployment
****************************************************
Lately the Catholic Churh has been assuming a pro-active approach, whereas 
yesterday it lmited itself to appoint to the problems and injustices.

So, Valentini and CNBB propose  "to create a new model of society based upon 
justice and solidarity, which has as its priority the human being and which 
makes possible to develop his/her potential"  etc.   How would be called 
this new society, since they have already assimilated capitalism to 
Baal-style idolatry?

A little after the proposition above one might thinks that is reading an 
utopian quote from a broken version of  "The German Ideology":   "there must 
be instituted a new form to socialize the fruits of labor and of technology. 
 Up to now production has pratically been made only by human work. Since it 
is now possible to produce wealth without the work of everybody, it is 
necessary to guarantee otherwise the survival of those who are being 
overplaced by technology."

In more practical ways, on behalf of CNBB, Valentini suggests the reduction 
of worktime without an accompanying reduction of wages;  the end of extra 
worktime; agrarian reform;  labor statutes which forbid dismissals, which 
incentive human work and which impose certain criteria on the introduction 
of new technologies;  the annulment of the external debts...     Oh, what 
CNBB and Valentini propose is revolution, nothing less than this !   Vade 
retro ?
 
Ite, missiva est.  Pax vobiscum, 
Roberto Magellan

Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans  (....)
Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand PARTI DES TRAVAILLEURS.  (L' Internationale)

               



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From glevy at pratt.edu  Fri Feb  5 18:28:51 1999
From: glevy at pratt.edu (Gerald Levy)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:28:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Upside down slogans
In-Reply-To: <199902060038.RAA25115@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990205195542.16247A-100000@acnet>

Charles, why is this post from 3/98 being rebroadcasted?

However, since the issue has come up again, I have a comment on your
slogan:

>      All Power to the People as a whole.

All Power to the Proletariat (assisted by the peasantry), yes.

(there was an interesting debate, btw, between Lenin and Trotsky over
whether the slogan "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" [Lenin]
was preferable to the slogan "dictatorship of the proletariat assisted by
the peasantry" [Trotsky]).

All Power to the Soviets (at least within the historical context of 1917
Russia), yes.

All Power to the Party, no. 

"All Power to the People as a whole", no.

The bourgeoisie are people too. Fuck them. 

No power to our class enemies!


                    *We'll turn things upside down*

O, the world is overburdened 
With the idle and the rich!
They bask up in the sunshine
While we plod in the ditch;
But, zounds! we'll put some mettle
In their fingers and their thumbs,
For we'll turn things upside down, my lads,
When the Revolution comes!

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
They will wonder what has happened
When we turn things upside down.

Plain living may be wholesome,
And wondrous virtues may
Abound beneath ribs scant of flesh
And pockets scant of pay.
It may be poverty is best
If rightly understood;
But we'll turn things upside down, my lads!
We don't want all the good!

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
May they thrive on their own philosophy
When we turn things upside down.

They're never done extolling
The nobility of work;
But, the knaves! They always take good care
Their share of toil to shirk, 
Do they send their sons and daughters
To the workshop or the mill?
Oh, we'll turn things upside down, my lads,
It will change their tune, it will!

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
They can practice all their precepts 
When we turn things upside down.

They live in splendid mansions,
And we in hovels vile;
Their lives are spent in pleasure,
And ours in cheerless toil;
They jaunt about the world, while we
Are pinned down to one spot;
But we'll turn things upside down, we will!
It's time, lads, is it not?

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Life may then be worth living,
When we've turned things upside down!

Then let us, lads, right lustily
Support the glorious cause,
To overturn the whole vile lot
With their lying and their laws
And let us all together
Put our shoulder to the wheel,
That will turn things upside down, hurrah!
All for the Commonweal.

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
The world will be far better
When we turn things upside down.

                       -- J. Bruce Glasier


Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sat Feb  6 01:42:07 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 08:42:07 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Dennett on a revolutionised world-view
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990206084207.01317b1c@pop.gn.apc.org>

>From Tim Radford, scientific correspondent of the Guardian,
on their website this morning, from a long popular science article
as a trailer for a science debate they are hosting next Wednesday:- 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The American philosopher Daniel Dennett
recently called Darwin's hypothesis 'the
single best idea anyone has ever had'. He
saw it as a universal acid, eating through
every traditional concept, leaving a
revolutionised world-view: it transformed
psychology, politics, ethics, and religion.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Leaving aside the important subtleties about what exactly
Darwin's hypothesis is, it struck me that this statement 
is compatible with the early and late Marx
that science presages the end of all ideology.

Would anyone else agree?


Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sat Feb  6 01:46:50 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 08:46:50 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Perception research in Nature
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990206084650.01317534@pop.gn.apc.org>

I thought I would post an abstract from an article in Nature this week at
the edge of solving one of the riddles of science, and see to what extent
it is comatible with a dialectical view and to what extent a dialectical
view is compatible with it. 

I am not quite sure. Comments follow abstract.

Chris Burford

London




Perception's shadow: long-distance synchronization of human brain activity

EUGENIO RODRIGUEZ, NATHALIE GEORGE, JEAN-PHILIPPE LACHAUX,
JACQUES MARTINERIE, BERNARD RENAULT & FRANCISCO J. VARELA

Transient periods of synchronization of oscillating neuronal discharges in
the frequency range 30-80 Hz (gamma oscillations) have been proposed to act
as an integrative mechanism that may bring a widely distributed set of
neurons together into a coherent ensemble that underlies a cognitive act.
Results of several experiments in animals provide support for this idea
(see, for example, refs 4,5,6,7,8,9,10). In humans, gamma oscillations have
been described both on the scalp (measured by electroencephalography and
magnetoencephalography) and in intracortical recordings, but no direct
participation of synchrony in a cognitive task has been demonstrated so
far. Here we record electrical brain activity from subjects who are viewing
ambiguous visual stimuli (perceived either as faces or as meaningless
shapes). We show for the first time, to our knowledge, that only face
perception induces a long-distance pattern of synchronization,
corresponding to the moment of perception itself and to the ensuing motor
response. A period of strong desynchronization marks the transition between
the moment of perception and the motor response. We suggest that this
desynchronization reflects a process of active uncoupling of the underlying
neural ensembles that is necessary to proceed from one cognitive state to
another.

____________________________________________________________________________


The easiest way I get a handle on this is to think in terms of complexity
theory. We seem to be reading here a description of transient but definite
linkages between smaller cellular units, which create an oscillating rhythm
which is stable for short periods of time, and then disappears. 

It is also likely to involve non-linear iterative processes permitting
sudden phase shifts in the phenomena, as described in models of
mathematical dynamical systems ("chaos") theory.

My feeling is that these approaches are compatible with a dialectical
materialist approach and a dialectical materialist approach is compatible
with them, but only at a high level of generality, and quite impossible of
any proof.

It is a description of reality which is highly interconnected, and
especially so in the brain, a biological structure evolved over millenia to
have relative but sensitive stability. Certain phenomena, in this case
perception, are suggested can only be understood as a function of the
connectedness. 

Rhythm is important for relative stability, and for signalling whether
something new has happened or not (a "perception" has been reflected and
somehow recorded). These rhythms, *in a sense* and with the eye of faith,
can be said to involve a oscillation between what exists and what does not
exist, (something which occurs, we know atomic scientists believe, at the
quantum level of existence too). Whether that comes anywhere near what the
dialecticians meant by the negation of the negation, I would not like to
comment further. As this article is about research focussed on just one
step of the perception process it does not discuss how perceptions compete
for storage, to what extent they may contribute to higher order patterns,
and to what extent this is a dynamical process in which the jostling of
different perceptions or patterns of perceptions could be conceptualised as
in contradiction with a higher order pattern coming out, is beyond the
scope of this empirical data.

However quantity changing into quality and back again can be seen in this
abstract, and is virtually common ground for all people who read science
seriously, whether they "believe in" a dialectical approach, or not.

I do not think I can take it much further this morning.

Chris Burford

London 



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Feb  6 11:20:37 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 13:20:37 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Upside down slogans
Message-ID: <s6bc41ac.050@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> Gerald Levy <glevy at pratt.edu> 02/05 8:28 PM >>>
Jerry: Charles, why is this post from 3/98 being rebroadcasted?

Charles: I hate the a la mode presentism, the fashion of disposable memory. I want to remind that I am a vulgar marxist, not a fancy marxist.

Jerry:
However, since the issue has come up again, I have a comment on your
slogan:

>      All Power to the People as a whole.

All Power to the Proletariat (assisted by the peasantry), yes.
______

Charles : Hammer and sickle, unity of town and country. The proletariat are an urban people, like Detroit. All Power to the Soviets was the source of this updated slogan by the Black Panthers. I emphasize "as a whole" because the problem with democracy in the party structure has included forgetting that the majority of democracy is of whole groups.

_________



(there was an interesting debate, btw, between Lenin and Trotsky over
whether the slogan "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" [Lenin]
was preferable to the slogan "dictatorship of the proletariat assisted by
the peasantry" [Trotsky]).

All Power to the Soviets (at least within the historical context of 1917
Russia), yes.

All Power to the Party, no. 

"All Power to the People as a whole", no.

The bourgeoisie are people too. Fuck them. 
_________
Charles: The bourgeoisie are the People too, fuck no.

This is not Russia. In the American popular tradition "The People"  occurs in "We, the People" the first words of the Constitution. Of course this is flawed and distorted in fact, but it represents a popular victory , that popular sovereignty is even in the fundamental law of the land in writing. So, the Black Panthers were correct to use a revolutionary form and give it a concrete historical content for this concrete nation or country. This is a Leninist style uniting international revolutionism with local  popular struggles and history.
_____



No power to our class enemies!
________

Charles: They have the power now. We must take it from them. 


Charles

Workers of the West, it's our turn to turn things upside down


                    *We'll turn things upside down*

O, the world is overburdened 
With the idle and the rich!
They bask up in the sunshine
While we plod in the ditch;
But, zounds! we'll put some mettle
In their fingers and their thumbs,
For we'll turn things upside down, my lads,
When the Revolution comes!

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
They will wonder what has happened
When we turn things upside down.

Plain living may be wholesome,
And wondrous virtues may
Abound beneath ribs scant of flesh
And pockets scant of pay.
It may be poverty is best
If rightly understood;
But we'll turn things upside down, my lads!
We don't want all the good!

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
May they thrive on their own philosophy
When we turn things upside down.

They're never done extolling
The nobility of work;
But, the knaves! They always take good care
Their share of toil to shirk, 
Do they send their sons and daughters
To the workshop or the mill?
Oh, we'll turn things upside down, my lads,
It will change their tune, it will!

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
They can practice all their precepts 
When we turn things upside down.

They live in splendid mansions,
And we in hovels vile;
Their lives are spent in pleasure,
And ours in cheerless toil;
They jaunt about the world, while we
Are pinned down to one spot;
But we'll turn things upside down, we will!
It's time, lads, is it not?

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Life may then be worth living,
When we've turned things upside down!

Then let us, lads, right lustily
Support the glorious cause,
To overturn the whole vile lot
With their lying and their laws
And let us all together
Put our shoulder to the wheel,
That will turn things upside down, hurrah!
All for the Commonweal.

Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
Oh, we'll turn things upside down,
The world will be far better
When we turn things upside down.

                       -- J. Bruce Glasier


Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Fri Feb  5 09:31:17 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:31:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: On Clarifying the Concept of Scientific Law (Re: M-TH: Marx and Engels on Law of Value)
In-Reply-To: <s6baba56.073@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990205110512.11172A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

[This post was delayed because it contained the word "subscr*be"
in the first 10 lines; it was forwarded to the list by Hans Ehrbar]


On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, John Henry wrote:

>Is this universally true ? Do you have any doubts ? Is this absolutely
>true ? Invariably true ? An ironclad "law" ?  Are the propositions below
>falsifiable ? How could it be falsified ? 

If Comrade Henry is asking me if it is true that a majority of scientists
subscribe to the notion of scientific law I have described in my post,
then the answer is yes. The description I sent to the list reflects what I
understand to be a general consensus. Does it mean every scientist would
describe "scientific law" in this way? No, of course not. But I have no
doubt that these two meanings I have presented are the standard notions of
scientific law. Nor do I have any doubt that Marx held to the
conceptualizations I claimed he did. It is explicit in his work. 

If Comrade Henry is trying to make some meaningful point by requesting my
position be capable of falsification then I need only to point out that
everything I have said is potentially falsifiable. 

	Claim:	Most scientists will agree with Mr. Austin's 
		characterization of scientific laws. 

	Negation: Most scientists will disagree with Mr. Austin's
		characterization of scientific laws.

We might suppose that the claim is falsified by demonstrating that no
scientists will agree with Mr. Austin's characterization of scientific
laws; this is true but unnecessary (and a daunting prospect). All one
needs to do is show that most scientists disagree with Mr. Austin's
description. One might clarify the matter by asking whether we are talking
about living scientists, or all scientists dead or alive. If it is only
living scientists then a scientific poll might be in order. A phone survey
might be sufficient to get some idea of whether most scientists agree or
not. If it is to include the dead, then a different technique will be
required.

Andy




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From pcg at panix.com  Fri Feb  5 10:15:25 1999
From: pcg at panix.com (Paul Gallagher)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:15:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: point scoring
In-Reply-To: <199902051600.JAA24323@lists.econ.utah.edu> from "marxism-thaxis-digest" at Feb 5, 99 09:00:23 am
Message-ID: <199902051715.MAA02660@panix2.panix.com>

[This post was delayed because it contained the word "subscr*be"
in the first 10 lines; it was forwarded to the list by Hans Ehrbar]



Given the persistent whining about Andrew Austin, I'd like to put in
a good word for him. The reason I subscribe to Marxism-Thaxis is to
read his posts.

Paul




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Feb  6 15:40:01 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 17:40:01 -0500
Subject: On Clarifying the Concept of Scientific Law (Re: M-TH:
	Marx and Engels on Law of Value)
Message-ID: <s6bc7e8e.087@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 02/05 11:31 AM >>>


On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, John Henry wrote:

>Is this universally true ? Do you have any doubts ? Is this absolutely
>true ? Invariably true ? An ironclad "law" ?  Are the propositions below
>falsifiable ? How could it be falsified ? 

If Comrade Henry is asking me if it is true that a majority of scientists
sub to the notion of scientific law I have described in my post,
then the answer is yes. 
__________

Charles: Oh now we are taking votes. ok. No not universally agreed to by scientists, but universally valid in the universe. Is it true everywhere. In other words, the same question , critique you asked about dialectics . Do I have to go back and get your posts and get your exact words ? Ask the same skeptical questions you asked about the universality of materiality and dialectics about your epistemological code below.
___________



The description I sent to the list reflects what I
understand to be a general consensus. Does it mean every scientist would
describe "scientific law" in this way? No, of course not. But I have no
doubt that these two meanings I have presented are the standard notions of
scientific law. Nor do I have any doubt that Marx held to the
conceptualizations I claimed he did. It is explicit in his work. 

If Comrade Henry is trying to make some meaningful point by requesting my
position be capable of falsification then I need only to point out that
everything I have said is potentially falsifiable. 

Claim:	Most scientists will agree with Mr. Austin's 
		characterization of scientific laws. 

	Negation: Most scientists will disagree with Mr. Austin's
		characterization of scientific laws.
_____________

Charles: Who said anything about most scientists or consensus ? Is that what you asked about dialectics, do most scientists agree with it ?  Take your meta-scientific propositions themselves and state how they would be falsified. That is the parallel to your critique that dialectics can't be falsified. Not "do most scientists" agree to these ? Here we go:

Andrew:
A scientific law is conceptualized in two basic ways. (1) A scientific law
is a general statement that describes an invariable order or relations,
often described as a regularity, existing between phenomena under
specified conditions. Putting this another way, a scientific law is a
statement about a sequence or a relation of events or phenomena invariable
under identical or very similar circumstances, conditions, or situations. 
Such a statement, or set of statements, constitute an explanation of how
things occur. 
___________

Charles: Are there any statements about invariable orders that are true ? Are there any true scientific laws ?

If so name, one.
 
Do you doubt its invariability ? Why or why not ? If you don't doubt its invariability , aren't you holding a religious principle ? 

To falsify your statement above, you would say "there are no scientific laws ".  


John Henry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb  7 01:34:36 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 08:34:36 +0000
Subject: M-TH: What has Hitchens done?
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990207083436.0132d8c8@pop.gn.apc.org>

Satellite television helps me get more of a feel of the graininess of what
is happening in the USA and Germany. 

Commentators seem to argue that the evidence hearing in the Senate has not
made much difference to the balance of the likely political compromise.

On a bigger time frame, Al Scardino, former Clinton advisor, was beaming
with pleasure at the likelhood of Republicans being out of power for a
generation.

Bad though the two party system is for genuine democracy, I want to ask if
US subscr*bers really think this could be true, and what are its
implications. 

Could this also be linked to the only surprise development, that
Christopher Hitchens, English maverick left commentator who has berated
Clinton over Iraq, chose this moment to break sacred conventions about
off-the record briefings by submitting an affidavit that Blumenthal lied in
his testimony in denying that he had a role in spinning down Lewinsky's
reputation? 

Making public the secrets of off the record briefings is as serious a
breach of the convention of bourgeois politics as laying bare every sexual
misdemeanour of one's opponents.

Does Hitchen's action imply that the attack by the Conservative Right on
Clinton's politics have run out of steam, and that if the Democratic Party
rises to unchallenged ascendancy for a generation, the relevant
contradiction will be the attacks on it from various parts of civil
society, from the left?

Or is this all a little spat, and we can go back to worldly-wise
revolutionary cynicism?

Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb  7 02:13:48 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 09:13:48 +0000
Subject: M-TH: point scoring
In-Reply-To: <199902051715.MAA02660@panix2.panix.com>
References: <199902051600.JAA24323@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990207091348.0132d8c8@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 12:15 05/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>[This post was delayed because it contained the word "subscr*be"
>in the first 10 lines; it was forwarded to the list by Hans Ehrbar]
>
>
>
>Given the persistent whining about Andrew Austin, I'd like to put in
>a good word for him. The reason I subscr[]be to Marxism-Thaxis is to
>read his posts.
>
>Paul

Well, Paul is entitled to his opinion that I have been whining. I do not
consider I have been whining in stating my assessment that Andrew is a
disingenuous debater whose contributions, even when interesting, I mistrust
and do not respect. That is my assessment for which I take responsibility,
and Andrew can decide what he wants to do, if anything at all. I am sure we
all have a range of people whom we respect, respect with qualifications,
feel middling about, mistrust, disrespect, or delete instantly. This would
be quite normal on a list.

But clearly here, Paul is making a political gesture, not a scientific one.
Although on the marxism-and-sciences list he wrote reasoned posts about
astronomy, (albeit mainly disqualifying the legitimacy of other posts by
saying that people should go to the  academic sources) he consistently, as
he does here, supported Andrew Austin, knowing that Andrew repeatedly
attacks Marx's view of the dialectical nature of nature, and tries to argue
a fundamental split between Marx and Engels on this point.

It is not compulsory to contribute to a list, and time is short for
everyone, but if Paul wished to contribute on a matter of content he could
have done so criticising me for dogmatism in the post about whether Pluto
is a planet. Andrew's contribution was to treat the issue as a superficial
semantic one. Paul on past form, appears to have the knowledge that it may
be that, but it is more than that.

There are quite a few things attributed to "Marxism-Leninism" to which I do
not adhere. But I happen to consider that to belittle the relevance of a
non-dogmatic dialectical and materialist approach to the whole of
existence, attacks a core feature of marxism, and I will oppose such
attacks. If anyone, Paul included, wishes to discuss in a non-dogmatic way
(eg like Lewontin) what we make of developing scientific discoveries, then
I am potentially interesting in discussing with such people.

It may be that the essentially political contradiction in thaxis between
the positions on dialectical materialism articulated by Andrew and his
opponents, is a contradiction that brings energy, warmth, and sometimes
light to the list, and that one pole of that contradiction may be more
attractive to some readers than others. If Paul wishes to read only one
pole of that contradiction and gain satisfaction from it, that is also his
choice.

But if Paul is merely making a statement of political support for someone
who has been consisently attacking and ridiculing the relationship between
Engels and Marx on dialectics and materialism, then he will not be
surprised that others may interpret it the way, I, for one, do.

Chris Burford

London







     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk  Sun Feb  7 06:41:49 1999
From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:41:49 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Hussein of Jordan
Message-ID: <oRYoGEAdgZv2Mwct@heartfield.demon.co.uk>

Obituary

King Hussein's Black September

No Middle Eastern ruler more obviously personified the defeat of Arab
nationalism than King Hussein Ibn Talal of Jordan did. Trained at
Sandhurst's military academy, Hussein was thrust onto the throne by his
British sponsors. His father Talal had been crowned in 1951 following
the assassination of Hussein's grandfather, but Talal's anti-British
policy meant that he was forced to abdicate on grounds of insanity.

The little English soldier was made King on coming of age on May 2,
1953. Hussein's natural inclinations were towards Britain, already a
fading power in the Middle East. His soldiers served under British
Commander Glubb Pasha, and marched to the sound of bagpipes. Hussein
wanted to join the pro-Western Baghdad pact but a growing mood of Arab
nationalism frustrated his plans.

Jordan at that time included the Palestinian territories known as the
West Bank, bordered by the US sponsored state of Israel. In Egypt Nasser
had raised the banner of Arab nationalism, which had an instant appeal
for the Palestinian population of Jordan. Israeli raids into the town of
Qaqilya left 48 slaughtered in 1956. Hussein had to bend to the popular
mood, sacked Glubb Pasha and moved closer to Nasser.

Nationalism threatened the Hashemite Kingdom. The nationalist party won
the election in 1956. But in 1957 Hussein dismissed Suleiman Nabulsi's
government and established a military regime based upon the Bedouin
loyalists in the Army. In the absence of elected government, Hussein had
to appeal to nationalist sentiment to forestall opposition. 

In 1964 he again turned to Nasser and made the alliance that would lead
to the 1967 war against Israel. The joint Egyptian-Jordanian force was
decisively defeated by Israel's superior fire-power and US support.
Humiliation was heaped upon Jordan as the Israelis occupied the West
Bank, forcing the Palestinians across the river Jordan to become
refugees in the Hashemite Kingdom.

The situation in Jordan was explosive. Hussein had raised popular
expectations with the war against Israel, and instead lost Jerusalem and
the West Bank. The Palestinian refugees were the social base of the
nationalist uprising and threatened Hussein's throne. The Palestine
Liberation Organization conducted raids into Israel and agitated against
Hussein. At the same time Hussein turned to the West to ask help with
dealing with his Palestinian problem. As Edward Said wrote in 1971, the
US strategy was to 'outmaneuver the Palestinian guerillas by using, and
financing, all governments in the area who stood to lose most if the
Palestinians were to have fulfilled their revolutionary role'. The
result was Black September.

According to Said, the evidence was that Hussein had planned to make war
on the Palestinians since 1969, a war that was prosecuted in September
1970. The battle continued for ten days and thousands of Palestinian
fighters and civilians were slaughtered. The Jordanian Army that had
proved so ineffective in the public relations war against Israel, was
decisive in its life and death struggle with the Palestinians for
control of Jordan. 

With the slaughter of Black September Hussein worked his way back into
the good books of the West. But the Kingdom lacked any solid basis. It's
people are amongst the poorest in the Middle East. Hussein's policy
since 1970 has been to pay lip-service to Arab nationalism while keeping
Jordan out of any direct conflict. So Jordan took no part in the war of
1973 between Israel and a joint Egyptian and Syrian force, but denounced
the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt in 1977.

Today Palestinian aspirations are tied to a caricature of independence
on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip, where a few towns exercise
'autonomy' under Israeli gun-positions. But even this phony independence
has more reality than Jordan's territorial claims to the West Bank,
which were abandoned in 1988.

Hussein Ibn Talal, 1935-1999 

The Politics of Dispossession, Edward Said, Vintage, 1995 
The Arab Nation, Samir Amin, Zed Press 1978
A to Z of the Middle East, Alain Gresh, Dominique Vidal, Zed Books, 1990

-- 
Jim heartfield


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Feb  7 09:16:20 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 11:16:20 -0500
Subject: M-TH: What has Hitchens done?
Message-ID: <s6bd7617.013@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 02/07 3:34 AM >>>
Satellite television helps me get more of a feel of the graininess of what
is happening in the USA and Germany. 

Commentators seem to argue that the evidence hearing in the Senate has not
made much difference to the balance of the likely political compromise.

On a bigger time frame, Al Scardino, former Clinton advisor, was beaming
with pleasure at the likelhood of Republicans being out of power for a
generation.

Bad though the two party system is for genuine democracy, I want to ask if
US subscr*bers really think this could be true, and what are its
implications.
_________

Charles: As good as it would be to get rid of the Republicans forever, I don't think we are so lucky , yet, as to even lose them for the next election. But, I may be being too cautious. They still have the majority in both Houses of Congress and a large majority in Governors.  Their incipient transformation into a fascist party may have been defeated for now.



Charles Brown

Detroit

_________-----
____________



Could this also be linked to the only surprise development, that
Christopher Hitchens, English maverick left commentator who has berated
Clinton over Iraq, chose this moment to break sacred conventions about
off-the record briefings by submitting an affidavit that Blumenthal lied in
his testimony in denying that he had a role in spinning down Lewinsky's
reputation? 

Making public the secrets of off the record briefings is as serious a
breach of the convention of bourgeois politics as laying bare every sexual
misdemeanour of one's opponents.

Does Hitchen's action imply that the attack by the Conservative Right on
Clinton's politics have run out of steam, and that if the Democratic Party
rises to unchallenged ascendancy for a generation, the relevant
contradiction will be the attacks on it from various parts of civil
society, from the left?

Or is this all a little spat, and we can go back to worldly-wise
revolutionary cynicism?

Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sun Feb  7 14:47:47 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 16:47:47 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Maori Protest
Message-ID: <s6bdc3bf.063@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

MAORI PROTESTORS SCALE WAITANGI FLAGPOLE

Waitangi Feb 6

The New Zealand flag and the navy White Ensign were unceremoniously lowered
today when Maori activists broken an agreement with police and climbed the
greased flagpole in the Treaty House grounds at Waitangi.

Three Maori protesters helped each other past the greased lower portion,
then shimmied up the flagstaff top release the halyards, the New Zealand
flag at the top of the flagstaff, and the White Ensign on the lower gaff.
Police did nothing to stop the protest action, but refused to comment,
although unofficially admitting the protest movement had broken an
agreement not to interfere with the flagstaff.

The protesters replaced the two official flags with seven flags of the
Maori sovereignty movement. After the New Zealand flag and the ensign were
lowered veteran protester Mike Smith folded the ensign up and took it to
the police commander, who returned it to the navy The second flag was
folded by Hinewhare Harawira, who also returned it to police. Pita Paraone,
the chairman of the Waitangi Day organising committee, said the incident
would not spoil the spirit of commemorations.

``The spirit of the last two days has been such that if they are able to
fly their flag, then let them do it,'' Mr Paraone said.

Activist Annette Sykes paid tribute to the warriors who had climbed the
flagstaff, and released the flags. She said the protest movement had just
received a copy of the speech to be delivered tonight by Prime Minister
Jenny Shipley, in which she rejected calls for constitutional changes. That
now signalled the start of the fight, Ms Sykes said.

The late rally of the Maori protest movement was one of the few signs today
that Waitangi commemorations had not gone all the Government's way. Between
600 and 800 protesters marched from Te Tii Waitangi Marae on the banks of
the Waitangi River, up to the Treaty House grounds for an impromptu meeting
outside the Whare Runanga.

There, they were told by several speakers, including Hone Harawira, the son
of Titewhai, who escorted PM Jenny Shipley, that the new feeling of
dialogue was ``bullshit''.

He said Maoridom did not consist of the smiling happy faces that the
Government wanted to portray. He said deals such as the Sealord deal were
signed by elderly kaumatua (old men) and kuia (old women) who had not much
longer left this earth. He said if the Government wanted to sign real deals
they should be signed by young Maori, because only then could they be
considered real.

As he addressed the crowd another group of protesters marched on to the
Treaty House grounds at the flagstaff. Earlier, a naval colour party
greased the base of the flagpole and the steel cable holding it up to stop
it being scaled. They also tied off the halyards about eight metres above
the ground so the flags could not be pulled down. The four flags -- the New
Zealand flag, the navy White Ensign, the Union Jack and the flag of the
Confederation of Chiefs, were hoisted about 3.30am today, well before any
visitors arrived on the Treaty House Grounds.

HENARE ASKED TO APOLOGISE FOR MARAE BEHAVIOUR

Whangarei, Feb 6

Tai Tokerau MP Tau Henare is being called on to apologise for his conduct
during an official powhiri (welcome) on Te Tii Marae at Waitangi yesterday.

During the welcoming ceremony yesterday for Prime Minister Jenny Shipley
and her Cabinet colleagues, the Maori Affairs Minister took a swipe at Tai
Tokerau tribal elders, accusing them of ``sitting in the back room and
doing nothing''.

He was responding to criticism from Ngapuhi elder Graham Rankin about
rising Maori unemployment numbers.

Said Mr Henare: ``You (elders) moan at us about the Government not doing
anything. It's about time you got up and did something yourselves.''

And in another affront to elders, Mr Henare gave his koha (gift) to a
visiting haka group instead of laying it in front of the marae as protocol
dictates. The haka group later handed the koha on to Mr Rankin in
accordance with Maori protocol. Mr Henare later declined to comment further
on the incident, but Mr Rankin said the Tai Tokerau MP's behaviour was
insulting and he should apologise.

``The young man was leaking. His actions were absolutely stupid. He comes
from a proud lineage. This sort of behaviour is not good enough,'' he said.

Mr Rankin said while he partly agreed with some of Mr Henare's comments, he
believed yesterday was not the day to voice such controversial opinions.
There were elders who did very little, but Mr Henare should have shown some
restraint and held his tongue.

``He was foolish and immature,'' he said.

Ngatikuri elder Graeme Neho was also critical of Mr Henare's conduct,
saying his comments were ``totally insulting to all elders in the North''.
He should apologise immediately.

``He's just trying to make excuses. He hasn't done anything for our people
so now he's blaming the elders,'' he said.

Mr Neho said marae elders would have been extremely insulted by Mr Henare's
decision to give his koha to the visiting haka group rather than to the
marae. Former Race Relations Conciliator Hiwi Tauroa of Whangaroa, on the
east coast of the Far North, an expert on marae protocol, also agreed that
Mr Henare's actions were insulting. Koha was to assist elders with the
running of the commemorations and it was ``certainly unusual'' that it be
given to a group of young people, he said.

There was also criticism today of Mr Henare from one of his own tribal
leaders, Kevin Prime of Ngatihine. He believed that someone in Mr Henare's
position should have been ``more circumspect'' with his comments.

``If anything we should be looking after our old people, not denigrating
them in this way. You cannot blame them for such things as high
unemployment,'' he said.

 RELAXED GATHERING FOR NGAI TAHU

Dunedin, Feb 7

Waitangi Day was a relaxed and light-hearted day for Ngai Tahu and guests
at Otakou Marae on the Otago Peninsula yesterday, as the tribe commemorated
the treaty signing 159 years ago. The historic settlement between the South
Island iwi and the Crown last year lent an atmosphere of expectation for
more than 150 people present as speakers looked to the future and spoke of
work to be done.

Speaker of the House Doug Kidd, representing the Prime Minister, said
recent agreements between Maori and the Crown would have been impossible
only a decade ago.

Legislation such as that covering customary fishing had been radical and
politically dangerous, Mr Kidd said. He said the eel management scheme
achieved while he was Fisheries Minister was one of the most important
things he had done as a minister.

``There is nowhere else...in the world where iwi and industry, guided only
by the Government, are equally in charge of a significant resource.

``There is a lot still to do and a long way to go but we have pushed the
waka out. Keep paddling is my message today,'' he said.

Dunedin playwright John Broughton wrote a celebration of kaumatua (elder)
Mori Pickering's life, which brought tears of laughter to those listening.
Photographer Lloyd Park, of Christchurch, presented a sequence of slides
documenting key events of last year's settlement and landscapes of areas
special to Ngai Tahu.

The tribe's Waitangi Day Commemorations alternate each year between Otakou,
Akaroa and Ruapuke Island, off Bluff, the three sites where Ngai Tahu
representatives signed the treaty. 


Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Sun Feb  7 20:52:12 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:52:12 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political practice
Message-ID: <m109hmP-000CTkC@secyt.gov.ar>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990208/e17208e7/attachment.bin>

From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Sun Feb  7 21:18:37 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:18:37 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political practice (1/2)
Message-ID: <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>

Dialectical Method, i.e., the reproduction of the concrete in thought

Let us face the object of our cognition, reality. Outside the 
theoretical world, reality does not present itself to our minds as an 
abstract generality. It presents itself as a mass of concrete forms 
that we distinguish from each other as simply being such. 
Therefore, we start lacking any way to mentally appropriate the 
relation these forms have with ourselves, other than by taking them 
one by one. Whichever we take, it will face us as a potentiality, as 
a necessity to be realized (at least, in its temporal determination) 
when we look at it once isolated. There is nothing to wonder about. 
If real concrete forms are of any interest for us, let alone a 
nebulous abstractly contemplative one, it is because, as 
potencies, they can affect us on realizing themselves and, rather, 
because we can realize the potencies they are with our action.  

To discover the selected concrete form as a potentiality, we have 
just put into action our capacity for immediate cognition. There was 
no need of any scientific cognition nor, a fortiori, of a theoretical 
cognition. Of course, we can try to realize the discovered 
potentiality right away with our action. Still we have no guide for 
this realization other than what the immediate appearance of that 
potentiality tells us about itself. And our immediate cognition also 
tells us that appearances often fool us. The point is to discover the 
reason, the necessity, of the real potentiality at stake.  

However we look at it, the real potentiality we are attempting to 
cognize has nothing to add concerning its necessity, other than 
facing us with its appearance of being such potentiality. 
Nevertheless, our immediate cognition is still far from exhausting 
its capacity. The selected concrete form already appears as a 
potency to be realized, whose necessity is not reduced to this 
potency itself. On doing so, it tells us that we can only search for 
its necessity as a potency in what it has, not of an actual 
potentiality, but of a simple already realized actuality.  

We thus face the selected real form as an actual existence that 
carries in itself a potentiality to be realized. To search in the real 
concrete form insofar as it is a simple actual existence, for the 
necessity of its existence as a pure potency, we must consider the 
former form of existence separated from the latter. It is about 
isolating the necessity from its form of manifesting itself. This is 
the last thing our immediate cognition has to tell us, since we can 
only accomplish this separation inside our thought. The time to 
begin with our scientific cognition of the real concrete form we are 
facing, has arrived.  

Let us separate with our thought the necessity of the real concrete 
form from its form of manifesting itself. In other words, let us 
analyze the real concrete form. Thus separated, the necessity that 
was realized as an actual existence faces us as a potency to be 
realized, as the potentiality of determining the concrete form in 
which it is already realized. The real form cut out by our immediate 
perception thus faces us as a concrete form that is such for 
carrying in itself its own necessity of existence as a pure potency, 
i.e., its own abstract form. Since it is the necessity of existence of 
a real form, this abstract form can neither be more nor less real 
than its concrete one. In their pure reality, they only differ from 
each other by the modality in which they carry in themselves the 
same real necessity. The real necessity the abstract one has as 
the potency that determines it as such, is that which the concrete 
one has as its correspondingly determinant actual necessity.  

Still, as such potentiality to be realized, the discovered abstract 
form cannot account for its own necessity either. It can only face 
us with its own necessity as the other-self that it carries in itself. 
Nothing is left for us, but to penetrate deeper by means of our 
thought into our starting real form. And we repeat this deepening, 
as many times as the abstract form consequently discovered 
shows to enclose inside itself its own necessity of existence as a 
pure potency. Therefore, our uninterrupted progress through the link 
thus defined is the only necessity that formally determines the 
course of our analytical process.  

Since the point is to transform the world, let us specifically face the 
form itself we are going to give our transforming action. What is to 
be done? Our transforming action tells us, thus, just by imposing 
this first step upon us, that it is not simply itself; that it is itself and 
at the same time a different thing: the very question of _what is to 
be done_. It makes us know, therefore, that it carries in itself a 
determination that is not reducible to it itself.  

To continue forward with the realization of our action as an action 
whose regulation pertains to us, as a conscious action, there is 
nothing left for us but to confront the _what is it to be done_ itself. 
In doing so, the _what is to be done_ shows in such 
immediateness, as it itself and at the same time an other, the 
necessity of our action. Let us face, then, the necessity of our 
action. This necessity can only point out that our transforming will 
is the other one that it carries in itself; the other one where its own 
necessity resides. Now, our transforming will can only tell us, 
concerning its own necessity, that we must search for it in that 
which our transforming will has of the working class? own 
transforming will. When we face the working class? will, it cannot 
give us immediate reason about itself, either. How could it, without 
forcing us to account for what it has of a simple class will, first? 
Nevertheless, the clash against the absence of immediateness 
with respect to self-necessity repeats itself: classes limit 
themselves to tell us that we must look for theirs, first of all, in 
what they carry in themselves of the reproduction of the process of 
capital accumulation.   

Let us stop for a moment at this point in the development of our 
transforming action. So far, it has materialized itself in the search 
of the necessity of its concrete forms. As such, it has get to tell us 
that it carries in itself the transforming will of the working class. But 
it has equally get to tell us, that the will of the working class is not 
self-sufficient to account for its own necessity, that this necessity 
transcends it. With which, our transforming action has told us that, 
just as the transformation of the world takes in itself the working 
class? voluntary action, neither the concrete forms -and therefore, 
the working class? political organization - nor the transforming 
potency of this action, are simply born from the said will itself.  

If we want to go on advancing in the realization of our conscious 
action there is, thus, no other way left for us now but to confront 
the reproduction of the process of capital accumulation. But, 
concerning its own necessity, this reproduction does nothing but to 
point us back to its content of the valorization process of capital. 
When we face this, it shows itself, insofar as a simple process of 
value valorization, enclosing a process of simple value production, 
a production process of commodities. And this process points 
again back to its material nature, to its content as a process of 
human life. To account for the necessity of this process, where the 
exchange between human beings and nature presents itself as a 
process of work, we need to look back into its necessity as a 
simple process of metabolism between a living being and its 
environment.  

The analysis of purely social forms has turned, in its own 
development, into the analysis of pure natural forms. Yet, the form 
of our analysis has not changed at all. We can only go on 
advancing it by questioning the now natural form we come to face 
for its own necessity, i.e., for the real abstract form it carries in 
itself as the one that determines it. Since we are going on 
advancing over increasingly abstract forms of the determination, the 
time will come when we are not going to face necessity as the 
potentiality of this or that determined form any longer, but as the 
potentiality of determination itself: as much as our object is a 
determined concrete real form, determination itself is its abstract 
real form as much as any other. But it is not an ordinary abstract 
real form. As the rest, it starts by facing us as a concrete form. 
Still, insofar as such concrete form, it is a pure potential necessity, 
the necessity itself of being determined and, consequently, an 
abstract form. Its potential necessity is no longer an-other of its 
concrete form, but such potentiality is what this real abstract form 
is insofar as a concrete form. This simple real form has the 
necessity of its own existence as an immediate actual necessity, 
it is existence in itself. Still, as far as this actual existence the 
simple form has is the necessity of transcending from itself into 
realized determination, the simple form is, at the same time, 
potential existence. As such, simple existence, _matter_, is a 
contradiction in itself. Then, it has no way of affirming itself other 
than by realizing its potency as a determination to be realized, that 
is, by negating itself as such potency to affirm itself as a realized 
determination.  

We are thus facing the simplest moment in which the necessity of 
the concrete real form we have originally selected and, 
consequently, of our action, unfolds itself. Now, since it becomes 
the affirming of the simple form by means of its negation as such, 
the realized determination is the real reproduction of the necessity 
of self-affirming by means of self-negation. And as such it unfolds 
in the development of the progressively more concrete forms of our 
real object. Each of these concrete forms (which is such for 
actually existing as a realized necessity) is, precisely for that 
reason, an abstract form (which is such for actually existing as a 
necessity to be realized, as a potency). Thus, determination 
develops into the transformation of an existing form, on negating 
itself in its actuality insofar as an abstract one by affirming itself as 
a realized necessity, a new concrete form, whose actual existence 
is that of being its self-negation as such concrete form, by self-
affirming as a necessity to be realized.

When a form simply affirms itself by means of its own negation, its 
necessity reaches its term, acquiring a more developed shape both 
as an already realized and as an actual potency. The form 
determined by the original necessity thus transcends its quality, 
realizes its _qualitative_ determination. The necessity that 
determines the new form as a potency has emerged purely and 
exclusively from the primitive one; hence, the new necessity is 
nothing but the realized form of the primitive one and therefore, it 
itself. However, as the negation of the negation, this potency is 
nonexistent for that primitive form in its abstract condition as such: 
it is just a potency inherent in its concrete forms. Do we have a 
better way to thoroughly cognize the qualitative potential of any 
given form, other than by reproducing with our thought the real 
necessity that has come to such form in its development, by 
ideally following this development?  

At first, an abstract form exhausts its potency on becoming its 
corresponding concrete form. Still, as any other, the very form of 
realizing necessity undergoes its own development. Now, the 
abstract form is in itself not one but many different necessities to 
be realized. Moreover, these are potencies whose realized forms 
mutually exclude themselves as the same concrete form, 
potencies that exist together with their contraries. Such potencies 
do not have their actual existence in the abstract form as a simple 
power to be, but as a power to be that is, at the same time, a 
power not to be: as _possibility or contingency_. The abstract form 
exhausts its necessity only on becoming a diversity of concrete 
forms, each of them solving the mutual compatibility of those 
potencies as realized ones. Abstract forms thus determine 
themselves as _genus_; their concrete forms, as differentiated 
_species_ in which the genus realizes its necessity. (notice the 
distinction between the generic being and its concrete species, a 
difference that in Spanish and in German remains visible even in 
ordinary language, but that in English is obscured by the reduction 
of the former to the _species being_; not in vain English emerges 
as the natural language of positivist science.)  

Since it is a concrete form taken by determination, possibility itself 
develops into a necessity actually existing as a possible potency, 
that has the necessity of the very course of its realization 
determined as a possible potency. The determination of the 
species by the genus thus develops through the mediation of 
possibility as a specific form the realization of possibility itself 
takes.  

As an already realized possibility, a species is completely 
impotent concerning the determination of its own possibility. From 
its viewpoint, the realization of necessity - causality - takes the 
form of _casualness_, of _accidentalness_, of the necessity that, 
at the same time, is no necessity whatsoever. Each species thus 
appears as the absolute materialization of the generic potencies 
that have directly determined it; and these potencies, as its 
circumstances or conditions. _Life_ is the overcoming of species? 
impotence concerning their own determination as concrete 
modalities through which possibility is realized: it is the concrete 
form that has the potency for appropriating its own conditions and 
transforms them into concrete existences, thus determining itself 
as an abstract form. Life advances in its real potency by 
appropriating its conditions in their very virtuality. Life is thus 
determined as the transforming action that regulates itself through 
the _cognition_ of its own necessity.

Seen from the outside, just because it is completely determined as 
a necessary concrete form of matter, human action can transform 
other forms of matter into forms for itself; and, therefore, can 
transform itself. And only because it finds itself thus determined, 
human action necessarily becomes, in the historical process, a 
_free_ action: an action that integrally cognizes its own necessity. 
But we haven?t reached this point yet, so let us go on through our 
path.

I will complete the process in a following post.


Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From marko at workmail.com  Mon Feb  8 02:39:49 1999
From: marko at workmail.com (Marko Ajdaric)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 07:39:49 -0200
Subject: M-TH: =?iso-8859-1?Q?A_Luta_Cont=EDnua_?=
Message-ID: <003501be5346$faf79be0$155bdfc8@lilica-s>

In our on line edition today, we are feturing (among lots of others)

These matters related to this list

Karl Marx's Capital in CD-ROM

A page devoted to Buenaventura Durruti

Online book: Perestroika: a Marxist Critique

Staline et le Stalinisme, un livre de Roy Mevedev

Hugo Ch?vez, por Gabriel Garc?a M?rquez

http://come.to/luta or http://pagina.de/luta


We hope our work must be helpful


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 1587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990208/23a77dec/attachment.txt>

From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Mon Feb  8 10:40:23 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:40:23 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political practice (2/2)
Message-ID: <m109xaX-000CUoC@secyt.gov.ar>

Dialectical Method, i.e., the reproduction of the concrete in thought 
(part 2)

Above all, life is a process of metabolism, the process where a 
subject appropriates its environment to produce itself. As such, the 
living subject carries in itself the capacity for regulating its process 
of metabolism. That is to say, it is able to cognize the potentiality 
of its own action and of its environment, so as to control the self-
consumption it must undergo in the process of producing itself. 
Undoubtedly, a long way runs from the capacity for, and form of, 
regulating itself inherent in a DNA molecule to those inherent in the 
most developed animal species. Nevertheless, all of these living 
forms center their capacity for transforming their environment from 
alien to a medium for themselves and, specially, their capacity for 
advancing in this transformation, in their capacity for transforming 
themselves, in their capacity for mutating their own bodies adapting 
them to the environment. By developing its capacity for 
transforming the environment into a medium for itself, not mainly by 
mutating it?s own body to adapt it to the environment, but by 
transforming the environment itself, a specific animal form turns 
itself into the generic human being. In other words, to be 
generically human imports the capacity for producing one?s own 
means of living and, consequently, the capacity for producing the 
means of production of these means of living. The cognition of 
one?s own potentiality with respect to the medium?s potentiality, 
i.e., the regulation of the human process of metabolism, extends in 
a generically correspondent way the degree of foresight it needs to 
reach.  

Human life is a process of social metabolism. Still, this process 
has no way of realizing itself other than in the process of 
metabolism of human individuals. Since it is a process of social 
metabolism that has the individual process of metabolism as the 
necessary form of realizing itself, the regulation of the former 
process is the organic unit of the latter ones. In other words, the 
regulation of the process of social metabolism realizes itself as the 
social relation among its members; it is the social tissue, so to 
speak. Since it is itself a concrete form of that collective process, 
this regulation is necessarily shaped in the action of each of its 
members. As it happens with any regulation of this kind, the 
regulation of this process takes shape, above all, in the cognition 
by each individual of the point reached by the unfolding of his/her 
process of metabolism and of the corresponding processes of the 
other individuals that interact with him/her. This cognition is thus 
the way in which each individual integrates the flowing of the 
corresponding portions of her/his individual process of metabolism 
with those of the rest. Naturally, the process of cognition is 
developed by each individual as a moment of his/her own process 
of individual metabolism.  

At this point, it becomes apparent that, in our process of 
appropriating in thought the necessity of our political action,  we 
have just left behind the field of pure natural forms. We have 
entered the specific field of the real forms in which a particular 
process of natural metabolism that has ceased to be a specific 
form of animal existence to acquire a generic being (the capacity to 
produce its own means of living through work) organizes itself. That 
is, the field of social forms. Yet, we have no path opened to go on 
with our cognition process other than to proceed in the same way 
we were doing when we were dealing with simple natural forms. 
That is, to follow in our thought the realization of the necessity that 
exists as a potency in the real abstract form we have already 
reached, that transforms this form into a concrete one.  

The regulation of the human process of social metabolism, the 
general social relation among human beings, has the purely animal 
immediate cognition as its historical starting point. At least 
according to its length, the greatest part of human history up to 
today is the history of the transformation of this animal relation into 
the regulation by means of the cognition of the point reached by 
each individual process of metabolism through direct personal 
relations. Obviously, human cognition by means of ideas develops 
along this transformation as rudimentary forms as rudimentary is 
the complexity of the process of social metabolism that it regulates 
and, hence, which produces it.  

Still, however much human cognition by means of thought might 
have been developed and however little somebody might know 
concerning the historical specificity that determines the current 
form of the human process of social metabolism, nobody would 
claim cognition is the general regulator of this process today. In 
other words, it is obvious that our general social relation - the 
allocation of society?s total labor-power among its different concrete 
forms and the coordination of the individual process of metabolism - 
does not take shape through the process of cognition of the social 
necessities.  

The absence of a general coordination through cognition in the 
allocation and development of social labor determines individuals 
as private independent producers. Insofar as purely such, they have 
no way to get into relation by themselves to incarnate the process 
of social metabolism. To begin with, these producers do not retain 
any general social relation other than that of being individual 
personifications of society?s total capacity for performing productive 
labor. This total labor-power is, as such, the capacity for performing 
human labor in general. The realization of this capacity under the 
mass of its different concrete forms is, thus, the development of the 
general social relation among the private independent producers.  

The human process of social metabolism goes into motion by 
itself. It does so carrying the cooperation among its members 
beyond their capacity for - mutually recognizing each other in the 
development of their respective individual process of metabolism - 
directly coordinating these processes as moments of the process 
of social metabolism. The process in question determines itself as 
the autonomously regulated human process of social metabolism; 
that is to say, the process in which society allocates its total labor-
power among the different concrete modalities of labor by 
representing the socially necessary abstract labor embodied in the 
products of the concrete labors carried out by the independent 
private producers, as the capacity of these products for relating 
among themselves in exchange. The general social relation that 
rules the process of metabolism that is able to produce its own 
medium takes the form of _commodities_; and the socially 
necessary abstract labor in that way represented, becomes _the 
value_ of commodities. In commodity production, material 
production produces, at the same time, the general social relation. 
The private producers lack any direct general social relationship 
among themselves. They must act, and consequently see 
themselves, as being mutually independent. They come to face 
their general social interdependency only through the mediation of 
their material products. Therefore, this relation appears to them as 
an attribute inherent in the material form itself of these products, as 
a fetishistic social relation.  

Commodities develop themselves insofar as the concrete unit of 
their natural form, use-value, and their specific social form, their 
value-form. In this development, the exchangeability of 
commodities negates itself as simply such, to affirm itself as the 
direct exchangeability only of the commodity that all of them 
detach as their general equivalent, money. From here on, 
commodity production realizes its necessity by taking the 
production of this general representative of value, the production of 
the general social relation in its substantive manifestation, as its 
general object.  

Social production as a production of value transcends itself, 
realizing its necessity by producing more value by means of value 
itself, by transforming money into capital. As an accumulation of 
means of production and means of subsistence for the laborers 
that opens its productive metamorphosis, capital submits living 
labor to its necessity of valorizing itself. This is no longer a 
production of use values regulated by the condition of these as 
values. It is not even a production of use values which is only a 
means for the production of substantive value. This is a production 
of value in itself that yields as its result the production of use 
values and, hence, of human beings. This happens to the extent of 
determining as productive, no longer the labor that transforms the 
environment into a means for itself, not even the one that produces 
value, but only the labor that produces surplus-value. Capital, 
materialized labor and, as such, a means for the human process of 
social metabolism, has taken possession of the generic 
potentialities of this process. Capital thus presents itself as the 
alienated incarnation of the generic human being. The product of 
social labor, a material product that is at the same time the 
materialized form of the general social relation, has transformed 
itself into the concrete social subject. From being a formally 
fetishistic material form, this product thus faces its own producers 
as the one which produces them, as a real fetish, so to speak.  

Whether they like such an alienation of their generically human 
potencies or not, the bourgeoisie and the working class cannot but 
personify these potencies which now belong to capital. Capital is 
itself the one that produces and reproduces human beings giving 
them the concrete forms of the bourgeoisie and the working class, 
on realizing its necessity as a process of simple valorization by 
transcending into the reproduction of this process. The simple 
reproduction of capital develops into the process of capital 
accumulation. Relative surplus-value affirms itself as the general 
concrete form of this process. As such, its simple form (the 
increase of labor?s productivity in the spheres that directly or 
indirectly produce the means of subsistence for the wage-laborers) 
becomes a double determination to the transcendence of the 
process of capital accumulation from being simply itself.  

Above all, the reproduction of the increment in the productivity of 
labor takes its general concrete form in the increased 
concentration of the masses of capital individually put into action. 
And this concentration clashes against private property of capital; 
not just with particularly restricted forms of this property, but with it 
in itself. In turn, the reproduction of the increase in the productivity 
of labor takes its equally general concrete form in the submission 
of all aspects of production to science; the reproduction of the 
simple increase of relative surplus value, in the same submission 
concerning consumption. From which, capital, our specific social 
relation, carries in itself the necessity of annihilating its historical 
concrete base, as well as its historical reason of existence; that is, 
private property in general, as well as the insufficient development 
of human capacity for consciously ruling its process of social 
metabolism. In brief, capital carries in itself the necessity to 
annihilate itself, as its own potency. Since it is empty of any 
immediate necessity other than the purely quantitative of 
increasing its own value, capital cannot find a qualitative limit to its 
valorization process inside itself. It cannot find this limit even in its 
own impotence as a concrete form of the human process of social 
metabolism that emerges from the negation of the potencies of the 
conscious regulation of this process. Hence, from its very root, 
capital carries in itself the necessity of acquiring the most brutal 
forms in the exploitation of human labor to satisfy its insatiable 
hunger of surplus-value. Still, from here, its specific historical 
potency to drive itself beyond its own limits also arises.  

As capital accumulation advances in the concentration of the scale 
of individual capital and the scientific organization of production and 
consumption, it transcends the narrow base of private property, 
already in what this directly personifies in the bourgeoisie the 
general organization of that process. Capital thereby deprives the 
bourgeoisie of its historical right to exist. At the same time, it 
determines the very working class from whose surplus-labor it 
feeds itself, with the mediation of developing it as a collective 
laborer, as its own general personification. This personification 
does no longer enclose in itself limitations to its condition as such. 
Therefore, it is the most genuine concrete form of the process of 
capital accumulation. And, as such concrete form, it is the working 
class who carries in itself the necessity of personifying the 
annihilation of capital. This annihilation is, in itself, that of social 
classes. It is the annihilation of the bourgeoisie, straightway; no 
wonder why the bourgeoisie resists it with tooth and nail. But, in 
this same annihilation, the working class realizes its own 
necessity, negating itself absolutely as such, certainly, to affirm its 
potencies as the human potencies of the freely associated 
individuals; that is to say, of the concrete subjects of the human 
process of social metabolism that consciously regulate this 
process on cognizing, each of them, his/her own determination as 
such subjects. It is about the supersession of capitalism in the 
third main step in the historical development of human society, i.e., 
realized socialism or communism. However alienated in capital this 
revolutionary potency may be, or better stated, precisely for being 
such alienated potency, it shows itself as the working class? own 
potency. And, as the point is the general organization of the 
process of capital accumulation, the production of the present 
general social relation, it shows itself as a potency that has the 
political revolutionary action of the working class as its general 
concrete form of realizing itself.  

Dialectics, the dialectical scientific method that proceeds by 
reproducing the real concrete through the path of thought, is 
historically determined as the concrete form to be taken by the 
necessarily conscious ruling of this revolutionary action. As such, 
it is the realization of Marx?s early discovery:  

?History itself is a _real_ part of _natural history_, of the 
transformation of nature into man. Someday natural science will 
embody the science of man, in the same way that the science of 
man will embody natural science; there will be only _one_ science. 

 The _social_  reality of nature and the _human_ natural science 
or _natural science of man_ are identical expressions.? (1844 
Manuscripts)  



Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From glevy at pratt.edu  Mon Feb  8 15:07:08 1999
From: glevy at pratt.edu (Gerald Levy)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:07:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Re: The materiality of dialectics
In-Reply-To: <199902082048.NAA00569@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990208165639.15031A-100000@acnet>

Hi Juan. Long time, no hear.

A brief question:

> commodities develop themselves insofar as the concrete unit of their
> natural form, use-value, and their specific social form, their
> value-form.

This formulation would seem to suggest that use-value is a "natural form"
rather than (i.e. in contrast to) a social form. It seems to me that this
(if it was implied) is incorrect since use-value must necessarily be a
social form. My question is: when you write "natural form" do you mean
"material form" (and, also, isn't the material form of a commodity as it
is manifested as a use-value necessarily also a social form?)?

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb  8 15:58:36 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:58:36 +0000
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political
  practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990208225836.01126ed4@pop.gn.apc.org>

I was thinking of Juan's name several times in recent weeks and remember
learning a lot in debating with him a couple of years ago, particular about
the two journeys of dialectics. 




At 01:18 08/02/99 -0300, JI wrote: re Part I

>Dialectical Method, i.e., the reproduction of the concrete in thought

I wonder. Is that the only definition?



>Let us face the object of our cognition, reality. Outside the 
>theoretical world, reality does not present itself to our minds as an 
>abstract generality. It presents itself as a mass of concrete forms 
>that we distinguish from each other as simply being such. 
>Therefore, we start lacking any way to mentally appropriate the 
>relation these forms have with ourselves, other than by taking them 
>one by one. Whichever we take, it will face us as a potentiality, as 
>a necessity to be realized (at least, in its temporal determination) 
>when we look at it once isolated. There is nothing to wonder about. 
>If real concrete forms are of any interest for us, let alone a 
>nebulous abstractly contemplative one, it is because, as 
>potencies, they can affect us on realizing themselves and, rather, 
>because we can realize the potencies they are with our action. 

I accept this argument. I would just like to point out here that even for
earliest hominids one of the concrete forms would be the wind, something
invisible, in motion and real. Another would be the stars, intangible, in
motion, with a rhythmicity and constancy that would only occasionally be
broken by  few bright exceptions.

We are by no means talking about static objects when we talk about the
concrete forms which human kind first had to address.


>
>To discover the selected concrete form as a potentiality, we have 
>just put into action our capacity for immediate cognition. There was 
>no need of any scientific cognition nor, a fortiori, of a theoretical 
>cognition. Of course, we can try to realize the discovered 
>potentiality right away with our action. Still we have no guide for 
>this realization other than what the immediate appearance of that 
>potentiality tells us about itself. And our immediate cognition also 
>tells us that appearances often fool us. 



and metamorphose




<big snip>



>At first, an abstract form exhausts its potency on becoming its 
>corresponding concrete form. Still, as any other, the very form of 
>realizing necessity undergoes its own development. Now, the 
>abstract form is in itself not one but many different necessities to 
>be realized. Moreover, these are potencies whose realized forms 
>mutually exclude themselves as the same concrete form, 
>potencies that exist together with their contraries. Such potencies 
>do not have their actual existence in the abstract form as a simple 
>power to be, but as a power to be that is, at the same time, a 
>power not to be: as _possibility or contingency_. The abstract form 
>exhausts its necessity only on becoming a diversity of concrete 
>forms, each of them solving the mutual compatibility of those 
>potencies as realized ones. Abstract forms thus determine 
>themselves as _genus_; their concrete forms, as differentiated 
>_species_ in which the genus realizes its necessity. 

While I appreciate J highlighting the importance for marxists of
understanding the relationship between the abstract and the concrete in a
profound way, this sentence here is quite different from my attempts
perhaps to sort of translate dialectics in a way relevant for the inanimate
world:

I would say that all the parts of the universe that we can examine, by
definition, have to be stable enough for us to examine them. They consist
of self-organizing systems. That is why they have contradictory
(contrasting) aspects and are inherently unstable under certain conditions.



>(notice the 
>distinction between the generic being and its concrete species, a 
>difference that in Spanish and in German remains visible even in 
>ordinary language, but that in English is obscured by the reduction 
>of the former to the _species being_; not in vain English emerges 
>as the natural language of positivist science.) 

Very interesting. Could you please enlarge? I could not understand the
Spanish, but I probably could, the German.

 

>Since it is a concrete form taken by determination, possibility itself 
>develops into a necessity actually existing as a possible potency, 
>that has the necessity of the very course of its realization 
>determined as a possible potency. The determination of the 
>species by the genus thus develops through the mediation of 
>possibility as a specific form the realization of possibility itself 
>takes. 

I would rather talk about the determination of the concrete by underlying
probabilistic laws. I am a little wary of idealist implications of the way
you formulate this. 


>As an already realized possibility, a species is completely 
>impotent concerning the determination of its own possibility. From 
>its viewpoint, the realization of necessity - causality - takes the 
>form of _casualness_, of _accidentalness_, of the necessity that, 
>at the same time, is no necessity whatsoever. Each species thus 
>appears as the absolute materialization of the generic potencies 
>that have directly determined it; and these potencies, as its 
>circumstances or conditions. _Life_ is the overcoming of species? 
>impotence concerning their own determination as concrete 
>modalities through which possibility is realized: it is the concrete 
>form that has the potency for appropriating its own conditions and 
>transforms them into concrete existences, thus determining itself 
>as an abstract form. Life advances in its real potency by 
>appropriating its conditions in their very virtuality. Life is thus 
>determined as the transforming action that regulates itself through 
>the _cognition_ of its own necessity.

I think when applied to human society, marxism deeply implies a theory of
the unconscious or the semi-conscious. The formulas here seem to me to
privilege consciousness, but we cannot be consciously aware of everything
all the time. 



>I will complete the process in a following post.


I hope these comments do not hack the contribution about too much. I wanted
to find some sort of way to comment in order to appropriate the material,
rather than just to admire it in its abstract totality.

I would like to know how the path leads back to practice. That is the most
important step.
Perhaps that is in part 2.


Chris Burford

London




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk  Mon Feb  8 19:56:36 1999
From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 02:56:36 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Times article
Message-ID: <Gi2TqDAkP6v2MwLH@heartfield.demon.co.uk>

In the London Times today

February 9 1999  OPINION 
 
 
  
James Heartfield 

'Flirtation is often a component part of teaching methods - it's
certainly one way to capture the attention of bored students' 



 
THERE is no pleasure so great, according to Confucius, as watching a man
fall off a roof. Schadenfreude is as natural a human emotion as love. So
one can forgive the teaching unions their moment of pleasure at the
discomfiture of Chris Woodhead. The Chief Inspector of Schools'
comments, which appeared to condone sex between teachers and pupils, and
the revelation that he enjoyed a relationship with a former pupil, have
led to calls for his resignation. Teachers' unions feel that their
members have been unfairly victimised for falling standards by Mr
Woodhead. Now their persecutor is getting his comeuppance after a
Hoddlesque gaffe. You sow what you reap. 

But the unions which are delighted to see Mr Woodhead slip up should
realise that their members are on the same flimsy roof. And the
Government is making it more dangerous still. 

Allegations of sexual impropriety between teachers and pupils provoke
understandable outrage. But teachers should know better than anyone that
it is unwise to hurl unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.
Changes in public attitudes and the law have made teachers especially
vulnerable to false charges of sexual misconduct. 

The numbers of allegations made against teachers by pupils trebled in
the three years after the Children Act came into force in 1991, although
the number of staff convicted or sacked remains as low as before. 

Clearly social attitudes towards child abuse have changed. In the past,
child sexual abuse was so taboo that allegations were routinely
disbelieved, allowing that minority of abusers a free rein. But where we
used to turn a blind eye we are now in danger of wagging the
witchfinders' finger. Today it is impossible to discount allegations of
abuse made against teachers. According to some child welfare
professionals, it is wrong to assume that children can lie. One wonders
how they explain Just William. 

As anyone who has children, or works with them, knows, children do tell
lies, often, and sometimes they tell serious lies. Thanks to Esther
Rantzen and others, children are also very aware of the neurotic charge
which allegations of sexual abuse provoke. These issues are discussed in
their hearing in the media, home and school. Pupils may not be au fait
with every detail of the 1989 Children Act, any more than the unemployed
were intimate with the details of Peter Lilley's legislative programme,
but in both cases they "know their rights". The word went around the
playground in no time that teachers were no longer allowed to lay hands
on their pupils. We should not be surprised that children know the force
of an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour, even if they are
only dimly aware of its full ramifications. Nor should we be surprised
that pupils deploy this weapon against teachers. 

The central provision of the Children Act is that the interests of the
child should be paramount. This may be an admirable sentiment. But
elevated to a legal principle, it is a disaster. It leads to the
conclusion that all rights and protections previously afforded adults
are trumped by the interests of the child. In practice it leads to an
assumption that the accused is guilty until proven otherwise. 



With the new changes in the law of consent teachers will be opened up to
yet more allegations of misconduct. Under the new law, sexual relations
between teachers and pupils aged between 16 and 18 are criminal. Such
relations were always a breach of school discipline and a sacking
offence. But the intervention of the law only increases the distrust
between staff and pupils. 

Both the Children Act and the new law on consent represent the clumsy
intrusion of law into relations that were once subject to self-
regulation. Trying to impose the strict framework of legal rights and
duties on to teachers and pupils fails to take account of the rich
complexity of school life. The truth is that flirtation is often a
component part of teaching methods - though no longer one that is
tolerated, as many older teachers are finding. This kind of banter on
the part of teachers is not ordinarily evidence of attraction, let alone
intent. It is just a way of catching the attention of another bored
classroom. 

With the new law of consent in place, alongside the Children Act, the
courts are encouraging pupils to take flirtation for abuse. By raising
the stakes about relations between teachers and pupils, the law breaks
down the trust that previously existed, and substitutes a presumption
that teachers are potential sexual predators. The outcome of the new law
on consent might be to eroticise student-teacher relations, not protect
school pupils. 
 

-- 
Jim heartfield


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb  9 00:52:53 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 07:52:53 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Times article
In-Reply-To: <Gi2TqDAkP6v2MwLH@heartfield.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990209075253.0135fe2c@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 02:56 09/02/99 +0000, Jim H wrote:

<>

>The central provision of the Children Act is that the interests of the
>child should be paramount. This may be an admirable sentiment. But
>elevated to a legal principle, it is a disaster. It leads to the
>conclusion that all rights and protections previously afforded adults
>are trumped by the interests of the child. In practice it leads to an
>assumption that the accused is guilty until proven otherwise. 

<>

>Both the Children Act and the new law on consent represent the clumsy
>intrusion of law into relations that were once subject to self-
>regulation. 

<>

The outcome of the new law
>on consent might be to eroticise student-teacher relations, not protect
>school pupils. 



The area of Jim's interests which interests me most is in his critique of
the limits of bourgeois right. Generally I feel that he and his associates
extend it in radical directions, but at least always questionning its
premises. Here there is a more direct questionning of its limitations.

I am in sympathy with the passages above. Some strange bureaucratic
anomalies have emerged. In the small group of children at risk because of
the severe mental illness of their parents, there is no provision under the
Act and virtually no good practice conventions anywhere in Britain to put
the care of the parent as central and to monitor the care of the child
within that context. There is the same assumption that the children's
interests come first, and mentally ill parents may in routine practice be
asked to attend case conferences and legal proceedings involving a dozen
people all wearing different hats.

I do not think these are just exceptions that test the rule. They do point
to a fundamental contradiction.

The late 20th century has seen the aggressive insertion of bourgeois right
into much wider areas of social exchange, and whereas the right to redress
was limited by financial resources, there is now an assumption that
everyone should enjoy bourgeois right on legal aid. (Just as everyone
should have the right to a car. Disastrous.) Problems which cannot be
reconciled within what bit of the community remains, aided by dramatic
enactment on the soap operas, have to go to court.

Jim correctly IMO points out that a whole range of interaction between
people may get compatmentalised as erotic or non-erotic, whereas I would
point out our species evolved communicating with body language and that
remains the prevailing source of communication today. Issues of influence
domination, submission, friendship are often expressed this way. 

The 40 year old male teacher just sent to prison for six weeks for devising
ingenious physical forfeits for a 14 year old boy when he could not
remember his Spanish verbs, including walking bare-foot through drawing
pins, or lying bare chested on drawing pins, may have been operating at a
level of chemistry that would be distorted to say it involved homosexual
attraction, but it certainly sounds strong physical chemistry, possibly of
a dominance submission ritual which appeals more to boys.

What we recognise and introject in the other person, can be a whole range
of attributes, partly conscious and partly non-conscious. To privilege
consciousness of sexual attraction  out of the the whole range of
possibilities might be right in some instances, but I agree with Jim can be
extraordinarily clumsy in others. 

The attempt to make sexual attraction the gold standard of human
communication seems somehow a function of late capitalist consumer society.
To attempt to regulate it by formal law, rather than conciliation,
impossibly cumbersome. I think we are coming up against the limits of
bourgeois right as a method for regulating bourgeois society.

(I have absolutely no criticisms of Jim for getting his article into the
Times, so long as he does not turn into a Christopher Hitchens.)

Chris Burford

London







     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From farmelantj at juno.com  Tue Feb  9 14:11:14 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:11:14 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Alan Carling on Marcus Roberts'  _Analytical Marxism: A Critique_
Message-ID: <19990209.163211.3398.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

    Alan Carling, "A Question of Attitude: Marcus Roberts on Analytical
    Marxism" (Review of Marcus Roberts, Analytical Marxism: a Critique),
Res
    Publica IV/2 (1998), 211-228:

    Marcus Roberts' book Analytical Marxism: A
    Critique attempts both to overview the development of the *analytical
    Marxist* paradigm, and subject its principal tenets to a major
critique.
    Although it contains some excellent exposition and much intelligent
    critical commentary, the book in the end has serious shortcomings on
both
    counts. In terms of overview, the book concentrates on G.A. Cohen's
version
    of the *theory of history*, somewhat at the expense of other
analytical
    Marxists such as Erik Olin Wright, Adam Przerworski and Philippe van
    Parijs, and even of G.A. Cohen's more recent work in political
philosophy.
    In terms of critique, Roberts argues that analytical Marxism should
be
    defined by its *methodology* - its use of individualistic explanation
and
    the rational choice assumption, for example - and that this
methodology
    fails. The problem is that Roberts' arguments to this effect are not
very
    convincing, and that he does not specify very carefully what criteria
would
    need to be met for analytical Marxism to succeed either as social
theory,
    or as Marxism. It is this problem of attitude which finally vitiates
    Roberts's account.
    

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From dhenwood at panix.com  Tue Feb  9 16:57:45 1999
From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:57:45 -0500
Subject: M-TH: silver spoons up the ass
Message-ID: <v0401170ab2e67bc68753@[166.84.250.86]>

Hey, has Malecki frozen into a solid block of ice up there in northern
Sweden? This place isn't the same without the Arctic Spart!

Doug


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Wed Feb 10 03:53:27 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:53:27 -0300
Subject: M-TH: Re: The materiality of dialectics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990208165639.15031A-100000@acnet>
References: <199902082048.NAA00569@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <m10ANG1-000CVJC@secyt.gov.ar>

Jerry wrote:

> A brief question:
> 
> > commodities develop themselves insofar as the concrete unit of their
> > natural form, use-value, and their specific social form, their
> > value-form.
> 
> This formulation would seem to suggest that use-value is a "natural form"
> rather than (i.e. in contrast to) a social form. It seems to me that this
> (if it was implied) is incorrect since use-value must necessarily be a
> social form. My question is: when you write "natural form" do you mean
> "material form" (and, also, isn't the material form of a commodity as it
> is manifested as a use-value necessarily also a social form?)?

The use-value of a commodity, that is, the capacity of the 
commodity to satisfy a human necessity, is inseparable from the 
material form taken by the portion of nature cutoff and transformed 
by the process of production. The realization of the use-value, that 
is, the individual consumption of the commodity, is the process in 
which the materiality of the commodity is transformed into the 
consumer?s own materiality. Let us consider, for example, a paid 
music concert. The labor expended by the musicians does not 
crystallize itself under a material form that persists after that 
expenditure ceases. This is a commodity whose individual 
consumption has to occur in the very moment of its production. 
Rather, individual consumption occurs after the fraction of a second 
that the music needs to reach the listener?s ear. But the existence 
of this fraction suffices to make evident that the individual 
consumer can only appropriate the material form that music has, 
that is, certain vibrations of the air. And the process of 
appropriation is in itself a material one: the transformation of the 
captured vibrations into some specific set of electro-chemical 
transformations through the brain. That is, the musicians expend a 
portion of their muscles, brains, etc. (that is, abstract human labor 
productively consumed) under a certain concrete form to transform 
a portion of nature that is external to themselves, into a use-value 
for others, music. These others transform that external portion of 
nature by means of the consumption of a portion of their own 
muscles, brains, etc. (that is, through they consumptive labor) into 
the portion of nature they are themselves. In themselves, the 
production and the consumption of the use-value only involves the 
action of a specific form of nature, i.e., human beings, upon the 
rest of it to transform this rest into a means for the existence of 
that specific part. All we have here are natural processes, that is, 
transformations of a portion of nature by another portion of nature.   

Let us suppose now that our concert is a gala one. It is obvious 
that gala implies that there is much more involved that what 
reaches the ear. Yet, the difference resides in what meets the eye. 
The use value of the concert is now produced by the transformation 
of a portion of nature into another materially delimited by the 
exclusion of ordinary mortals. After all, in the last instance, 
exclusion can only take a material shape; normally some sort of 
gorilla that puts outsiders in their place at the other side of the 
fence. So even the use-value of the gala concert is inseparable 
from its material form, by the concrete form given to nature by the 
productive labor applied upon it by the musicians, the jewelers, the 
tailors, the gorillas, etc.. And this use-value is appropriated, by the 
consumers of the gala concert through the consumptive labor in 
which they naturally have to expend the five senses that nature 
gave them.  

But, of course, what sounds like music to you can be an 
unbearable noise to me. And a concerto involves the productive and 
consumptive labor of many different individuals. To perform all the 
processes of metabolism with its environment involved in the 
concerto, the specific portion of nature determined as humanity 
has developed a specific form of organizing the allocation of its 
total capacity to perform labor under the concrete forms of it that 
produce the different use-values. In itself, this organization is the 
most complex form taken by a concrete form of nature as far as 
human cognition can reach. And only human life reaches it, as the 
form of regulating its process of metabolism as a necessarily 
collective one. The concrete natural process of the regulation of 
human life develops a specificity that makes it appear as opposed 
to nature itself, that is, it develops itself with the specificity of being 
a _social process_.

Above all, this specificity manifests itself in the constant 
transformation of the material conditions of human production; it 
determines the process of social metabolism as a historical 
process. Therefore, what is a use-value today ceases to be it 
tomorrow; and new use-values constantly arise. So, to realize 
itself, the general regulation of social life, i.e., the general social 
relation, needs to take concrete form by determining which 
products of labor are use-values and which are not. Moreover, in 
capitalist society, the materialized general social relation, i.e. the 
commodity, develops into the concrete subject of social production 
and consumption, i.e. capital. In capitalist society, there does not 
exist any human necessity that is not determined as such through 
the mediation of being a means for the valorization of capital. As 
Marx points out, even the luxurious expenditures of the capitalists, 
e.g., gala concerts, are determined as a necessity of the process 
of capital accumulation and, therefore, by the value form taken by 
the material products of labor in capitalist society.   

But the fact that nothing becomes a use-value in capitalist society 
without going through the impositions of the needs of capital 
accumulation, does not affect in the least the fact that that use-
value resides in the material body of the commodity, in its form as 
a result of the application of concrete human labor upon another 
concrete form of nature, that transforms the latter?s materiality. And 
that the realization of the use-value requires the appropriation of the 
materiality of the commodity by the materiality of the human 
person.  

In ?Capital?, Marx reflects this fact by indistinctly using the 
expression ?natural form? or ?use-value? of commodities as 
synonyms that refer to their materiality, opposed to the ?social 
form? or ?value-form? of commodities. For example:  

?The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form of the 
equivalent, is this: use-value becomes the form of manifestation, 
the phenomenal form of its opposite, value. The bodily form (original 
in German: Naturalform, Ullstein Materialien, p. 37) of the 
commodity becomes its value-form.? (Capital I, Progress 
Publishers, p. 56)  



Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From glevy at pratt.edu  Tue Feb  9 17:58:07 1999
From: glevy at pratt.edu (Gerald Levy)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:58:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Re: The materiality of dialectics
In-Reply-To: <199902100012.RAA02703@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990209193515.10420A-100000@acnet>

Juan: thanks for your clarification. I think we are in agreement on the
question of use-value.
 
> The use-value of a commodity, that is, the capacity of the 
> commodity to satisfy a human necessity, is inseparable from the 
> material form taken by the portion of nature cutoff and transformed 
> by the process of production.

Right. Yet, it must be capable of satisfying a human necessity not in the
abstract alone, but in the concrete as well. Thus what you call the
"realization of the use-value" of the commodity is required for the
use-value itself to become actual/real.
 
> But, of course, what sounds like music to you can be an 
> unbearable noise to me.

Of course. The realization of use-value (the process whereby the abstract
potential of a product to have its posited use-value validated) can fail
for various reasons. One group of reasons, for certain classifications of
commodities, could be called "natural" (the other "social"). For instance
there are certain goods produced as commodities which have the use-value
eroded by physical deterioration (e.g. spoilage of certain types of fruits
prior to sale). In these cases (discussed by Marx in V2), the "commodity"
looses its use-value and it thereby loses its exchange-value, and thus its
value and even its ability to stand the test of being a commodity. A
change in tastes (for music, in your instance) would be an instance of a
social reason leading to the loss of use-value (and again exchange-value
and value).

Jerry

PS: Speaking of music and value, I happen  to be listening now to a CD
by Frank Zappa. There is a song about "The Muffin Man" on the "Strictly
Commercial" (!) CD that is a good illustration of commodity fetishism.





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Tue Feb  9 23:03:39 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:03:39 +0100
Subject: SV: M-TH: silver spoons up the ass
Message-ID: <00a901be54bb$1cdfd040$bae1a3c3@malecki>





>Hey, has Malecki frozen into a solid block of ice up there in northern
>Sweden? This place isn't the same without the Arctic Spart!
>
>Doug


Almost! We've been having tempatures ranging between 25 below and 54 below zero centergrade the past weeks intermingled with dry snow which blows around and keeps filling the places i have been trying to shovel..

Otherwise things are pretty quiet here in this little imperialist iceberg at the time. Although and extremely interesting situation as developed on the culture front and in the middle of this record cold wave of this century has even got people out on the streets demonstrating last night.

The play writer,screen writer, producer and director and national hero in certain circles especially cultural died hastily of a heart attack at 56 years old and just before his latest production which had it premiar two days ago. One side including leading Social Democrats are accusing Noren of allowing the Nazi's to openly propagate their hate on the stage via this new production. More on this later. Gonna do a "non radiotime news" article on this stuff.

The other important issue is that the Swedish state has now come to the first shot in the wake of the Gothenburg fire which killed 63 immigrant youth and injured 100s. They have accused four of the victims and immigrants between 14 and 19 years old of being responsioble for the deaths because their names stood on a paper as "arrangors" of the partry.

Naturally  *who* actually started the fire, have the state anything to say about it. An enormous amount of rage is now cooking in the immigrant community over this latest cowardly attempt to use the victims as a scapegoat while at the same time covering up the complete incompetence of the authorities to find out who the real culprits are.

One immigrant mother who lost 2 of her children put it very bluntly in saying "we do not think the Swedes are interested in justice, nor fighting rasism and discrimination in this society which is the real cause of this tragedy!"

Warm regards
Bob Malecki




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Wed Feb 10 00:24:48 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:24:48 +0000
Subject: M-TH: silver spoons up the ass
In-Reply-To: <v0401170ab2e67bc68753@[166.84.250.86]>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990210072448.0136f494@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 18:57 09/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey, has Malecki frozen into a solid block of ice up there in northern
>Sweden? This place isn't the same without the Arctic Spart!
>
>Doug


It certainly is not. 

Bob never came back to clarify the theoretical challenges he supports to
"Wall Street", and which you have published on your web-site with a
refutation.

I notice Hugh's absence too. While I appreciated his support over
dialectics, even if it was a bit exuberant, I think we are seeing a further
step in sectarians losing out in marxism-space. They are excluding
themselves from this list, which has never excluded them. Similarly they
have given up trying to dominate marxism-unmoderated.

I think this trend is inevitable, and only requires a continuing commitment
from a number of other subscribers to posts which seriously and honestly
try to integrate marxist ideas with current practice. 

If Hugh returns metamorphosed as a non-sectarian I shall continue to find
his posts thoughtful. 

Bob's future, as Doug implies, I think is in a special area of journalism,
where his slight unfamiliarity with English is more than compensated by his
passion. I still appreciate his description of me as a typical Englishman
"with a boiler" up my arse.  Or "ass". But that would be unkind to animals,
and I am afraid no true Englishman could accept that epithet. 

 
Chris Burford

London








     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Wed Feb 10 06:32:37 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:32:37 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political  practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990208225836.01126ed4@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <m10AcpS-000CVZC@secyt.gov.ar>

Chris Burford wrote:

> >Dialectical Method, i.e., the reproduction of the concrete in thought
> 
> I wonder. Is that the only definition?

Reality, matter, has the self-affirming by means of self-negation - 
the necessity of self-determining, contradiction - as its general 
form. Hence, each natural concrete form (and therefore, each 
natural form specifically developed as a social one) is the realized 
necessity of its abstract forms in their becoming, from the simplest 
one (matter as such), to one that negates itself as such concrete 
form (realized necessity) affirming itself as a potency (a necessity 
to be realized). Cognition is the way in which a subject regulates 
the realization of its own potency as the necessary concrete form 
of realizing a potency inherent in its environment, by appropriating 
these two potencies in their virtuality as purely such potencies. The 
subject of the cognition by means of ideas always starts by facing 
its object as something external to itself as such subject.  

Under its simplest form, this cognition reaches the necessity of the 
subject?s own action just insofar as this one virtually manifests 
itself to the subject?s mind as an immediate link between the 
mutual necessity of the subject and the object. Consequently, 
such form of cognition does not go beyond the very exteriority of 
the subject and of its object. It is determined, thus, as 
_immediate_ cognition.  

This cognition develops into a cognition by means of thought when 
the subject goes beyond the immediate concrete forms to discover 
their necessity as realizations of their abstract forms. 
Nevertheless, on performing this advance, the subject comes up, 
first of all, against the exteriority of the abstract forms themselves; 
that is to say, the subject starts by ideally facing the abstract 
forms in what these forms have of realized necessity, under their 
appearance as purely concrete forms. From which, the 
appropriation of a real necessity in thought takes its most primitive 
specific form by ideally placing by itself in a causal relation the real 
forms (abstract and concrete ones) starting from the way they 
present themselves to it; that is, by mentally conceiving links 
among the real forms on the basis of their exteriority; and, 
therefore, independently from their necessity. Cognition becomes a 
mental construction that follows a causality alien to the real one: 
the ideal _representation_ of reality. _Logic_ is the scientific 
general form of that mental necessity.  

The appropriation in thought of the real forms in their virtuality 
transcends the exteriority of these forms by ideally accompanying 
them in the unfolding of their real necessity. In this way, scientific 
cognition mentally reproduces their real concatenations, thus 
taking the form of an ideal _reproduction_ of reality. This cognition 
has no way of proceeding other than by making each real concrete 
form to account for the necessity that it carries in itself as an 
already realized one, and each abstract real form, for the 
development of the necessity to be realized which it is.  

Reality simply is the self-affirming by means of self-negation. 
Dialectical cognition, _dialectics_, is the method for virtually 
appropriating this contradiction that reality is, by following its 
development with our thought.   

To avoid any confusion, notice that since dialectics has no path to 
follow other than that of the development of the necessity really 
inherent in its object, logic has no general role to play in it. In other 
words, logic, the ideal necessity imposed over the real one to 
represent reality in thought, has no way of fitting into the 
reproduction of the concrete in thought as such. In dialectics, logic 
only fits in the specificity of mathematics as a necessary moment 
in the reproduction of reality in thought. Mathematics has to deal 
with a specific manifestation of matter, the actual specificity of 
quantity as the form of the self-affirming by means of the negation 
of self-negation. Therefore, it has to deal with a real necessity that 
presents itself as being unable to move by itself.  



Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Wed Feb 10 21:14:10 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:14:10 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political  practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990208225836.01126ed4@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <m10AoLg-000CVjC@secyt.gov.ar>

Chris Burford wrote:

> >(notice the 
> >distinction between the generic being and its concrete species, a 
> >difference that in Spanish and in German remains visible even in 
> >ordinary language, but that in English is obscured by the reduction 
> >of the former to the _species being_; not in vain English emerges 
> >as the natural language of positivist science.) 
> 
> Very interesting. Could you please enlarge? I could not understand the
> Spanish, but I probably could, the German.

I will rather resort to my quasi-english.  

The genus differs from the species through the form in which the 
same necessity determines them. The genus is determined as 
such for carrying in itself a contradictory potentiality that only 
belongs to it, and that delimits it from any other form of existence. 
The species are determined by the realization of that same 
potentiality, each of them a particular resolution of the generic 
contradiction. Therefore, the species only differ as such between 
them as being embodiments of the same realized potentiality, but 
not for the potentiality each of them has to realize as its own 
action.  

As the science of the simple reproduction of capital accumulation, 
positivism needs to start by emptying real forms of their most 
general essence, their capacity to move by themselves. Only on 
this basis, science can appropriate the quantitative manifestation of 
the determinations of nature to act upon them, while, at the same 
time, it remains blind to the necessity inherent in capitalism to 
supersede itself through its own development (this is at the core of 
the question of consciousness-unconsciousness that Chris rises in 
his post, and that I expect to specifically consider in a further one). 
 
Therefore, for positivism, the distinction between the genus and its 
species ends up coming down to a matter of formal classification. 
Of the real distinction between the genus and it species only 
remains the paradoxical conclusion that the parts add more than 
the total. And for good thinking minds, it is always very comforting 
to believe that human action has no potency other than that that 
corresponds to it as an animal species. No generic being for man, 
just a species being.  

On the contrary, Hegel points out the true relationship between the 
genus and its species, albeit inverted as a relationship that 
emerges from the development of speculative thought itself.  

Marx brings the question directly to its true meaning. Human being 
arises from its simple determination as an animal species to 
acquire its own generic being: the capacity to produce its own 
means of living through work, that is, through its capacity to 
consciously rule its own action upon the external reality to 
transform it into a means for itself. Already in his 1844 
Manuscripts, Marx points out that the alienation of human 
potencies deprives man of his generic being. Consequently, man is 
left only with what are its animal attributes, its attributes as a 
specific sort of animal, that is, its species being. This clear 
essence of alienation becomes gibberish as soon as the lost 
?generic being? is labeled a ?species being?.  

Yet, in his 1844 Manuscripts Marx still sees alienation as the real 
form that can account for the existence of capital. It is only in 
?Capital? that Marx discovers that it is not that capitalism emerges 
as a concrete form of alienation, but that the alienation of human 
potencies as capital?s potencies is a necessary concrete form of 
existence of the capitalist social relation: the materialized general 
social relation, the commodity, becomes the concrete subject of 
social production, capital. And it is in ?Capital? that he discovers 
the capitalist social relation as the general necessary form taken 
by the development of the material productive forces of society 
when the time comes to transform the productive power of the 
individual free laborer into a direct social power.  

?Capital? is, from its title to the end, the unfolding of the necessary 
determinations of this alienation, including its historical reason of 
existence.  

The alienation of human potencies as capital?s potencies is not an 
abstract matter, let alone a moral one. It has a very concrete 
material meaning. It is the alienation of humanity from its generic 
potencies, from its generic being.  

For the portion of the working class that capital puts in action to 
valorize itself, this alienation takes shape through the loss by the 
free workers of their capacity to consciously rule their own work. 
Formally, since that ruling is a personal attribute of the capitalist. 
But, really, because the potency to rule the production process is 
materialized in the machinery to which the workers become 
appended; capital, dead labor, materially masters on living labor. 
Yet, this loss is nothing compared to the fate that capital reserves 
for the generic being of the workers that it determines as a surplus 
population for its valorization needs. Capital deprives this second 
part of the working class of its human generic being to the extreme 
of, not only taking away from it its capacity to consciously rule by 
itself its own productive activity, but of taking away from it even its 
capacity to materially produce its means of living.  

Nevertheless, the alienation of the human generic being as a 
potency of capital does not stop at this double expulsion of the 
workers from the process of production itself. To realize itself, that 
alienation needs to put the collective worker that remains active, in 
charge of the control over the mechanized direct process of 
production, that is increasingly concentrated on a social scale. 
Therefore, capital increasingly determines this working class as the 
bearer of the conscious control over the social process of 
production. The alienation in capital thus exhausts its historical 
necessity. It has engendered the workers? capacity to consciously 
rule in a collective way their own action upon the external reality to 
transform it into a means for themselves. In other words, it has 
engendered the necessity of its own supersession, the necessity 
of the recovery by the workers? of their generic human being with a 
real and formal extension, and with a material power, never seen 
before in history.  



Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 11 10:21:38 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:21:38 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Danger of Rightwing violence in U.S.
Message-ID: <s6c2cb68.061@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

______________________________________________________________________

           The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 9 February 99
                       Vol. 3, Number 12 (#221)
______________________________________________________________________

                   INTRODUCTION TO THE FREEH ARTICLE

It isn't every day that we publish news articles uncritical of the FBI
and current director Louis Freeh. Those of us who were involved in the
civil rights movement know the role that Hoover's FBI played in trying
to destroy a mass movement against bigotry. One operation,
bureaucratically labeled COINTELPRO was only the visible tip of the
otherwise concealed chilling actions by the FBI. Of course this was
some time ago, but Freeh, especially with his opposition to encryption,
anonymity on the net, and desire for new wiretap legislation, is no
friend of civil liberties.

But all of this gives special importance to Freeh's warnings of
impending rightwing violence.

There are two additional points that must be made.

The first is that the threat of mass crimes against humanity Freeh
warns about will not end on 1 January 2000. When the world does not
end, the Milleniumists will belatedly discover that the next thousand
years does not begin until 2001. But that date will not automatically
quench the desire to die and kill for Jesus. The social psychologist
Leon Festinger in his groundbreaking book "When Prophecy Fails" showed
that failed predictions can result in forces clinging even more
tenuously to the discredited theories.

The second point concerns the new "anti-terrorist" laws Clinton is
pushing for. Let's remember that "terrorism" was a term developed by
conservative ideologues to use against at least inferentially leftwing
forces. The original "anti-terrorism" laws were not used to crack down
on the KKK or other fascist groups in the U.S.; they were used to
justify foreign military interventions.

Nor -- despite an enormous number of successful prosecutions of
rightwing criminals by Reno's justice department -- are existing laws
fully utilized against rightwing criminal actions. The previous
convictions prove that successful work against rightwing criminality
can be discovered and prosecuted with existing police powers.

No new special ones are needed.

                               - - - - -

            FBI Director Freeh Warns Of Millennium Violence
                       Patricia Wilson (Reuters)
                               4 Feb 99

WASHINGTON -- FBI Director Louis Freeh warned Thursday that right-wing
extremists, religious cults or apocalyptic groups could turn to
violence to fulfill their prophecies of Armageddon as the year 2000
approaches.

At a congressional hearing on counter-terrorism, Freeh cited "rogue
terrorists" such as Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden -- blamed by
Washington for the bombing of two American embassies in East Africa
last year -- as probably the most urgent risk to U.S. interests. But he
said the domestic threat could not be ignored, especially as the
millennium approached.

"The possibility of an indigenous group like Aum Supreme Truth cannot
be excluded," he said, referring to the cult responsible for a nerve
gas attack in the Tokyo subway system in March, 1995.

"With the coming of the next millennium, some religious/apocalyptic
groups or individuals may turn to violence as they seek to achieve
dramatic effects to fulfill their prophecies," he said.

Freeh expressed dismay at a "pattern of racist elements" seeping into
the U.S. militia movement most of which, he said, had no racial
overtones and did not espouse bigotry.

But he discussed at length "a disturbing trend" toward the pseudo-
religion of Christian Identity -- and other hate philosophies -- that
provided both a religious base for racism and anti-Semitism as well as
an ideological rationale for violence against minorities.

"Many white supremacist groups adhere to the Christian Identity belief
system, which holds that the world is on the verge of a final
apocalyptic struggle ... and teaches that the white race is the chosen
race of God," he said.

Many of those who believe in this credo are engaged in survivalist and
paramilitary training, storing foodstuffs and supplies and caching
weapons and ammunition.

Freeh said that as 1999 came to a close, Identity's more extreme
members could prepare for Armageddon by carrying out armed robberies to
finance the upcoming battle, destroying government property and
targeting Jews and non-whites.

The FBI had "little credible intelligence" at this time indicating that
terrorists, either domestic or international, were preparing to attack
the United States, the director said.

But he added that "a growing number -- while still small -- of 'lone
offender' and extremist splinter elements of right-wing groups have
been identified as possessing or attempting to develop or use"
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Attorney General Janet Reno, who also appeared before the Senate
Appropriations subcommittee, said a terrorist attack using a biological
weapon might not be immediately apparent with far-reaching impact on
victims and emergency personnel.

"In fact, we have found recently the mere threat of the use of
unconventional weapons can cause concern and panic. Threats to release
harmful biological or chemical substances cannot be ignored," she said.
Freeh said the FBI dealt with an "anthrax warning letter" somewhere in
the country almost every day.

U.S. officials had to be able "to match wits with the bad guys," Reno
said.

She appealed to the Senate panel to approve funds for a National
Domestic Preparedness Office to be led by the FBI to provide
coordination and a single point of contact for state and local
communities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                         WHAT'S WORTH CHECKING
  stories via <ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/publish/story3/>

Ralph McGehee (CIABASE), "[Dissembling, Deception and Lies: FOI
memorandum from CIA Director on press manipulation]," 18 Jan 99
<story700.txt>

War Resisters League (press release), "Day Without the Pentagon
organizer faces judge on war tax," 19 Jan 99 <story701.txt>

Reuters (no author), "US high court rejects appeal on Bible-quoting
judge," 11 Jan 99 <story702.txt>

Julijana Mojsilovic (Reuters), "Yugoslav team starts examining Kosovo
bodies," 19 Jan 99 <story703.txt>

Diana Johnstone (Press Review), "The 'Racak Massacre' Questioned by
French Media," 20 Jan 99 <story704.txt>

Christophe Chatelot (Le Monde), "Were the Racak Dead Really Coldly
Massacred?," 21 Jan 99 <story705.txt>

Gary Wilson (Workers World News Service), "Warhawk Behind U.S. Kosovo
Policy: Amb. Walker covered up real massacres in El Salvador," 21 Jan
99 <story706.txt>

Maria L. La Ganga (Los Angeles Times), "Fighting for 'Other' Victims of
Holocaust: Hundreds of thousands of disabled people were among those
killed by the Nazis. But is there enough grief to go around? ," 19 Jan
99 <story707.txt>

AmRA (press release), "Second Congress of Antimilitarist Radical
Association ...," 20 Jan 99 <story708.txt>

Tom Godfrey (Toronto Sun), "Gang-raped lesbian wins refugee status," 21
Jan 99 <story709.txt>

                              * * * * *

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research
and educational purposes only.

___________________________________________________________________


                               FASCISM:
   We have no ethical right to forgive, no historical right to forget.
       (No permission required for noncommercial reproduction)

                               - - - - -

                       back issues archived via:
        <ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/publish/tinaf/>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Paul Kneisel <tallpaul at NYCT.NET>
Subject: The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 9 Feb 99 -- 3:12 (#221)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:23:36 -0500
Size: 9726
URL: <http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990211/c8e4bdad/attachment.mht>

From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 11 10:36:15 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:36:15 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political 
	practice (1/2)
Message-ID: <s6c2ced0.009@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

I wonder whether Marx misses that the uniqueness of the human species from other animal species is not only that humans have social production, but that sociality stretches back into many dead generations of the human species. 

Charles Brown

>>> <jinigo at inscri.org.ar> 02/10 11:14 PM >>>
Chris Burford wrote:

> >(notice the 
> >distinction between the generic being and its concrete species, a 
> >difference that in Spanish and in German remains visible even in 
> >ordinary language, but that in English is obscured by the reduction 
> >of the former to the _species being_; not in vain English emerges 
> >as the natural language of positivist science.) 
> 
> Very interesting. Could you please enlarge? I could not understand the
> Spanish, but I probably could, the German.

I will rather resort to my quasi-english.  

The genus differs from the species through the form in which the 
same necessity determines them. The genus is determined as 
such for carrying in itself a contradictory potentiality that only 
belongs to it, and that delimits it from any other form of existence. 
The species are determined by the realization of that same 
potentiality, each of them a particular resolution of the generic 
contradiction. Therefore, the species only differ as such between 
them as being embodiments of the same realized potentiality, but 
not for the potentiality each of them has to realize as its own 
action.  

As the science of the simple reproduction of capital accumulation, 
positivism needs to start by emptying real forms of their most 
general essence, their capacity to move by themselves. Only on 
this basis, science can appropriate the quantitative manifestation of 
the determinations of nature to act upon them, while, at the same 
time, it remains blind to the necessity inherent in capitalism to 
supersede itself through its own development (this is at the core of 
the question of consciousness-unconsciousness that Chris rises in 
his post, and that I expect to specifically consider in a further one). 
 
Therefore, for positivism, the distinction between the genus and its 
species ends up coming down to a matter of formal classification. 
Of the real distinction between the genus and it species only 
remains the paradoxical conclusion that the parts add more than 
the total. And for good thinking minds, it is always very comforting 
to believe that human action has no potency other than that that 
corresponds to it as an animal species. No generic being for man, 
just a species being.  

On the contrary, Hegel points out the true relationship between the 
genus and its species, albeit inverted as a relationship that 
emerges from the development of speculative thought itself.  

Marx brings the question directly to its true meaning. Human being 
arises from its simple determination as an animal species to 
acquire its own generic being: the capacity to produce its own 
means of living through work, that is, through its capacity to 
consciously rule its own action upon the external reality to 
transform it into a means for itself. Already in his 1844 
Manuscripts, Marx points out that the alienation of human 
potencies deprives man of his generic being. Consequently, man is 
left only with what are its animal attributes, its attributes as a 
specific sort of animal, that is, its species being. This clear 
essence of alienation becomes gibberish as soon as the lost 
*generic being* is labeled a *species being*.  

Yet, in his 1844 Manuscripts Marx still sees alienation as the real 
form that can account for the existence of capital. It is only in 
*Capital* that Marx discovers that it is not that capitalism emerges 
as a concrete form of alienation, but that the alienation of human 
potencies as capital*s potencies is a necessary concrete form of 
existence of the capitalist social relation: the materialized general 
social relation, the commodity, becomes the concrete subject of 
social production, capital. And it is in *Capital* that he discovers 
the capitalist social relation as the general necessary form taken 
by the development of the material productive forces of society 
when the time comes to transform the productive power of the 
individual free laborer into a direct social power.  

*Capital* is, from its title to the end, the unfolding of the necessary 
determinations of this alienation, including its historical reason of 
existence.  

The alienation of human potencies as capital*s potencies is not an 
abstract matter, let alone a moral one. It has a very concrete 
material meaning. It is the alienation of humanity from its generic 
potencies, from its generic being.  

For the portion of the working class that capital puts in action to 
valorize itself, this alienation takes shape through the loss by the 
free workers of their capacity to consciously rule their own work. 
Formally, since that ruling is a personal attribute of the capitalist. 
But, really, because the potency to rule the production process is 
materialized in the machinery to which the workers become 
appended; capital, dead labor, materially masters on living labor. 
Yet, this loss is nothing compared to the fate that capital reserves 
for the generic being of the workers that it determines as a surplus 
population for its valorization needs. Capital deprives this second 
part of the working class of its human generic being to the extreme 
of, not only taking away from it its capacity to consciously rule by 
itself its own productive activity, but of taking away from it even its 
capacity to materially produce its means of living.  

Nevertheless, the alienation of the human generic being as a 
potency of capital does not stop at this double expulsion of the 
workers from the process of production itself. To realize itself, that 
alienation needs to put the collective worker that remains active, in 
charge of the control over the mechanized direct process of 
production, that is increasingly concentrated on a social scale. 
Therefore, capital increasingly determines this working class as the 
bearer of the conscious control over the social process of 
production. The alienation in capital thus exhausts its historical 
necessity. It has engendered the workers* capacity to consciously 
rule in a collective way their own action upon the external reality to 
transform it into a means for themselves. In other words, it has 
engendered the necessity of its own supersession, the necessity 
of the recovery by the workers* of their generic human being with a 
real and formal extension, and with a material power, never seen 
before in history.  



Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar 


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From magellan at netrio.com.br  Thu Feb 11 12:01:37 1999
From: magellan at netrio.com.br (R. Magellan)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:01:37 -0200
Subject: M-TH: (eng)  Dr. MENGELE de vuelta/ de volta / is back !
Message-ID: <199902111901.RAA31917@lin.momentus.com.br>


PORT/ SPAN/ ENGL
 
                O dr. Mengele n?o morreu em v?o naquela praia em Embu, S?o 
Paulo!  O suic?do assistido (ou eutan?sia) ? gr?tis para os pobres, claro.  
Segundo o relat?rio de 1994 da Comiss?o sobre Vida e Direito de Nova Iorque, 
mencionada pelo Washington Post (abaixo), "racismo, preconceitos de idade e 
contra deficientes f?sicos, al?m de considera??es de classe e status 
econ?mico afetar?o decisivamente as decis?es de matar".

                ? El dr. Mengele no se muri? en vano en aquella playa en 
Embu, S?o Paulo !  El suicidio asistido (o eutanasia) es gratis para los 
pobres, por supuesto.   Seg?n el relatorio de 1994 de la Comisi?n sobre Vida 
y Derecho de Nueva York, mencionada por el Washington Post (abajo),  
"racismo, prejuicios de edad y contra deficientes, adem?s de consideraciones 
de clase y status econ?mico afectar?n decisivamente las decisiones de matar."

                Dr. Mengele has not died in vain in that beach at Embu, S?o 
Paulo !  Assisted suicide (or euthanasia) is for free for the poor people, 
of course.  According to the 1994 report of the New York State Task Force on 
Life and Law, as mentioned by the Washington Post (below),  "racism, ageism, 
bigotry against disabled people, and issues of class and economic status 
would materially affect killing decisions."

#############################################
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999
From: Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org>
Subject: Oregon will pay for you to die

Nat got a piece published on Oregon Medicaid paying for assisted suicide
(posted below).  I've been writing about this issue for over a month and
not one paper picked it up.  I'm starting to think that since I wrote my
book (published by Common Courage Press) that I've been labeled "red."
Nat, who is a good person, is basically a liberal. Could that be it???
Or maybe I just can't write these short pieces anymore, maybe I get into
more detail than op-ed editors want.
Dazed and confused.

Marta Russell


02/06/99 -- Copyright (C) 1999 The Washington Post [Article 333482, 70
lines]

                        OP-ED:  Free Ticket to Eternity
                                By Nat Hentoff

  Having become, in 1997, the first state to legalize physician-assisted
suicide, Oregon, out of further compassion, has decided to provide this
service to 270,000 low-income residents without charge.  Death does not
discriminate -- why should Oregon?

  As of Dec. 1, the Oregon health plan provides state funds for
diagnostic and counseling sessions to verify the desire for suicide.
And, of course, the lethal drugs to fulfill that desire will be free.

  State funds for this act of extreme compassion will be segregated
from federal Medicaid money because Congress has not yet permitted death
to be subsidized under Medicaid.

  As Richard Doerflinger reported in "Life At Risk" (a newsletter
published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops), there were
angry dissenting voices at a November hearing on this dividend for the
economically challenged.

  Ric Burger -- a diabetic, a wheelchair user and a spokesman for
disabled citizens in the state -- noted: "The fact that the state of
Oregon will not properly fund our personal attendant services, yet will
pay for us to die, amounts to nothing less than cultural genocide."

  Another group, Physicians for Compassionate Care, charged that
"bureaucratic barriers have already been placed in the way of providing
state funding for state-of-the-art antidepressant medication and even
pain medicines, while full funding of assisted suicide for this same
vulnerable population is being promoted."

   Last year, the Economist praised Oregon's Democratic Gov. John
Kitzhaber for rationing health care in the face of limited resources and
observed that Oregon no longer pays for such treatments as "efforts to
fight the final stages of AIDS." But now, AIDS patients can be lawfully
assisted to kill themselves -- thereby saving the state even more money.

   Despite the recent defeat in Michigan of an assisted-suicide
proposal, other states are likely eventually to allow doctors to provide 
patients
the means to dispose of themselves.

   Polls indicate much popular support for state-aided "death with
dignity."  Many doctors agree. Some are neutral, like the Oregon Medical
Association.

   Yet in 1994 the New York State Task Force on Life and Law issued a
report -- "When Death is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the
Medical Context" -- that warned doctors and patients of the dangers in
the state's hastening of death.

   This group, created by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, consists of lawyers,
physicians and an ecumenical roster of religious leaders. The task force
pointed out that "in light of the pervasive failure of our health care
system to treat pain and diagnose and treat depression, legalizing
assisted suicide and euthanasia would be profoundly dangerous for many
individuals who are ill and vulnerable. The risks would be most severe
for those who are elderly, poor, socially disadvantaged, or without access
to good medical care."

    The task force also noted that "racism, ageism, bigotry against
disabled people, and issues of class and economic status would
materially affect killing decisions."

    The Supreme Court refused on June 6, 1997, to declare
physician-assisted suicide a constitutional right, but in the decision
for a unanimous court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist encouraged the states
to explore ways of dealing with this rising issue.

   Rehnquist emphasized that "the lives of the terminally ill, disabled
and elderly people must be no less valued than the lives of the young
and healthy." Otherwise, he said, they would become victims of "abuse" by
jcompassionate expediters.

   And Justice David Souter, in a concurring opinion, stated his
concern that assisted suicide could slip into euthanasia: "Whether
acting from compassion or under some other influence, a physician who would
provide a drug for a patient to administer might well go the further
step of administering the drug himself, so the barrier between assisted
suicide and euthanasia could become porous as well as the line between voluntary
[and involuntary] euthanasia."

   Souter also recognized "the financial incentives" in this new era
of managed care.

  In the sweepingly compassionate new world ahead, I would not be
surprised if Oregon became the first state to legalize the right of
physicians to directly kill a patient. At no cost to the departed, of
course.








               



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 11 14:55:31 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:55:31 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Joint Radical Statistics
Message-ID: <s6c30ba1.004@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

From: Robert Maxwell Young <robert at RMY1.DEMON.CO.UK>
Reply-To: "HRAJ  Human Relations,              Authority and Justice:
     Experiences and Critiques" <HRAJ at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Subject: Joint Radical Statistics and British Society for Social              Responsibility in Science (BSSRS) Conference

Joint Radical Statistics and British Society for Social Responsibility
in Science (BSSRS) Conference

Saturday 27 February 1999
9.30 am to 5 pm

Old Lecture Theatre
London School of Economics
Houghton Street, London

9.30am to 10.00am Conference Registration and Welcome

RADICAL STATISTICS 25th Anniversary Conference
"Social Statistics and Social Movements in the 21st Century"

10.00am - 10.30am:      Audrey Wise MP

Statistics in Politics: a view from the back benches'

Audrey Wise, Labour MP for Preston, will talk about the role of statistics
in politics in general and her experience as an MP and a  member of the
House of Commons Health Committee in particular.

10.30am - 11am:         Julian Tudor Hart

'Going for Gold: human biotechnical evidence as a successor to coal'

Julian Tudor Hart has worked for 30 years, as a GP in Glyncorrwg, a mining
village in South Wales.  He devised the 'Inverse Care Law' in 1971 and has
contributed substantially to clinical epidemiology and to the development
of general practice.  He has also been particularly interested in ways of
reducing inequalities in heath and of involving patients and medical
workers together in the co-production of health.

11am:                   Coffee and Tea with biscuits

11.30am to 12.00pm:             Ivan Turok

'Will Welfare to Work reduce Unemployment?'

Welfare to work has become a flagship policy of the Labour Government. Ivan
will examine its rationale, consider why it has been well received in many
quarters and offer an objective assessment of its prospects, drawing on
recent research into the geography of the labour market and the latest
official statistics on the performance of the New Deal in different areas.

12.00pm to 12.30pm:             Ruth Levitas

'Defining and Measuring Social Exclusion'

Social exclusion is a very flexible concept susceptible to
moral/authoritarian as well as egalitarian interpretations.  Both
definition and measurement of exclusion are consequently the subject of
current controversy, while the nature of the social inclusion Labour will
pursue will be revealed by the indicators chose to monitor it.  Ruth is
author of The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour.

12.30pm-1.00pm:         Ludi Simpson

'Who's Missing from Statistics. A review'

Ludi has recently completed a world survey of 'missing data'.  He is joint
editor of the Radical Statistics book Statistics in Society with Danny
Dorling.

1pm-2pm:                Sandwich Lunch with drinks (LSE's finest!)

2pm - 2.30pm:           Radical Statistics AGM:

Troika elections, Web Site discussion and much more

2.30pm- 3.00pm: Jeff Evans, Alison Macfarlane, John Bibby and Roy Carr Hill

'Lessons and Laughs from the last 24.51 years'

JE: has taught social statistics and research methods at Middlesex and the
Open Universities.  Co-editor of Demystifying Social Statistics.  Engaged
in research on mathematical thinking, emotion and "transfer" to other
practices.
AM: has long been involved in the Radical Statistics Health Group and its
publications.  She is interested in the interface between health policy and
the interpretation of official statistics.
JB: has taught statistics at an old university, the Open University, and a
new university.  Now engaged in publishing and popularising maths and
statistics.
R C-H: has taught statistics and done research in health and economics at
Universities and the OECD.  With experience in former Portuguese colonies
in Africa, he is also currently involved in education for international
development.

3.00pm to 3.30pm:       Tea and Coffee with biscuits

BSSRS CONFERENCE SESSION

3.30pm-4.00pm:          Hilary Wainwright

'A Socialist Science Policy'

Hilary is Editor of Red Pepper.  During the 1980s, she was prominent in the
Combine Shop Stewards movement centred on the Lucas Plant.

4.00pm-4.30pm:          Tim Lang

'Food Policy and the UK Radical Science Movement 1975-2000:
from local to global?'

Tim will look at the radical science movement's gestation of the new food
movement (in which he has been a foot soldier) from the 1970s to present
day.

4.30pm-5.00pm:          Peter Harper

'Techno Anthropology in the Home'

Peter Harper is a senior staff member at the National Centre for
Alternative Technology.

5.30pm:                  End of conference

Adjourn to "The George", 213 The Strand, London for drinks and convivial
discussion in a pub frequented by Oliver Goldsmith and Samuel Johnson in
the eighteenth century. At 6.30 there will be a hot two course meal with
meat and vegetarian options followed by sweets, Please order food in
advance on the booking form below.  Guests not attending conference welcome.
 Joint Radical Statistics and British Society for Social Responsibility
in Science (BSSRS) Conference

CONFERENCE BOOKING FORM

Surname:
Forename(s):
Address 1
Address 2:
Address 3:
Town:
Postcode:                        .

Telephone No:
Fax No:

e-mail:                                 .

Do you want vegetarian food? (please circle answer):            Yes
                No

Do you have any other dietary requirements? (please specify):
                  .

There is disabled access to the Old Lecture Theatre.  If you are a disabled
person, do you have any other requirements of which we should be aware?

                                           .


PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE THE CONFERENCE

Conference fees:

Radical Statistics Members:     ?20.00 if waged, ?10.00 if unwaged
Non members:            ?25.00 if waged, ?12.50 if unwaged

(For non-members the fee includes a year's free introductory membership of
Radical Statistics - this offer is only for people who are not currently
members.)

The evening meal afterwards at the George, 213 The Strand (which was Oliver
Goldsmith's and Sam Johnson's local), will cost another ?10.00 per person,
but must be booked on this form and paid in advance.

Registration (please tick as appropriate):      ?20.00
?10.00
?25.00
?12.50
Plus evening meal:                              ?10 00 (for one)
                                        ?20.00 (for two)


Cheque enclosed for Total:                      ?      ..
:
Do you require a receipt? (please circle)               Yes             No

Please send the completed booking form and your cheque made payable to
RADICAL STATISTICS to:

Pete Latarche
10 Ruskin Avenue
Heaton
Bradford BD9 6EB

CONTEXT OF CONFERENCE
Friends/colleagues/comrades

This note is both to inform you of the details of the forthcoming Radical
Statistic/British Society for Social Responsibility in Science Conference,
and to solicit your help in publicising it. Details are in the attached
file.

BSSRS, as you will know, ceased breathing some years ago. But Radical
Statistics is very much alive, and indeed experienced a major surge of
interest at its 1998 Conference. This year's, on Saturday February 27th at
LSE, is the Rad Stats 25th anniversary Conference. It has offered BSSRS a
starring role (and we have put together a stimulating panel of speakers) for
two reasons. First, to acknowledge the help which BSSRS provided to Rad
Stats in its early days. But second, and more important, to test the water
to see whether the sharp growth of interest which it has experienced applies
more generally to radical science. The conference, then, is an opportunity
to discover the extent of a radical science constituency for the next
millenium (or at least the start of it).

To do this we need to get this message round to a wide spectrum of
scientists and those whose work centres on science. Therefore we would be
very grateful if you could post the details on any relevant lists of which
you are a member, or where you think you might persuade the list owner to
take it. (If you could let me know which lists you are able to cover, so
much the better, but it is not crucial.) Additionally, if you can think of
sympathetic individuals who might do likewise on other lists, it could help
to spread the word more widely. Time is short.

With thanks in advance
Jonathan Rosenhead
J.Rosenhead at lse.ac.uk 

__________________________________________
In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young
Robert Maxwell Young:  robert at rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young at sheffield.ac.uk 
26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306; fax.+44 171 609
4837.
Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for
Psychotherapeutic
Studies, University of  Sheffield: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ 
Home page and writings: http://www.human-nature.com 
Guides to the Internet: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/guides.html 
'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Thu Feb 11 16:00:59 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:00:59 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Nature article on financial markets
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990211230059.0139c1b4@pop.gn.apc.org>

The latest issue of Nature (11th Feb) carries an article drawing comparison
with the interaction of ensembles in economics by comparison with inanimate
sciences. Here is the 
abstract. Presumably "criticality" is the process of quantitative leading
to qualitative changes. 

Chris Burford

London

Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of a financial
market

THOMAS LUX AND MICHELE MARCHESI

Financial prices have been found to exhibit some universal characteristics
that resemble the scaling laws characterizing physical systems in which
large numbers of units interact. This raises the question of whether
scaling in finance emerges in a similar way--from the
interactions of a large ensemble of market participants. However, such an
explanation is in contradiction to the prevalent 'efficient market
hypothesis' in economics, which assumes that the movements of financial
prices are an immediate and unbiased reflection of incoming news about
future earning prospects. Within this hypothesis, scaling in price changes
would simply reflect similar scaling in the 'input' signals that influence
them. Here we describe a multi-agent model of financial markets which
supports the idea that scaling arises from mutual interactions of
participants. Although the 'news arrival process' in our model lacks both
power-law scaling and any temporal dependence in volatility, we find that
it generates such behaviour as a result of interactions between agents.



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Fri Feb 12 01:06:20 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:06:20 +0000
Subject: M-TH: My reply to Doug Henwood!
In-Reply-To: <199808070731.BAA32057@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990212080620.0112171c@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 01:31 AM 8/7/98 -0600, Bob Malecki wrote:


> Now it is back to work to get the 
>rest of this up and running...Then we can discuss this futher here at thaxis 
>and on Usenet where your Stalinist practices of bans and exclusions can be 
>met with arguments like the ICL/Workers Vanguard article..

That was on 7th August last year.

Did Bob come back with that serious argument that Doug's analysis in "Wall
Street" is not marxist? 

If he did, it would help him to demonstrate that Doug is unreasonable in
excluding his demagogic contributions from LBO talk. Providing the reply,
if it exists, was not demagogic.

Did I miss the riposte?

Chris Burford

London 



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Sat Feb 13 14:31:48 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:31:48 -0500
Subject: M-TH: IG Metall moves toward strike
Message-ID: <s6c5a920.057@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

>From yesterday's Financial Times:
IG Metall moves towards strike
by Tony Barber in Frankfurt
Germany's biggest trade union, IG Metall, took the first formal steps
towards an all-out strike yeterday when union officials in the most
important industrial regions declared wage negotiations to have broken down
and called for a nationwide strike ballot.

IG Metall leaders in Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Lower Saxony, North
Rhine-Westphalia and five northern coastal districts asked the union's
national board to order a strike vote by the 2.7m rank-and-file members
between February 22 and 24.

First signs were that the national board, which will meet in Frankfurt on
Sunday, would approve the request.

If 75 percent of IG Metall's members support going on strike, the walkout is
expected to start on March 1. "This sequence of events is inevitable," said
Jurgen Peters, IG Metall's deputy leader.

Tens of thousands of metal and electrical workers staged brief warning
strikes yesterday for the 10th successive weekday in support of their demand
for a 6.5 per cent annual pay rise. The employers' association,
Gesamtmetall, has formally offered 2.3 per cent, plus 0.5 per cent extra
from companies that can afford it. Informally, it has signalled it might
nudge its offer up to 3 per cent in total. Economists say the European
Central Bank, which sets monetary policy for Germany and 10 other euro-zone
countries, may delay an expected cut in interest rates if the employers
concede a wage increase above 3 per cent. The annual IG Metall contract sets
a benchmark for wage settlements in Germany, the largest euro-zone economy.

WORKERS OF THE WEST, ITS OUR TURN



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 14 04:07:21 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:07:21 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Law of Value, Law of Nature
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990214110721.01373a28@pop.gn.apc.org>

In what has now become an occasional series, I would like to share a
further passage from Marx illustrating his seamless use parallels between
the socio-economic world and the world of "nature". 

Gravity again.

Capital Vol 1, Chapter 1, Section 4:

"in the midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange relations
between the products, the labour-time socially necessary to produce them
asserts itself as a regulative law of nature. In the same way, the law of
gravity asserts itself when a person's house collapses on top of him."

Penguin/Vintage edition p 168

Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Sun Feb 14 12:01:10 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:01:10 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political  practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990208225836.01126ed4@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <m10C7LB-000CYDC@secyt.gov.ar>

Chris Burford wrote:
 
> I think when applied to human society, marxism deeply implies a theory of
> the unconscious or the semi-conscious. The formulas here seem to me to
> privilege consciousness, but we cannot be consciously aware of everything
> all the time. 

Any living form, from the simplest one to human beings, needs to 
virtually appropriate the potentiality of the environment on which it 
is going to exert its process of metabolism. It needs to develop the 
cognition of its own potencies with respect to those of the 
environment before actually transforming this environment into a 
means for itself. Consciousness is the most developed form of 
cognition. It develops itself as the necessary form of ruling the 
human collective process of producing the own means of living 
through work. Therefore, consciousness is a concrete form of the 
human generic being.  

Monkeys lack consciousness. But this does not mean they are 
unconscious. They lack unconsciousness as much as they lack 
consciousness. Therefore, in the first place, unconsciousness is 
as much a historical human product as consciousness. In the 
second place, unconsciousness is not an abstract opposite of 
consciousness, but its development has to take place in the very 
process in which consciousness is developed. That is, 
unconsciousness is a necessary moment in the ruling of the social 
process of production. In other words, it is a specific moment, and 
moreover, a specific concrete form, of the process in which human 
beings virtually appropriate the transforming potentiality of their 
action.  

To avoid some possible confusions, let?s point out some limits to 
consciousness that are not expressions of ?unconsciousness?:

1) The limited development of the scientific cognition of nature that 
hinders, for example, the production of a vaccine against aids, 
however much the social determination of unconsciousness itself 
limits the advance of that cognition.  

2) The impossibility to appropriate in thought a concrete real form 
whose existence is shorter than the time we need to discover its 
determinations.  

3) When we face an abstract real form whose realized potencies 
will contradict each other, it is not a matter of unconsciousness 
that we cannot assert which of the possible concrete forms will 
actually emerge from that realization. In this case, we are 
completely conscious about the necessity of these real concrete 
forms when we know them as what they actually are at the 
moment of our cognition: a bunch of possibilities. For example, I 
am not unconscious about the necessity of my death; I know it as 
it exists today: a simple determination that in itself is not mediated 
by possibility, but whose concrete form of realizing itself is. In fact, 
the essence of conscious action is to transform a simple real 
necessity whose realization excludes our action into a possibility 
that includes it; to transform real potencies whose realization is 
mediated by possibility into real potencies where the possibility of 
our choice becomes the dominant one, or is transformed into a 
simple necessity immediately realizable.  

4) The rule of our actions by our immediate cognition when they are 
simple enough for it to completely manage them.    

Let us focus now on the simplest specificity of unconsciousness in 
the capitalist mode of production. This specificity arises from the 
private form in which social labor is performed; that is, from the 
value-form taken by the material product of labor.  

Since the portion of social labor that each individual performs is not 
ruled in any direct way, individuals need to produce as if they 
lacked any dependency form the rest of society. So they need to 
act, and therefore, to see themselves, as absolutely independent 
subjects. As such, their actions appear to them as arising from 
their purely natural free will. A free will that lacks any limit in itself.  

Yet, what characterizes these individuals is that, through their 
mutual immediate independence, their social interdependence 
reaches a degree never seen before in history: the individual 
consumption of each of them is not subordinated only to the 
concrete production of the rest through the social division of labor, 
but depends on the concrete form taken by the individual 
consumption of the rest. To consume one has to buy, and to buy, 
one must previously produce a use-value for others, and sell it to 
them.  

Therefore, the social interdependence of the commodity producers 
appears to them, not as their direct social process of ruling their 
life, but as what it is: an indirect process that faces them as an 
external power that imposes itself upon what is, for them, their 
immediate free will. But this external power does not face them as 
an attribute of another individual. It faces them as an attribute 
inherent in the material product of their work, commodities. Notice 
that, even in its complete concretion as a relation of exploitation of 
the worker by the capitalist, the power of the capitalist does not 
arise from his person itself, but from his condition as a 
personification of capital.  

Now, the will of the commodity-producers appears to them as the 
unity between what appeared as a purely natural free will and their 
necessity to adjust their actions to what appears as an external 
constraint imposed by society. Their own consciousness presents 
to them (actually, our own consciousness presents to us) as the 
result of a constant struggle between that unlimited free will that 
appears as being inherent in individuals themselves isolated from 
society, and the voluntary subordination to what appears as the 
conditions externally imposed by society.  

This form of consciousness is in itself a concrete form of the lack 
of consciousness with respect to one?s own determinations. 
Therefore, it is at the same time a form of unconsciousness. But, 
in turn, for individuals that primary need to see themselves as 
absolutely free to consciously act transforming nature, it is 
impossible to see themselves as being unconscious about their 
own determinations. Unconsciousness could only appear to them 
as what emerges to their conscience as their most natural power: 
their ?natural? absolute free will. Since it appears as natural, it 
appears as what the individuals have of their animal being, 
struggling to emerge against what appears as an externally 
imposed social being.  

Notice how this appearance is the naturalization of the alienation of 
human powers as capital?s powers, that deprives individuals from 
their generic human being leaving them only in possession of their 
animal specificity. In ?Totem and Taboo? and ?Uneasiness in 
Culture? (I hope my literal translation agrees with the English title), 
Freud develops this appearance into a scientific theory, a logic 
representation of reality. Psychology places what is the result of 
human history as the origin of human history. Even Marxist 
psychology empties the question of present-day consciousness 
and unconsciousness from its fundamental specific determination: 
the rule of human life through the private form under which social 
labor is performed in capitalist society. Yet, it is not alone in its 
naturalization of the specificity of the simplest concrete forms of 
capitalism.  

In ?Capital?, Marx carefully develops how, although value is the 
specific social form in which abstract labor is represented in 
commodity production, this specificity does not arise from the 
abstract character of labor itself. He shows that the contradiction 
abstract labor-concrete labor is naturally inherent in human 
productive activity and, consequently, common to all forms of 
society. Then, Marx goes on to discover that the private form taken 
by social labor is what makes the generic attribute of human labor, 
its abstract character as the productive expenditure of human body 
and mind, to take a historically specific social form, the value-form 
of commodities. Still, it?s becoming increasingly popular among 
Marxist economists to believe that the specificity of commodity-
producing labor does not arise from its private character, but from 
its abstract character.  

Of course, both in the case of psychology and of political 
economy, what truly matters concerning the naturalization of social 
historical forms are the political conclusions that arise from the 
inversion.

Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb 15 08:45:01 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:45:01 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Law of Value, Law of Nature
Message-ID: <s6c7fabe.012@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Thanks for this Chris. I had Engels using this metaphor for for revolution. I am very appreciative of your occasional series; and will try to make some contributions as I read through Capital on occassion.


Charles Brown

>>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 02/14 6:07 AM >>>
In what has now become an occasional series, I would like to share a
further passage from Marx illustrating his seamless use parallels between
the socio-economic world and the world of "nature". 

Gravity again.

Capital Vol 1, Chapter 1, Section 4:

"in the midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange relations
between the products, the labour-time socially necessary to produce them
asserts itself as a regulative law of nature. In the same way, the law of
gravity asserts itself when a person's house collapses on top of him."

Penguin/Vintage edition p 168

Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb 15 10:00:17 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:00:17 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Is coal a fossil fuel ?
Message-ID: <s6c80c5c.084@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Jim Blaut

<<The main problem with Steve Drury's theory (a familiar one: see the work of
Malcolm Caldwell and Dick Peet, not to mention conservative economic
historians) is that it flip-flops the 18th and 16th centuries. The
importance of these ore deposits -- which, by the way, may have been
coincident in the same way elsewhere than England: China? South Africa?  --
emerges at the start of the industrial evolution,  not at the start of the
rise-to-triumph of capitalism, which happened  a century or so earlier.
Somehow, these kinds of contradictions tend not to be noticed if the thrust
of the argument points toward the priority of Europe. And, by the way,
charcoal was, indeed, used at the dawn of the industrial revolution in
England.
_______
A respectable argument can be (and has been) made that the location of the
ores close together in England explains why England, not, say, France or
Holland, was the seat of the first industrial revolution.
___
I dissed Steve on LI, and I think he is trying to get back at me by lining
up with Andy in searching for a European origin of the rise of Europe and
capitalism.
>>

Oh Dear!

1.  Lead, copper, zinc and tin ores were mined in Britain in pre-Roman times. 
The mining crafts guilds (stannaries etc)of the SW and the Pennines arose in the
13th century, the 'wee baubee' - a unit of Scottish curenncy since the 10th
century was of silver mined in Alva Glen in Clackmanshire and so on ad
infinitum.  Coal was shipped from Newcastle to London well before the head of
Charles I lay in a basket.  The so-called cradle of the Industrial Revolution,
i.e. where steel was first smelted using coke as a reductant was in
Coalbrookdale in the West Midlands- Abraham Darby - and the Ironbridge is still
standing.

2.  A very similar history can be seen in the Limburg region of Holland and in
the Massif Central in France, as well as in Hungary and Poland, where the Bronze
Age began.  The Chinese were using lead as mirrors around the 4th century, and
India was also a site for early copper mining - 3000 BC around Inghaldal in
Karnataka.

3.  The major coalfields of South Africa and Zimbabwe (Wankie) are not in
geographic proximity to the abundant mineralization of southern Africa - the one
is in geologically young rocks, the other in immensely old ones with geographic
separations of hundreds of kilometres.

5.  Of course charcoal was the principal reductant for early smelting in Europe,
simply because the burning property of coal was not linked to carbon until the
16th century, and the technology for coking needs anaerobic retorts.

Finally, I don't give a monkey's hoot for Jim's thinking he 'dissed(?)' me on
LI.  I wouldn't be involved with this or any other list if spite entered the
scene, or I couldn't take odd criticisms (not a critique BTW).  I, like Andy,
think that Jim is pulling things off the wall and cloaking them in obscurantist
language.

If Jim thinks this is a game, well and good for him, but if so, he should stop
all this bullshit about being 'in struggle for socialism and against
obscurantism'.  If we are to make any unity with workers, we should be clear as
well as honest - they simply have no time for 'academic jousting'.

Steve Drury




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 15 13:58:11 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:58:11 +0000
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political 
  practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <m10AcpS-000CVZC@secyt.gov.ar>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990208225836.01126ed4@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990215205811.013321c4@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 10:32 10/02/99 -0300, you wrote in reply to my comments on part 1 

>To avoid any confusion, notice that since dialectics has no path to 
>follow other than that of the development of the necessity really 
>inherent in its object, logic has no general role to play in it. In other 
>words, logic, the ideal necessity imposed over the real one to 
>represent reality in thought, has no way of fitting into the 
>reproduction of the concrete in thought as such. 

I am interested in this explicit demotion of logic.



>Reality simply is the self-affirming by means of self-negation. 

Could you give a marxist reference for this proposition?

Thanks


Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 15 14:12:35 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:12:35 +0000
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics (2/2)
In-Reply-To: <m109xaX-000CUoC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990215211235.013313f0@pop.gn.apc.org>

I could not give part 2 adequate attention at the time, owing to other
commitments, but I would like to comment:



At 14:40 08/02/99 -0300, Juan wrote:
>Dialectical Method, i.e., the reproduction of the concrete in thought 
>(part 2)
>
>Above all, life is a process of metabolism, the process where a 
>subject appropriates its environment to produce itself. 

<>

>Human life is a process of social metabolism. Still, this process 
>has no way of realizing itself other than in the process of 
>metabolism of human individuals. 


I am in sympathy with this and I think the article comprehensively, and as
far as I could see accurately led up to its conclusion in the quote from Marx:


>?History itself is a _real_ part of _natural history_, of the 
>transformation of nature into man. Someday natural science will 
>embody the science of man, in the same way that the science of 
>man will embody natural science; there will be only _one_ science. 
>
 The _social_  reality of nature and the _human_ natural science 
>or _natural science of man_ are identical expressions.? (1844 
>Manuscripts)  


But in the course of studying Chapter 1 of Capital I have the following
question which is perhaps related to the paragraphs below:

Would you say
 
that abstract human labor has existed in all human societies? Or that 
the abstraction 'labor' has existed in all human societies?




>The absence of a general coordination through cognition in the 
>allocation and development of social labor determines individuals 
>as private independent producers. Insofar as purely such, they have 
>no way to get into relation by themselves to incarnate the process 
>of social metabolism. To begin with, these producers do not retain 
>any general social relation other than that of being individual 
>personifications of society?s total capacity for performing productive 
>labor. This total labor-power is, as such, the capacity for performing 
>human labor in general. 


<>

>The process in question determines itself as 
>the autonomously regulated human process of social metabolism; 
>that is to say, the process in which society allocates its total labor-
>power among the different concrete modalities of labor by 
>representing the socially necessary abstract labor embodied in the 
>products of the concrete labors carried out by the independent 
>private producers, as the capacity of these products for relating 
>among themselves in exchange. The general social relation that 
>rules the process of metabolism that is able to produce its own 
>medium takes the form of _commodities_; and the socially 
>necessary abstract labor in that way represented, becomes _the 
>value_ of commodities. 



Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au  Mon Feb 15 21:58:54 1999
From: k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au (Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM))
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:58:54 +1100 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Australian Tent Embassy Protest
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.990216153123.15649A-100000@student.canberra.edu.au>

The following article (at the end of message)appeared in Greenleft Weekly.

For the last 10 days,
members of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy have taken their protest to the
lawns of Parliament House in Canberra.  The Tent Embassy is the longest
protest site in Australia (on the lawns across from Old Parliament House).
It was established in 1972 outside the original parliament of Australis
 by 4 Aboriginal men when the then Prime Minister William McMahon
announced on the 26 January - Australia Day (It is commerated by many
Indigenous Australians as Invasion or Survival Day) that his government
would allow mining to go ahead on Aboriginal reserves and missions and
that traditional land would not be returned to Aboriginal owners, instead
it would be leased back to them if they could prove they would use it in
an economically viable
manner.  

The original Tent Embassy became the focus of the burgeoning Aboriginal
rights movement and attracted thousands of supporters (both white and
indigenous) from around Australia, who came to its defence. Over the next
9 mths in 1972, it was attacked by police an number of times, who were
instructed by the govt to tear it down.

Many of the activist currently involved with the Embassy, such as Isobel
Coe (the wife of one of the original founders)were a part of the original
Embassy and have continued to fight against the racist and genocidal
practices which have and are still occuring in Australia.

 Yesterday (15/2), members of the Tent Embassy took the fire back up to
Parliament House.  The previous week they had agreed to not relight the
fire when the Minister for Reconcilation, Senator Phillip Ruddock agreed
to meet with them on Monday (15/2).  The Minister reneged on his agreement
and failed to attend the meeting, because "there would be too much media".  

The fire which is part of a sacred religious ceremony was re-lit and 211
ceremonial spears were planted in the ground, in addition to this there
were a number of spirt sticks which represented the spirits of dead
warriors from the Embassy.  Despite the protest being peaceful, police
attacked the protestors in an attempt to once again put out the fire.
When the widows of the dead warriors attempted to protect the spirit
sticks of their husbands, the police violently wrenched them from them and
proceeded to desecrate the sacred fire.
_________________________________________________

 Cops Extinguish Ceremonial Fire

Members of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy took their protest to the
     lawns of new Parliament House to
     coincide with the resumption of
     parliament. Aboriginal elders from
     across the nation, including Clarrie
     Isaacs and Joan Arnold, who was a
     defender of the original embassy in
     1972, attended.

     Ceremonial spears, saplings and embers
     from the Fires of Justice and Peace, the
     camp fire that burns constantly at the Tent
     Embassy, were carried there. 

     Tent Embassy spokesperson, Isobel Coe,
     said members of the Tent Embassy went to
     express concern at the real eyesore of our
     country -- the genocide of Aboriginal
     people, deaths in custody, the stolen
     generation and legislation which sanctions
     the dispossession and death of indigenous
     people. Coe explained that the new
     parliament building was built on top of an
     Aboriginal women's sacred site. Embers
     from the Fire of Justice and Peace were to
     be used to cleanse the site. 

     Commonwealth security officers attempted
     to remove the fire, saying that it was
     interfering with traffic. Police extinguished
     the fire at around 11pm that evening.
     Embassy members re-lit it. 

     On February 10, at about 8.30pm, 30
     Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers
     again moved against the peaceful assembly.
     They removed 211 ceremonial sticks
     (representing 211 years of genocide) and
     again extinguished the ceremonial fire. 

     AFP officers said the National Capital
     Authority had classified the ceremonial
     sticks and fire as structures and that they
     had to be removed in a reasonable time.
     Asked when was a reasonable time, they
     replied, now. 

     Arabunna elder and Carrier of the Fire
     Dreaming, Kevin Buzzacott, denounced the
     desecration. I want the world to know how
     the Australian government solves
     problems... I don't see them treating other
     embassies like this. 

     Do they want peace or war? Why can't
     they come with an open heart and listen to
     what we are talking about, listen to the
     earth, listen to the cries and pleas of
     Aboriginal peoples. 

     Ray Swan, a member of the Tent Embassy,
     told Green Left Weekly that the fire
     ceremony has called for Howard to come
     and listen to our deepest concerns regarding
     the continuing pre-meditated genocide
     against Aboriginal peoples. Instead Howard
     chooses to be aggressive ... the prime
     minister is denying us our basic human
     rights. 

     Labor opposition spokesperson for
     Aboriginal issues, Daryl Melham, met with
     members of the Tent Embassy on February
     11. When asked to sign a treaty with the
     embassy, he said he did not have the power
     to sign. Melham called for a guarantee of
     existence for the Tent Embassy. 

     Members of the Tent Embassy will continue
     their protest and rebuild the ceremonial fires.
     They have called for assistance from all
     people who can join them in Canberra. The
     Tent Embassy can be contacted on (02)
     6273 7472 or (02) 6295 0493. 




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 15 14:55:42 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:55:42 +0000
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political 
  practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <m10AoLg-000CVjC@secyt.gov.ar>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990208225836.01126ed4@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990215215542.0137ebd8@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 01:14 11/02/99 -0300, you wrote:
>Chris Burford wrote:
>
>> >(notice the 
>> >distinction between the generic being and its concrete species, a 
>> >difference that in Spanish and in German remains visible even in 
>> >ordinary language, but that in English is obscured by the reduction 
>> >of the former to the _species being_; not in vain English emerges 
>> >as the natural language of positivist science.) 
>> 
>> Very interesting. Could you please enlarge? I could not understand the
>> Spanish, but I probably could, the German.
>
>I will rather resort to my quasi-english.  


Your English is by no means "quasi", but I would appreciate the German
ordinary language, because I personally get into things by examining words.

Chris Burford





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 15 16:00:00 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:00:00 +0000
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political 
  practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <m10C7LB-000CYDC@secyt.gov.ar>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990208225836.01126ed4@pop.gn.apc.org>
 <m109iAd-000CTZC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990215230000.0137f238@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 16:01 14/02/99 -0300, Juan I wrote:
>Chris Burford wrote:
> 
>> I think when applied to human society, marxism deeply implies a theory of
>> the unconscious or the semi-conscious. The formulas here seem to me to
>> privilege consciousness, but we cannot be consciously aware of everything
>> all the time. 
>
>Any living form, from the simplest one to human beings, needs to 
>virtually appropriate the potentiality of the environment on which it 
>is going to exert its process of metabolism. It needs to develop the 
>cognition of its own potencies with respect to those of the 
>environment before actually transforming this environment into a 
>means for itself. 

Recent studies show that a single celled flagellate organism will swim
towards amino acids that are food. I think a theory of cognition has to
embrace a theory of attention that goes back this far developmentally. 


>Consciousness is the most developed form of 
>cognition. It develops itself as the necessary form of ruling the 
>human collective process of producing the own means of living 
>through work. Therefore, consciousness is a concrete form of the 
>human generic being.  
>
>Monkeys lack consciousness. 

I am very surprised that this statement can be made, despite the fact that
I am not in a position to quote precise research literature. My
understanding from semi-popular television presentations, based on actual
research, is that you have to define types of mental activity and context
under different headings to answer this question. And BTW you have to
distinguish between apes and monkeys. But in any case I think informed
opinion, and not just fashionable opinion, is moving to a recognition of
animals as sentient beings  on a continuum with ourselves.


>But this does not mean they are 
>unconscious. They lack unconsciousness as much as they lack 
>consciousness. Therefore, in the first place, unconsciousness is 
>as much a historical human product as consciousness. In the 
>second place, unconsciousness is not an abstract opposite of 
>consciousness, but its development has to take place in the very 
>process in which consciousness is developed. That is, 
>unconsciousness is a necessary moment in the ruling of the social 
>process of production. In other words, it is a specific moment, and 
>moreover, a specific concrete form, of the process in which human 
>beings virtually appropriate the transforming potentiality of their 
>action.  
>
>To avoid some possible confusions, let?s point out some limits to 
>consciousness that are not expressions of ?unconsciousness?:
>
>1) The limited development of the scientific cognition of nature that 
>hinders, for example, the production of a vaccine against aids, 
>however much the social determination of unconsciousness itself 
>limits the advance of that cognition.  
>
>2) The impossibility to appropriate in thought a concrete real form 
>whose existence is shorter than the time we need to discover its 
>determinations.


One orbit of an electron around a proton?
  


<>



>
>Notice how this appearance is the naturalization of the alienation of 
>human powers as capital?s powers, that deprives individuals from 
>their generic human being leaving them only in possession of their 
>animal specificity. In ?Totem and Taboo? and ?Uneasiness in 
>Culture? (I hope my literal translation agrees with the English title), 
>Freud develops this appearance into a scientific theory, a logic 
>representation of reality. Psychology places what is the result of 
>human history as the origin of human history. Even Marxist 
>psychology empties the question of present-day consciousness 
>and unconsciousness from its fundamental specific determination: 
>the rule of human life through the private form under which social 
>labor is performed in capitalist society. Yet, it is not alone in its 
>naturalization of the specificity of the simplest concrete forms of 
>capitalism. 

This part in particularly needs to be posted on marxism-psych

 
>
>In ?Capital?, Marx carefully develops how, although value is the 
>specific social form in which abstract labor is represented in 
>commodity production, this specificity does not arise from the 
>abstract character of labor itself. He shows that the contradiction 
>abstract labor-concrete labor is naturally inherent in human 
>productive activity and, consequently, common to all forms of 
>society. Then, Marx goes on to discover that the private form taken 
>by social labor is what makes the generic attribute of human labor, 
>its abstract character as the productive expenditure of human body 
>and mind, to take a historically specific social form, the value-form 
>of commodities. Still, it?s becoming increasingly popular among 
>Marxist economists to believe that the specificity of commodity-
>producing labor does not arise from its private character, but from 
>its abstract character. 

This goes into more detail about the question I posed in relation to
another post after you wrote this, about abstract labour in all societies. 

The last sentence is particuarly interesting. Please expand preferably with
references.

Many thanks.



 
Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 15 16:07:29 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:07:29 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Alan Carling on Marcus Roberts' _Analytical Marxism:
  A Critique_
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990215230729.0137f238@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 16:11 09/02/99 -0500, Jim Farmelant wrote:
>    Alan Carling, "A Question of Attitude: Marcus Roberts on Analytical
>    Marxism" (Review of Marcus Roberts, Analytical Marxism: a Critique), Res
>    Publica IV/2 (1998), 211-228:
>
>    Marcus Roberts' book Analytical Marxism: A Critique 
>    attempts both to overview the development of the *analytical
>    Marxist* paradigm, and subject its principal tenets to a major
>    critique. Although it contains some excellent exposition and much
intelligent
>    critical commentary, the book in the end has serious shortcomings on both
>    counts. In terms of overview, the book concentrates on G.A. Cohen's
version
>    of the *theory of history*, somewhat at the expense of other analytical
>    Marxists such as Erik Olin Wright, Adam Przerworski and Philippe van
>    Parijs, and even of G.A. Cohen's more recent work in political
philosophy.
>    In terms of critique, Roberts argues that analytical Marxism should be
>    defined by its *methodology* - its use of individualistic explanation and
>    the rational choice assumption, for example - and that this methodology
>    fails. The problem is that Roberts' arguments to this effect are not very
>    convincing, and that he does not specify very carefully what criteria
would
>    need to be met for analytical Marxism to succeed either as social theory,
>    or as Marxism. It is this problem of attitude which finally vitiates
>    Roberts's account.


"Individualist explanation" would surely be one sufficient answer?

Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Tue Feb 16 01:40:07 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:40:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political   practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990215230000.0137f238@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990216033708.12944A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Chris Burford wrote:

>Recent studies show that a single celled flagellate organism will swim
>towards amino acids that are food. I think a theory of cognition has to
>embrace a theory of attention that goes back this far developmentally. 

Plants root to nutrients and turn ways to the sun. Why stop at single
celled flagellate? 

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From farmelantj at juno.com  Tue Feb 16 04:35:26 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:35:26 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Alan Carling on Marcus Roberts' _Analytical Marxism: 
	A Critique_
References: <3.0.2.32.19990215230729.0137f238@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <19990216.063526.3366.0.farmelantj@juno.com>


On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:07:29 +0000 Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
writes:
>At 16:11 09/02/99 -0500, Jim Farmelant wrote:
>>    Alan Carling, "A Question of Attitude: Marcus Roberts on 
>Analytical
>>    Marxism" (Review of Marcus Roberts, Analytical Marxism: a 
>Critique), Res
>>    Publica IV/2 (1998), 211-228:
>>
>>    Marcus Roberts' book Analytical Marxism: A Critique 
>>    attempts both to overview the development of the *analytical
>>    Marxist* paradigm, and subject its principal tenets to a major
>>    critique. Although it contains some excellent exposition and much
>intelligent
>>    critical commentary, the book in the end has serious shortcomings 
>on both
>>    counts. In terms of overview, the book concentrates on G.A. 
>Cohen's
>version
>>    of the *theory of history*, somewhat at the expense of other 
>analytical
>>    Marxists such as Erik Olin Wright, Adam Przerworski and Philippe 
>van
>>    Parijs, and even of G.A. Cohen's more recent work in political
>philosophy.
>>    In terms of critique, Roberts argues that analytical Marxism 
>should be
>>    defined by its *methodology* - its use of individualistic 
>explanation and
>>    the rational choice assumption, for example - and that this 
>methodology
>>    fails. The problem is that Roberts' arguments to this effect are 
>not very
>>    convincing, and that he does not specify very carefully what 
>criteria
>would
>>    need to be met for analytical Marxism to succeed either as social 
>theory,
>>    or as Marxism. It is this problem of attitude which finally 
>vitiates
>>    Roberts's account.
>
>
>"Individualist explanation" would surely be one sufficient answer?

Actually I think that Carling is rather unfair in his treatment of
Roberts.
He maintains that Roberts emphasizes Cohen's "theory of history" at
the expense of Cohen's later work in political philosophy.  In fact
Roberts
shows how Cohen's work in political philosophy in part derives from
the inadequacies of his earlier "theory of history."  Cohen's "theory
of history" was very much a Second International version of historical
materialism derived mainly from Plekhanov (and Kautsky).  Cohen's
presentation of this theory was extremely rigorous and he made full
use of the armenatum of analytic philosophy developing this presentation.
The problem was that despite Cohen's rigor the interpretation of
historical
materialism that he relied upon was fundamentally flawed, in fact it
was already moribound by the end of WW I.  It was precisely this Second
International version of historical materialism that Western Marxists
like Gramsci and Lukacs had rebelled against following the Bolshevik
Revolution.  Cohen, himself, has over time become aware of many of
these inadequacies and he has consequently turned away from historical
materialism in favor of political philosophy.  As Roberts points out
Cohen
has retreated from a classical Marxism towards an ethical socialism.
And Cohen has chosen to defend this ethical socialism in terms of the
left-liberal analytic political philosophy pioneered by John Rawls and
Ronald Dworkin.

On the other hand it should be said that Carling is correct in pointing
out
that Analytic Marxism should not be identified exclusively with a
commitment
to ratonal choice theory and methodological individualism.  Cohen for
instance never embraced either of these, even if some of his close
colleagues like John Roemer and Jon Elster have.  The real problem
IMO is that Analytic Marxism has sought to sought to build versions of
Marxism without dialectics.  But without dialectics, Marxism can hardly
cohere as a system.  It is one thing to reject the dialectics of nature
as
Cohen did in a paper he wrote twenty-seven years ago and another to
reject Marx's historical dialectic.  The aversion to the historical
dialectic
that a Jon Elster diaplays seems to owe much to the arguments of
Karl Popper.  However, this ignores developments within analytic
philosophy which open the door to a reconsideration of dialectics.
Furthermore, despite Popper's anti-dialectics stand, as various
commentators like Chris Sciabarra and the Soviet philosopher,
Igor Naletov have pointed out, Popper's later thought requires
dialectics.

		Jim Farmelant
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From carob at dynamite.com.au  Wed Feb 17 02:09:34 1999
From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:09:34 +1100
Subject: M-TH: Re: [PEN-L:3476] Globalization's Doubters; Border Crossings Grow
	 MoreTreacherous & Deadly
Message-ID: <199902170910.UAA27268@tnt.dynamite.com.au>

G'day Thaxists,

Thanks to Mike Eisenscher, who has forwarded, but not endorsed, this article
- some knee-jerk responses in parentheses:

                        Globalization's Doubters; Border Crossings Grow More
Treacherous & Deadly
                                                         Tuesday, February
16, 1999 

 Criticism that sounds like warmed-over Marxism in the wealthy West
resonates as truth in the Third World. 
                                                                 By TOM
PLATE
               
>      There's no shortage of fear, loathing and even hysteria
>      about economic globalization these days. That's
>      especially true in academe; many who toil there
>      believe its hurricane force will in the end leave the world's
>      poor twisting in the wind. 
>
>Some academicians flatly view globalization as an
>ethical and moral menace. University of Exeter Prof.
>Timothy Gorringe, in his new book "Fair Shares: Ethics and
>the Global Economy," says globalization has "the potential
>for destroying society." His metaphors are of sickness:
>"clearly feverish," "a symptom of an illness," "a disorder of
>the soul." 

>Others view globalization as a masked process for
>putting false gods in clandestine charge of our lives.
>Harvard Prof. Dani Rodrik writes in the new book "Making
>Openness Work" that it "requires too much blind faith in
>markets to believe that the global allocation of resources is
>enhanced by the twenty-something-year-olds in London
>who move hundreds of millions of dollars around the globe
>in a matter of an instant." 
>     Still others fear globalization as the hit man against
>hope. Former Economist magazine researcher Harry Shutt,
>in his recent book "The Trouble With Capitalism,"
>compares it to "organized crime--a parasite so vicious that
>it is killing the body it feeds off." 
>
>That's all a bit much, of course, for a comparatively new
>force on the planet whose effects are only slowly becoming
>apparent, much less fully understood. 

[So new a force that the best description of it had its 150th birthday last
February.  Its effects so slowly becoming apparent that we had to wait for
the First World War, the Great Depression and the Second World War to
understand them.  It has now taken thirty years of Keynesianism and twenty
years of reversion to pre-Keynesianism to forget what we understood then. 
Given that our being determines our consciousness, I suppose it is we in the
West who would forget the more easily - our manufactured history sitting so
comfortable with our whitegoods and computers ... ]

>Still, a measure of
>hysteria may not be such a bad thing, given globalization's
>seeming inevitability. At bottom all that scholarly advice can
>be boiled down to an old bromide: Prepare for the worst,
>hope for the best. Does a more integrated world economy
>add to the wealth of nations so that the resultant rising tide
>lifts all boats? Or do the rich merely become even richer,
>buying new yachts and leaving the world's poor in their
>wake? 

[Er, why doesn't this bloke take a peek at some stats?  Or, better still, go
an ask 'the world's poor'!  If he can't afford the fare to Ghana or
Indonesia, why not take a short walk down Pensylvania Avenue - that pretty
white sex-parlour is still in sight when you first come across 'em.]

>     Economists tend to say that their craft is only about
>money, not ethics or justice. But sages as far back as
>Aristotle and up to today's egalitarian ethicists, especially
>the great Harvard philosopher John Rawls, have always
>insisted that at the heart of injustice one inevitably finds
>greed, preying like a cancer on justice. 
>     To many of us in the West, this line of thought can seem
>like little more than microwaved Marxism. 

[I wouldn't have thought greed was the fundamental problem in Marxian
analysis - the problem is something far more fundamental to the dynamic of
capitalism:  competition.  It's theoretically possible to have capitalism
without greed.  But the need to rationalise to the market is essential to
capitalism.  Ya gotta exploit better than your competitors exploit or you're
back among the proles.]

>But not in the
>Third World. Referring to the stomach-wrenching
>downdrafts in less wealthy economies, Egyptian President
>Hosni Mubarak said recently: "In the emerging world, there
>is a bitter sentiment of injustice. There's a sense that there
>must be something wrong with a system that wipes out
>years of hard-won development because of changes in
>market sentiment. Years of progress are gone, because of
>developments elsewhere." 
>     The answer to the Mubaraks of the world is not to make
>the obvious point that in their exaggeration they wind up
>playing mainly to the soccer stands

[What exaggeration?  Nowadays, 2.7% of the ultimate sale price of
manufactured products goes to the producing economy.  The developed world,
ever more analogous to the non-producing sector, takes 97.3% 
($8.00 for a dozen shirts to the LDC; $284.60 to the first world).  These
figures are a couple of years old, when the wage component of that $8.00 was
$5.00 - it's lower now wherever the IMF has managed to get at it. 
Chossudovsky's *The Globalisation Of Poverty* makes gutsy reading.   Recent
consumer price adjustments correspondingly take more of that $5.00.  In a
world stricken by deflation, the price of fuel, bread and flour in the LDCs
have gone up hunderds of percentage points.]

>, but to figure out which
>parts of their anti-globalization message are valid. To fail to
>do that is to put at risk the valuable internationalizing power
>of globalization. 

[To fail to identify the valuable internationalising power of globalisation
is to render this sentence meaningless.]

>     In a recent speech, the eloquent U.N. Secretary-General
>Kofi Annan said: National markets are held together by
>shared values and confidence in certain minimum
>standards. But in the new global market, people do not yet
>have that confidence." Annan concluded that until
>widespread confidence in globalization is instilled, the
>world economy will be vulnerable to the broadside
>backlashes of protectionism, excessive nationalism and
>ethnic chauvinism. 

[The world economy's vulnerability to broadsides of capital flight, currency
plunges, interest rate hikes and environmental destruction are in fact what
inhibits 'widespread confidence in globalisation'.  We are warned against
protectionism, nationalism and chauvinism, but NEVER against transnational
corporatism (which is happy to promote and exploit each and all of these
three if and when it suits).  That one monstrous institution is beyond
criticism.  Which, of course, it would have to be.  Start thinking about the
TNC and you're thinking about the salient manifestation of the order.]

>     Annan is right: The West should be more open--and
>therefore a lot less dismissive of Third World laments.
>Rather than indicting the Mubaraks for provincialism, why
>not make a point of meeting these outspoken leaders more
>than halfway? Profit and economic growth surely are not the
>only social values advanced by the developed world. 

[Sure they are.  We used to be able to believe we were advancing liberal
democracy, but as we've been watching capitalism necessarily gutting that
for the last couple of decades, we're not so convincing on that anymore.]

>Why not offer a large spirit, an open mind, new ideas for
>managing change, especially with regard to the world's
>swirling capital markets? 

[Yeah!  Why not, Tom?]

>For, if something more than
>dismissiveness is not forthcoming, fears about the potential
>ravages of globalization will divide the world into those who
>believe and those who hatefully do not. That could herald a
>new ideological war that could bring out the worst in us all. 

[Apparently Tom does not feel it is his job to move beyond dismissiveness. 
For him, it'll be the third world's fears that will divide the world.  Not
the perpetrators of globalisation.  Tom has picked sides already, eh?]

Cheers,
Rob.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Wed Feb 17 16:59:13 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:59:13 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Alan Carling on Marcus Roberts' _Analytical Marxism:
  A Critique_
In-Reply-To: <19990216.063526.3366.0.farmelantj@juno.com>
References: <3.0.2.32.19990215230729.0137f238@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990217235913.01242a44@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 06:35 16/02/99 -0500, Jim F wrote: 
>
>Actually I think that Carling is rather unfair in his treatment of
>Roberts.
>He maintains that Roberts emphasizes Cohen's "theory of history" at
>the expense of Cohen's later work in political philosophy.  In fact
>Roberts
>shows how Cohen's work in political philosophy in part derives from
>the inadequacies of his earlier "theory of history."  Cohen's "theory
>of history" was very much a Second International version of historical
>materialism derived mainly from Plekhanov (and Kautsky).  Cohen's
>presentation of this theory was extremely rigorous and he made full
>use of the armenatum of analytic philosophy developing this presentation.
>The problem was that despite Cohen's rigor the interpretation of
>historical
>materialism that he relied upon was fundamentally flawed, in fact it
>was already moribound by the end of WW I.  It was precisely this Second
>International version of historical materialism that Western Marxists
>like Gramsci and Lukacs had rebelled against following the Bolshevik
>Revolution.  Cohen, himself, has over time become aware of many of
>these inadequacies and he has consequently turned away from historical
>materialism in favor of political philosophy.  As Roberts points out
>Cohen
>has retreated from a classical Marxism towards an ethical socialism.
>And Cohen has chosen to defend this ethical socialism in terms of the
>left-liberal analytic political philosophy pioneered by John Rawls and
>Ronald Dworkin.
>
>On the other hand it should be said that Carling is correct in pointing
>out
>that Analytic Marxism should not be identified exclusively with a
>commitment
>to ratonal choice theory and methodological individualism.  Cohen for
>instance never embraced either of these, even if some of his close
>colleagues like John Roemer and Jon Elster have.  The real problem
>IMO is that Analytic Marxism has sought to sought to build versions of
>Marxism without dialectics.  But without dialectics, Marxism can hardly
>cohere as a system.  It is one thing to reject the dialectics of nature
>as
>Cohen did in a paper he wrote twenty-seven years ago and another to
>reject Marx's historical dialectic.  The aversion to the historical
>dialectic
>that a Jon Elster diaplays seems to owe much to the arguments of
>Karl Popper.  However, this ignores developments within analytic
>philosophy which open the door to a reconsideration of dialectics.
>Furthermore, despite Popper's anti-dialectics stand, as various
>commentators like Chris Sciabarra and the Soviet philosopher,
>Igor Naletov have pointed out, Popper's later thought requires
>dialectics.

I am largely ignorant of the analytical marxists. I read Jim F's comments 
here to be describing some contradictions within that grouping, and some 
limitations in their approach, and his own belief that a dialectical
approach to 
the analysis of human developments is essential even if its application to 
nature is in JF's view highly debatable. 

I note the suggestion that the historical materialism against which Gramsci 
and Lucacs 'rebelled' was arguably a simplification of Marx's materialist 
theory of history. JF attributes that simplification to the second 
international. I would still regard it as a simplfication if it was 
attributed to the third international. It seems to me to be a linear view of 
history rather than a more complex probabilistic view of history.

I am not sure what to make of the comment that Popper's later thought 
requires dialectics. If you believe in dialectics everybody's thought that 
appears to lack them might be said to require them. 

Perhaps there is inevitably a difference between what people actually say, 
and the political positionS they appear to symbolise. 

Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Wed Feb 17 21:40:13 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:40:13 +0100
Subject: M-TH: FYI: Prison vs. college (NY State)
Message-ID: <008301be5af8$c6981f00$4be6a3c3@malecki>


Thought I would forward the following interesting item to the list..

Bob
>
>FYI. Governor George Pataki, having won re-election, now wants to cut out the
>budgeting of pre-K education which he promised last year and is once again
>slashing higher education budgets.  Prisons are located upstate where his
>voters are.  Prisoners come mainly from NYC.  
>
>        That's correct. From fiscal years 1988 to 1997, prison spending
>increased by $761 million, while state funding for CUNY and SUNY decreased
>by $615 million. The operating budgets of CUNY and SUNY fell by 29%, while
>that of the prison system rose by 76%.
>
>        Source: "New York State of Mind?: Higher Education Vs. Prison
>Funding in the Empire State, 1988-1998," published by the Justice Policy
>Institute





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From poseidon at tinet.ie  Thu Feb 18 02:58:38 1999
From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:58:38 -0000
Subject: M-TH: Lukacs etc.
Message-ID: <01be5b25$44877c40$LocalHost@beprepared.tinet.ie>

George: Hi Chris!

Chris: I note the suggestion that the historical materialism against which
Gramsci
and Lucacs 'rebelled' was arguably a simplification of Marx's materialist
theory of history. JF attributes that simplification to the second
international. I would still regard it as a simplfication if it was
attributed to the third international. It seems to me to be a linear view of
history rather than a more complex probabilistic view of history.

George: It is more than questionable as to whether Gramsci and Lukacs  made
any contribution to the development of the materialist conception of
history. Certainly I have never been able to make use of it to in the
development of my own thought. I dont see revolutionary thought as having
advanced beyond the level it reached under Marx. For all the shortcomings in
Marx's thought it is the best that there is. However there is a need to
subject it to rigorous examination and where necessary and possible to
develop further in a revolutionary direction. Importing bits and pieces of
radical petty bourgeois thought into it is no solution and merely turns it
into another form of radical petty bourgeois theory.

The principal theoretical and political problems facing revolutionary
communists are two: inability as of yet to develop beyond Marx's stage of
theoretical development and inability to develop beyond Marx's the political
level attained by Marx. In short we are essentially still living in the 19th
century --the 19th century is dead but we refuse to face this. Communist
history is stuck.

Warm regards
George Pennefather



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From poseidon at tinet.ie  Thu Feb 18 03:49:57 1999
From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:49:57 -0000
Subject: M-TH: Functionalism
Message-ID: <01be5b2c$6d147b20$LocalHost@beprepared.tinet.ie>

Hi Folks

 It seems to me that functionalism is the very opposite to what
revolutionary communism is all about. Functionalism essentially fails to
acknowledge the centrality of class struggle as the struggle of the working
class against the capitalist class. It fails to acknowledge that capitalist
society is the product of a specific class struggle and that its
continuation is a "function" (my pun) of the character of the struggle
between the working class and the capitalist class. In short the abolition
of capitalism and its replacement by communism is essentially a "function"
of the specific character of the class struggle between workers and
capitalists.

Functionalism, on the other hand, essentially views historical development
and transformation in the context of their function rather than in the
context of the specific character of the class struggle  over a given
period. Of course in identifying the functional dimension as the derminant
of both development and change criteria must be established as to when
capitalist society is fulfilling certain functions or not. Such criteria can
only be based on subjective factors which is provides evidence of the
paradox embedded within functionalist ideology.

Functionalist ideology seeks to effectively preclude the class struggle as
the underlying historical dynamic and tacitly reinforces the view that the
working class cannot ever constitute active agency of change. Consequently
this view serves the ideological purpose of sowing despair among the working
the class and thereby discouraging it from being proactive.

In short functionalism is essentially a bourgeois ideology designed to
promote passivity among the masses.

Warm regards
George





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 2136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990218/4d4c5447/attachment.txt>

From farmelantj at juno.com  Thu Feb 18 09:54:38 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:54:38 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Functionalism
References: <01be5b2c$6d147b20$LocalHost@beprepared.tinet.ie>
Message-ID: <19990218.115438.3414.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

George may want to take a look at Richard W. Miller's 1984 book,
_Analyzing Marx_  for a critique of Cohen's interpretation of historical
materialism.  Miller understands Cohen as interpreting Marx as
being both an economic determinist and a technological determinism.
Miller argues that such an interpretation of Marx is erroneous especially
when we take into account Marx's practice as a historian and not
just confine ourselves to Marx's statements in his Preface to his
_A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_.

As Miller notes there has long existed a at least two schools of
thought within Marxism concerning the relative roles of class
struggle and the dialectic between the forces of production and
the relations of production.  Technological determinists from
Plekhanov to Cohen have tended to privilege the latter over the
former in their interpretations of Marx's theory of history.  On
the other hand there have always been dissenters from this
technological determinism who placed their emphasis on class
struggle as the main force determining the direction of history.
Just as Miller criticizes the technological determinists, so he
also criticizes at least some of the dissenters on the grounds that
they fail to explain Marx's concern with the development of the
forces of production as determining the direction of social change.

Miller offers as an alternative to the "technological interpretation"
(to use Cohen's term) of historical materialism, what he calls "the
mode of production interpretation."  In this view, internal economic
change is said to arise on the basis of the mode of production's
self-transforming tendencies.  These tendencies are said to be rooted
in its relations of production, the forms of cooperation and the
technology through which production is carried out.  Processes
that initially sustain its relations of production will eventually over
time lead to its abolition.  Change need not come because of the
existence of barriers to material production.  Changes in the forms
of cooperation or in technology may enhance the power of initially
subordinate groups while motivating them to resist  the old
relations of production because they have come to inhibit further
development of that productive power.  However, it is also possible
for change to come from factors that are wholly internal to the
relations of production.  The patterns of control in the existing
mode of production may make it inevitable that certain initially
subordinate groups will acquire the power and the motivation to
overthrow the existing relations of production.

Like George, Miller criticizes the technological determinist reading
of Marx on the grounds that it does not give sufficient scope to class
struggle as an independent variable in the making of history.
Cohen, for instance clearly treats class struggle as a dependent
variable that is subordinate to the forces-relations dialectic.  He
fails to perceive that their might be contradictions that are internal
to the relations of production which will manifest themselves in the
form of class struggle.

Miller, also attempts to relate the competing understandings of
Marx's materialist conception of history to competing philosophies
of science.  Miller sees the technological interpretation as being
closely
tied to a positivist philosophy of science while he links his own
"mode of production interpretation" with the anti-positivist 
philosophies of T.S. Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

		Jim Farmelant
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:49:57 -0000 "George Pennefather"
<poseidon at tinet.ie> writes:

>Hi Folks
>
> It seems to me that functionalism is the very opposite to what
>revolutionary communism is all about. Functionalism essentially fails 
>to
>acknowledge the centrality of class struggle as the struggle of the =
>working

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 18 15:17:29 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:17:29 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Functionalism
Message-ID: <s6cc4b3b.093@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Seems to me for Marx, the class struggle of oppressed and exploited asserts itself as determinitive intermittently, in the rare revolutionary changes in the modes of production. In the mean time, in between time, continuously, the class struggle goes on but is predominantly won by the ruling classes of the different modes. In these long periods of equilibrium in class socieities, the working classes are objectified and thereby "thinglike". The system operates as if the exploited classes were like animals.  The working classes are as if they are just another force of production like the means of production. Thus, things go on as if they were technologically determined and the "economic" determination is like a process of natural history, as Marx mentions in a Preface to Capital. Marxist socialism is the dawn of the end to this quasi natural historical quality to human history in class society. 

The confusion between whether Marx thinks history is technologically/economically determined or class struggle determined enters in because of the above. The real changes occur in the revolutions which change the modes of production. To determine something is to change it. These are points of exploited class victory, even when largely unconscious in eras previous to socialism. So, in this sense history is determined by working class victories. But most of the time of history is spent in periods of ruling class control. In these longer stretches, Marx declares that the economy goes in circular motion that is as exact and objective as a natural process, though it is a quasi-natural process actually.

Charles Brown


>>> James Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> 02/18/99 11:54AM >>>
George may want to take a look at Richard W. Miller's 1984 book,
_Analyzing Marx_  for a critique of Cohen's interpretation of historical
materialism.  Miller understands Cohen as interpreting Marx as
being both an economic determinist and a technological determinism.
Miller argues that such an interpretation of Marx is erroneous especially
when we take into account Marx's practice as a historian and not
just confine ourselves to Marx's statements in his Preface to his
_A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_.

As Miller notes there has long existed a at least two schools of
thought within Marxism concerning the relative roles of class
struggle and the dialectic between the forces of production and
the relations of production.  Technological determinists from
Plekhanov to Cohen have tended to privilege the latter over the
former in their interpretations of Marx's theory of history.  On
the other hand there have always been dissenters from this
technological determinism who placed their emphasis on class
struggle as the main force determining the direction of history.
Just as Miller criticizes the technological determinists, so he
also criticizes at least some of the dissenters on the grounds that
they fail to explain Marx's concern with the development of the
forces of production as determining the direction of social change.

Miller offers as an alternative to the "technological interpretation"
(to use Cohen's term) of historical materialism, what he calls "the
mode of production interpretation."  In this view, internal economic
change is said to arise on the basis of the mode of production's
self-transforming tendencies.  These tendencies are said to be rooted
in its relations of production, the forms of cooperation and the
technology through which production is carried out.  Processes
that initially sustain its relations of production will eventually over
time lead to its abolition.  Change need not come because of the
existence of barriers to material production.  Changes in the forms
of cooperation or in technology may enhance the power of initially
subordinate groups while motivating them to resist  the old
relations of production because they have come to inhibit further
development of that productive power.  However, it is also possible
for change to come from factors that are wholly internal to the
relations of production.  The patterns of control in the existing
mode of production may make it inevitable that certain initially
subordinate groups will acquire the power and the motivation to
overthrow the existing relations of production.

Like George, Miller criticizes the technological determinist reading
of Marx on the grounds that it does not give sufficient scope to class
struggle as an independent variable in the making of history.
Cohen, for instance clearly treats class struggle as a dependent
variable that is subordinate to the forces-relations dialectic.  He
fails to perceive that their might be contradictions that are internal
to the relations of production which will manifest themselves in the
form of class struggle.

Miller, also attempts to relate the competing understandings of
Marx's materialist conception of history to competing philosophies
of science.  Miller sees the technological interpretation as being
closely
tied to a positivist philosophy of science while he links his own
"mode of production interpretation" with the anti-positivist 
philosophies of T.S. Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

		Jim Farmelant
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:49:57 -0000 "George Pennefather"
<poseidon at tinet.ie> writes:

>Hi Folks
>
> It seems to me that functionalism is the very opposite to what
>revolutionary communism is all about. Functionalism essentially fails 
>to
>acknowledge the centrality of class struggle as the struggle of the =
>working

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From magellan at netrio.com.br  Thu Feb 18 21:48:12 1999
From: magellan at netrio.com.br (R. Magellan)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:48:12 -0200
Subject: M-TH: [ing] 1/2 Krugman Vs. Soros ---ooops, Fraga affair
Message-ID: <199902190448.CAA15436@lin.momentus.com.br>


FIRST PART OF TWO 

"So are they all, all honourable men.   (....)  I will not do them wrong; I 
rather  choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you, than I will wrong 
such honourable men."   (W.S., Julius Caesar, sc. II)

The next time that Paul Krugman  (MIT) writes either about Brazil or about 
inside information he should begin with this Shakesperean text, as you are 
going to see why.   I refer to his article  "Don't Blame It on Rio ... or 
Brasilia Either  --  The real is caught in a confidence trap", that was 
posted  on the electronic edition of Slate magazine on Thursday, Feb. 11, 
1999.  It is transcribed in the second part of this message.

"Blame It on Rio" is the name of a movie (a comedy of manners) about a quite 
square U.S. young lady that earns a trip to Rio de Janeiro and will not be 
the same person as before  (in the progressive sense), for the dispair of 
her parents. How to link this to an ailing currency, the Brazilian real?   

A case of inside information?
************************************
The article was originally adorned by a small sidebar about whether Quantum 
Emerging Growth Fund  (a Soros's one) had had inside information before the 
appointment of Arminio Fraga (the Soros's main officer in Brazil) to head  
BCB -- the Brazilian Central Bank, the highest monetary authority, after the 
dismissals of G.Franco and F.Lopes  (see my message dated February 2nd, the 
day of this latter's dismissal).   

Krugman says in his defence that  "I had been told by several investment 
industry sources that Quantum Fund had bought heavily just before the 
appointment of Fraga" but also that "it still seems to me incredible that 
nobody else in the media drew the connection between Quantum's market 
actions and the timing of the appointment."   Rumors about the action of 
insiders in the capital and financial markets were then very high in Brazil 
too, but not restricted to the Soros's businesses alone.

It seems that the Soros's team ----  ooops, Fraga's team or perhaps the 
Brazilian diplomacy acted very fast to put Krugman against the wall, since 
the MIT economist felt himself obliged to add three consecutive disclaimers 
on Fraga's honesty to his post (see them also in the second part of this 
message).   

Nevertheless, it becomes a ludicrous series, as you all are going to see:  
each time that Krugman tries to explain things and to apologize he makes the 
suspicions grow higher about Fraga's role as a provider of insider trading 
information on currency and debts to his former boss  (oh, did I say  
__former__?).   The latest explanation, probably for practical reasons, is 
framed as if it were an affidavit to be solemnly read before a court !  What 
next ?

With friends like these, who needs foes?
************************************************
This incident with Krugman is a very mild one as compared to the  __hot__  
reception that Fraga is having in his own country, being back after a very 
extended permanence in New York.  Just to remember, Arminio Fraga, aged only 
41, is a Ph. D. graduate of Princeton University and has been a manager of 
Quantum since 1993, having worked before it as a professor at the renowned 
Getulio Vargas Foundation, the leading private institution for economic 
studies in Brazil.

As I said, Brazil was stupified at hearing the incredible news about the 
replacement of former BCB governor "Chico" Lopes so soon after his 
appointment and amidst the height of a financial crisis and having an out of 
schedule IMF -- International Monetary Fund mission visiting Brazil.  
Furthermore, the crown prince himself, Stanley Fischer  (the first deputy 
managing director of the IMF) had unexpectedly left the Davos meeting to 
rush to Brasilia just after the Brazilian Black Friday  (January, 29).   
That move came shortly after Fischer arrived.

"The newly-appointed BCB president"  ---Arminio Fraga, the Soros man---    
"drew praise from investors, who said he would bring to the job practical 
experience and knowledge of how international investors operate" as the NYT 
then informed.   To the general public, however, the first moment was one of 
astonishment,  under the clear impression that a high finance Blitzkrieg was 
(and IS !) taking Brazil over.  

To add insult to injury, Stanley Fischer took part in an interview with TVs 
and newspapers alongside Brazilian officials as if he were one of the boys.  
With no diplomatic training, at a certain point Fischer straightly declared 
to the press conference:  "I support Fraga !"  This answer soon produced a 
generalized laugh in the audience when translated quite literally by an 
unable IMF officer as  "Suporto Fraga!" ("suporto" means "I tolerate Fraga"; 
 the translator should have said  "Ap?io Fraga !").

Nevertheless, since there is a possible sound business reason for the move, 
the members of the federal parliament who side with the neoliberal 
government of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso took that praise about 
Fraga at their own practical way, which is not praiseworthy at all !   

A powerful and vocal Senator, for instance, had just strongly regretted the 
day before the Fraga nomination that there is not in Brazil the death 
penalty, that could otherwise be applied to the financial speculators which 
had spread chaos all over the country in that "Black Friday".  When asked by 
the press if it would be the case of applying it to a mega-speculator agent 
as Fraga, the Senator bluntly answered:  "Well, you know, some bandits are 
now at our side!"   Similar odd rationales have been repeated by other 
congresspeople, as  "he is a very experienced guy, he knows quite well all 
those financial gangsters' dirty tricks". 

Needless to say that the official justification for hiring a Soros agent 
backired and drew mockery everywhere.  For instance, in a morning radio 
program that is very popular among cab drivers of Rio de Janeiro the showman 
suggested:  why not to hire a drug dealer to head the Federal Police?  Or 
what about nominating the biggest tax dodger of the country to be the new 
director of the Federal Revenue Services?  After all, they are supposed to 
know everything about their activities!     (these talkative cab drivers are 
one of the most effective instruments to spread rumors and informal 
propaganda). 

Next week Fraga will be subject to a mandatory examination in the Federal 
Senate in order to have his nomination validated.  It will not be easy at 
all.  Senator Eduardo Suplicy (PT -- the Workers Party), for instance, who 
also holds a Ph. D. in economics and who is a very active congressperson, 
has been gathering information and evidence from independent sources.  He is 
very suspicious too about Fraga's insider role, so regarding  Krugman's 
initial words not to be a fancy supposition.  

Brief comments on Krugman's article
*********************************************
To say that "the economic history of Brazil is one of punctured 
enthusiasms--of brief episodes of hope followed by bitter disappointment" is 
quite odd for an economist to tell, not to mention that it is bizarre.  

The following paragraph ignores that Brazil is under continuous SAPs 
(structural adjustment programs) since 1978, which in themselves show that 
we have entered into a new stage of capitalism, that of the permanent and 
irreversible crisis.  For her unique features of being at the same time the 
8th or 9th GNP in the world and a peripheral economy, Brazil has been 
getting all the time the worst consequences of the crises in the improperly 
called "first" and "third" worlds  (our partner in troubles, Argentina, 
could be added to this too).  The paragraph reads:

                "For the fact is that this time Brazil has tried very
                hard to play by the rules. Five years ago it introduced a
                new currency, the real, and promised to avoid the
                inflationary excesses of the past. Thus far it has
                delivered, with prices basically stable over the past
                year. Like other Latin America countries, Brazil also
                moved to free up its markets, privatizing inefficient
                companies, eliminating import quotas, lowering tariffs,
                and so on. While the process of reform has by no
                means been completed, the progress is real and
                substantial."                  

The most part of the privatized companies were efficient ones, both as to 
the common economic meaning of efficiency as well as to the technological 
meaning.
AFTER privatization some of them have soon begun to behave quite badly, as 
it is the case of the two electricity companies of Rio de Janeiro State, the 
subway company of the Rio de Janeiro city, several local telephonic 
companies.  Furthermore, a good part of them were already quoted in the 
Brazilian stock exchanges since their foundation, what means that about half 
of their shares were in the hands of the general public, both in Brazil and 
abroad.

Krugman also says: 
                                "But the main reason for
                               "contagion" from Russia to Brazil was 
psychological:
                               Seeing Russia default on its debt raised 
fears that
                               Brazil, which also has large budget deficits, 
might be
                               risky too. And so capital began fleeing the 
country."

Those large budget deficits in Brazil and the external debt as well have 
been sky-rocketing since the inception of the Real Plan in mid-1994.  In 
1998 the deficit amounted to 7.5% of the domestic product, being 7.0 of this 
7.5 just to pay interest on federal debt.  Krugman notes ahead two important 
features of the Brazilian federal deficit which are not commonly disclosed 
abroad and even internally:

                                "But there is something
                               a bit funny about Brazil's deficit, if you 
look at it at all
                               closely. You see, Brazil is actually running 
a substantial
                               "primary surplus"--that is, if you do not 
count the
                               interest on outstanding debt, tax receipts 
are larger than
                               spending. The primary surplus would be even 
larger
                               than it is if the economy were not depressed,
                               depressing tax receipts too."

                        "It turns out
                that Brazil isn't particularly deep in debt, by the usual
                measures. The government debt is less than half the
                annual GDP, no worse than the ratio for the United
                States and better than that of most European countries.
                What makes Brazil's deficit so large is not the size of its
                debt but the very high interest rates it must pay on that
                debt--interest rates that are high because of a lack of
                investor confidence. And why do investors lack
                confidence? Because of those big deficits."

"A lack of investor confidence" seems to be another funny joke of the 
conservative economists' pidgin, one of these jokes that they use to deceive 
themselves and the poor mortals, like the fable of the rational consumer.  
It could be deemed so if it didn't represent in the concrete social life a 
lot of economic-related individual tragedies, including family breakdown and 
suicides of people who are burdened with family care.  Investors don't put 
nor keep their money at all where their confidence really lacks!

So, the federal deficit becomes a perverse vicious circle: the more the 
stabilization policies rely on public debt in foreign currencies, the more 
the deficit raises because risk perception and interest grows higher;  so, 
present monetary stabilization in the present certainly means a huge 
unstableness in the future.   

The budgets of the federated States and Municipalities, although these are 
formally autonomous entities as in USA, get the "contagion" too and in a 
worse way, since they can't print money, and, as a general rule, they can't 
borrow nor raise their taxes without dealing complex arrangements among 
themselves and with the Federal Union.  Very high interest rates also made a 
recession (depression !) inevitable, what causes defaults in the collection 
of taxes and so feeds back that perverse vicious circle.   Soros knows quite 
well what he has been telling around all the time...

The collusion  ----ooops, the conclusion
***********************************************
These mad policies could only be followed by professional economists deeply 
committed to the financial capital, both domestic and foreign  (Brazilian 
banks are very powerful and are used to pull dirty tricks).  Even right wing 
politicians often mention derisorily the scandalous relationship between the 
high federal financial officers and the banking system as permanent 
promiscuity ("promiscuidade permanente").

Is this corruption?  Not necessarily, for social technicians, as economists 
and lawyers, are too easily influenced since their college years by the 
ideological rationales that prevail in their professions.  Hearts and minds, 
that is all, although promising well paid careers and stocks options 
sometimes helps a lot...  


In solidarity, Roberto
 
Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans  (....)
Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand PARTI DES TRAVAILLEURS.  (L' Internationale)


========SECOND PART FOLLOWS========

               



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From magellan at netrio.com.br  Thu Feb 18 21:48:27 1999
From: magellan at netrio.com.br (R. Magellan)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:48:27 -0200
Subject: M-TH: [ing] 2/2 Krugman Vs. Soros ---ooops, Fraga affair
Message-ID: <199902190448.CAA15466@lin.momentus.com.br>


SECOND PART OF TWO

                               Don't Blame It on Rio ...
                               or Brasilia Either
                               The real is caught in a confidence
                               trap.

                               By Paul Krugman
                               (Posted Thursday, Feb. 11, 1999)

                                      Back in the 1980s, a friend sent me a
                               postcard showing the famous statue of Jesus
                               that overlooks Rio de Janeiro. Underneath the
                               outstretched arms he had written a caption,
                               "The debt is this big, and only God can repay
                               it." He was wrong: Brazil eventually worked
                               its way out of the debt crisis and even became
                               a favorite of foreign investors. As late as last
                               summer, things still seemed to be going pretty
                               well. And then the bottom fell out. 
                                      The economic history of Brazil is one 
of punctured
                               enthusiasms--of brief episodes of hope 
followed by
                               bitter disappointment. From the Amazonian rubber
                               boom to the "Brazilian miracle" of the 1960s, the
                               country has repeatedly seemed on the verge of an
                               economic takeoff, only to slide back again into
                               stagnation. Or as an old local joke has it, 
Brazil is the
                              country of the future--and always will be.

                    ut what has happened to Brazil over the last six
                    months is perhaps the saddest story of all,
                because this time the punishment seems so unjustified.
                Back in September, when the backwash from Russia's
                crisis forced Brazil to raise interest rates to almost 50
                percent, one Brazilian lamented the situation: "Brazil has
                never had such a responsible government; the
                environment for business has never been so good; why
                is this happening to us?" Good question.
                       For the fact is that this time Brazil has tried very
                hard to play by the rules. Five years ago it introduced a
                new currency, the real, and promised to avoid the
                inflationary excesses of the past. Thus far it has
                delivered, with prices basically stable over the past
                year. Like other Latin America countries, Brazil also
                moved to free up its markets, privatizing inefficient
                companies, eliminating import quotas, lowering tariffs,
                and so on. While the process of reform has by no
                means been completed, the progress is real and
                substantial.                  
                                   hen came Russia. What does Brazil have to do
                                   with Russia? Well, to a certain extent 
both were
                               attracting money from the same 
people--specifically,
                               hedge funds that were borrowing in dollars or 
yen and
                               investing in higher-interest real or ruble 
bonds. When
                               these funds lost money in Russia, some 
lenders became
                               nervous and demanded their money back--which
                               meant the funds had to sell off assets, which 
meant
                               pulling money out of Brazil. But the main 
reason for
                               "contagion" from Russia to Brazil was 
psychological:
                               Seeing Russia default on its debt raised 
fears that
                               Brazil, which also has large budget deficits, 
might be
                               risky too. And so capital began fleeing the 
country.
                               Initially Brazil tried to support the value 
of the real by
                               selling dollars at the official exchange 
rate; but as its
                               reserves of dollars declined it supplemented this
                               strategy by raising interest rates to 
punitive levels in
                               order to persuade people to keep their money 
in Brazil.
                               Of course, these high interest rates also made a
                               recession inevitable.
                                      Now you might say that this only shows 
that
                               countries should not run big budget deficits, 
that Brazil
                               needed to get its government accounts under 
control to
                               restore market confidence. And that has 
indeed been
                               the thrust of the government's policy, agreed 
upon with
                               the International Monetary Fund. But there is 
something
                               a bit funny about Brazil's deficit, if you 
look at it at all
                               closely. You see, Brazil is actually running 
a substantial
                               "primary surplus"--that is, if you do not 
count the
                               interest on outstanding debt, tax receipts 
are larger than
                               spending. The primary surplus would be even 
larger
                               than it is if the economy were not depressed,
                               depressing tax receipts too.
        
                    o the problem must be all that debt Brazil ran up
                    in years past, right? Well, not exactly: It turns out
                that Brazil isn't particularly deep in debt, by the usual
                measures. The government debt is less than half the
                annual GDP, no worse than the ratio for the United
                States and better than that of most European countries.
                What makes Brazil's deficit so large is not the size of its
                debt but the very high interest rates it must pay on that
                debt--interest rates that are high because of a lack of
                investor confidence. And why do investors lack
                confidence? Because of those big deficits.
                       In case you somehow missed the absurdity of the
                situation, let me say it again: Investors lack confidence
                in Brazil because it has a large budget deficit, which is
                the result of high interest rates and a depressed
                economy, which are the result of investors' lack of
                confidence. It's completely circular. If markets were
                willing to give the country the benefit of the doubt--if,
                say, they were willing to hold Brazilian debt at a real
                interest rate only twice as high as that on U.S.
                bonds--Brazil's budget deficit would not look scary at
                all.    
                                   o what's the answer? Conventional wisdom,
                                   embodied in the IMF program that Brazil
                               embarked on last fall, was that the way to 
break the
                               vicious circle was for Brazil to demonstrate 
its resolve.
                               And the way to do that was to make that primary
                               surplus even larger and defend the value of 
the currency
                               at all costs--which meant keeping interest 
rates high.
                               This was supposed to convince the market that 
all was
                               well, so eventually interest rates could come 
down. The
                               trouble was that all that austerity was a 
hard sell
                               politically--especially because the economy 
was going
                               into a nasty recession thanks to those high 
interest
                               rates. I don't think you can blame Brazilian 
politicians:
                               How well would our own Congress perform if 
told that
                               taxes must be raised and spending slashed in 
the midst
                               of a recession, with no clear reward except a 
possible
                               reduction in speculative pressure, maybe, 
sometime in
                               the future?
                                      What were the alternatives? Some
                               people--notably Harvard's Jeffrey Sachs--said 
Brazil
                               should simply let the real fall without 
raising interest
                               rates, maybe even cutting them. Others--such as
                               me--worried this would lead to such a massive
                               devaluation that inflation would surge, and 
argued (in
                               the wilderness) for temporary controls on 
capital flight. 
         
                        hich brings us to the story of the latest crisis. The
                        IMF program fell apart, predictably, though
                    earlier than most people expected. Still, on the Friday
                    in January when the real was floated things didn't look
                    too bad. The currency didn't fall as much as some
                    feared, and the stock market soared. It looked, in other
                    words, as if Jeff Sachs had been right. Then, over the
                    weekend, Washington officials convinced Brazil to raise
                    interest rates. When the interest rate increase was
                    announced, panic set in and the currency plunged.
                    Instead of helping, in other words, the interest rate
                    increase apparently simply reinforced the vicious circle. 
                           Maybe it is still possible to push the reset
                    button--to rewind the tape to mid-January and
                    recapture that initial optimism. After firing two central
                    bank heads in close succession, Brazil appointed an
                    aide to George Soros--an interesting move, particularly
                    given the market action over the preceding couple of
                    days. (For more on the recent turmoil, click here.) And
                    perhaps the new man can somehow say the magic
                    words, find the formula that will turn self-fulfilling
                    pessimism into self-fulfilling optimism. But win or lose,
                    the story is, let us say, not exactly a wonderful
                    advertisement for either the competence of the IMF or
                    the virtues of the New World Order.

#########################################
SOROS, FRAGA AND ALL THAT 

I had no intention of creating a firestorm when I put a small sidebar in my 
most recent Slate article on Brazil. I had been told by several investment 
industry sources that Quantum Fund had bought heavily just before the 
appointment of Fraga, and that there were many suspicions about whether 
Quantum had had inside information. I was also told that such stories were 
being told to proper journalists, so I expected that they would be common 
knowledge by the time my Slate piece was published. 

I know of nothing to suggest that Fraga himself is corrupt, and knowing him 
slightly do not believe that he is. I would be delighted to hear that he did 
not even tell Soros about the pending appointment, so that Quantum had no 
inside information. What I suspect - but only suspect - is that what Fraga 
actually did was simply to tell his employer that negotiations were in 
progress, and that this information alone indicated that the wild rumors 
about Brazil were unfounded. In that case he was careless but not venal. 
Quantum should have stayed out of the market, but by all accounts did not. 

Let me repeat: my aside - and it was no more than that - was simply an 
attempt to help explain to Slate readers how the world works. I thought the 
story would be old news, known to everyone who matters, long before Slate 
published it. It still seems to me incredible that nobody else in the media 
drew the connection between Quantum's market actions and the timing of the 
appointment. 

I think the lesson of this incident is simply how dangerous, financially and 
ethically, it is for governments to be drawing for expertise on the very 
same organizations that speculate in their debts. But I do not regard it as 
a reason to turn on Fraga now that he is no longer a Quantum employee. I 
wish him the best of luck. 

######################################################

MORE ON THE FRAGA AFFAIR 

Not too long ago a hedge fund offered me a retainer in return for occasional 
briefings - and advance copies of my articles. My first thought was that 
this was perfectly legal - not at all comparable to the cases I knew about 
in which developing-country officials had been paid for inside information. 
After all, I'm just a private citizen, free to tell my opinions to whomever 
I wish.? My second thought was that I should not touch that proposal with a 
ten-foot pole. Even if I was perfectly innocent, even if there was no 
substantive difference between giving people advance drafts and doing 
ordinary business consulting, I should not put myself in a position where my 
role could be suspect in that way. 

All of which explains why the reports that I received insisting that Quantum 
Fund had speculated heavily on Brazilian debt just before Arminio Fraga's 
appointment as central bank governor were both credible and disturbing. I 
had no reason to believe that Fraga gave Quantum briefings about internal 
Brazilian affairs - but that would not have been necessary. Simply knowing 
that Fraga was under consideration would have been a dead giveaway that the 
irresponsible policies then being rumored were not in fact being planned. 

Well, I've just had a conversation with Fraga, and he insists that the best 
possible scenario - that his former employer had no knowledge of his new job 
until after the fact - is in fact the way it happened. That is, he says that 
the Brazilian government popped the question to him without prior warning, 
and that there was no lead time in which speculation based on inside 
information could have taken place. 

As I said in the earlier note today, I am delighted to hear that. But I do 
not believe that either Fraga or Quantum have been treated unfairly in this 
episode. Especially in unstable times like these, the threat of insider 
trading in national currencies and debts is extremely real - indeed, it 
happens all the time - and governments must bend over backward to avoid even 
the appearance of conflicts of interest. Enormous care should have been 
taken in appointing a top hedge fund manager to such a sensitive post, and 
it wasn't. 

Perhaps this episode will make governments reluctant to hire future 
officials directly from organizations that speculate in the very assets most 
affected by those officials' policies. Without prejudice to Fraga, let me 
say that this would not be such a bad thing. 

A postscript: I have spoken again to Fraga, so let me say more forcefully 
that I am convinced that he did nothing wrong - that he conveyed no inside 
information (I never suspected he did) and that he also did not, even 
inadvertently, give Quantum advance notice of his appointment. The issue of 
insider trading in currencies and sovereign debts is a real one, but Fraga 
is in the clear. He is a good economist and a good man; we should all leave 
him alone to do his new job. 

########################################################
A FORMAL STATEMENT ON FRAGA 

1. Everything I now know indicates that Arminio Fraga has behaved entirely 
properly over the past several weeks. He has done nothing that should create 
distrust. 

2. I have no direct knowledge about market activity during the runup to 
Fraga's appointment. I was given an account of that activity by several 
usually reliable sources, but cannot document that what they said is true. 

3. I had no ill intent in including the now infamous sidebar. I had no 
agenda against Fraga or even Soros. It was purely there as a part of the 
story, a part that I had expected to be familiar by the time of publication. 
It is now clear, however, that I committed a serious error of judgement in 
saying anything about the matter. 

4. I fervently hope that this incident will not cause any difficulties 
either for Fraga's confirmation or for Brazil's efforts to find a way out of 
its economic crisis. 

5. My apologies to Arminio Fraga for my carelessness. 

Paul Krugman 

=======THE END===========

               



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Feb 19 09:58:05 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:58:05 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Excerpt from a letter from a U.S. banker
Message-ID: <s6cd51eb.041@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Dear Mark

It was orchestrated. The entire past 5 years has to be viewed as a
campaign, a strategy. You can tax people to fund a defense budget or allow
them to invest in worthless paper. Why else would the SEC approve Russian
ADR's that no other nation had a chance of getting approved. I could never
find anyone to cover a short position. I started predicting these events
in 1992, accurately. Everyone...Everyone who made a reasonable effort to
to know, knew.

What went wrong? some ask. Why nothing at all. It went amazingly well
just as planned. And, without firing a shot. Money was used like drug-dealers
use heroin. There was some predilection, that helped, but addiction was
rapid. Some money managers knowingly bought into expected losses as a
sort of insurance premium, just to avoid losing clients in case their
competitors outperformed them. The corruption was multi-lateral.
Everyone really understood each other for the first time.  Everyone understood
stealing. It isn't difficult to understand. And..so easy with absolute
power.

You are absolutely correct in what was done to the Russian people by
this East-West "partnership. It is still ongoing. But just as investors are
examining their potential recovery from lawyer, accountant, investment
banker advisors in the wake of their losses, another Nurenburg may well
find Americans culpable. They may yet say as they did in post-NAZI
Germany. "We had no idea what the nomenklatura was doing to the Russian
people. We didn't know." The death toll in Russia may well equal The
Great WAR. Greed has eliminated sanitation and brought starvation and exposure
to the elements. Make no mistake, these are going to resemble the "never
again" level crimes against humanity we spoke of a half century ago.

I witnessed the theft, cynicism, uncontrolled greed, plunder and a
devil-take-the-hindmost attitude to one's fellow citizens, as early as
1991. It was encouraged. The American people through our elected
representatives told the Russian people that criminals constituted a
government responsive to the electorate. Therefore they don't think we
have anything better to offer than what they have. They are now resigned
to their new Czars.

Sadly enough all that was required to capitalize on this huge opportunity
in history was to denounce these criminals provide a good example of
honor, integrity, truthfulness and kindness and perhaps have a little
longer struggle to have our principles prevail. Now the difference in
principles are obscured as is the right to prevail.

Some JRL readers have commented that your article isn't relevant to
Russia. Anecdotes about reform, privatization, elections, democracy,
market economy are irrelevant, even blasphemous. You are relevant.

It is a lot more effective to oppress Russians with Russian masters than
any other. It is a lot safer to corrupt Russians with money than to fight
them with weapons. But ultimately both are fatal. The logical choice was
to love them and protect them. We still have that chance.

Yours truly,

 xxxxxxxxx





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From poseidon at tinet.ie  Fri Feb 19 12:06:53 1999
From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:06:53 -0000
Subject: M-TH: Functionalism
Message-ID: <01be5c3b$05d19640$LocalHost@beprepared.tinet.ie>



George may want to take a look at Richard W. Miller's 1984 book,
_Analyzing Marx_  for a critique of Cohen's interpretation of historical
materialism.  Miller understands Cohen as interpreting Marx as
being both an economic determinist and a technological determinism.
Miller argues that such an interpretation of Marx is erroneous especially
when we take into account Marx's practice as a historian and not
just confine ourselves to Marx's statements in his Preface to his
_A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_.

As Miller notes there has long existed a at least two schools of
thought within Marxism concerning the relative roles of class
struggle and the dialectic between the forces of production and
the relations of production.  Technological determinists from
Plekhanov to Cohen have tended to privilege the latter over the
former in their interpretations of Marx's theory of history.  On
the other hand there have always been dissenters from this
technological determinism who placed their emphasis on class
struggle as the main force determining the direction of history.
Just as Miller criticizes the technological determinists, so he
also criticizes at least some of the dissenters on the grounds that
they fail to explain Marx's concern with the development of the
forces of production as determining the direction of social change.

Miller offers as an alternative to the "technological interpretation"
(to use Cohen's term) of historical materialism, what he calls "the
mode of production interpretation."  In this view, internal economic
change is said to arise on the basis of the mode of production's
self-transforming tendencies.  These tendencies are said to be rooted
in its relations of production, the forms of cooperation and the
technology through which production is carried out.  Processes
that initially sustain its relations of production will eventually over
time lead to its abolition.  Change need not come because of the
existence of barriers to material production.  Changes in the forms
of cooperation or in technology may enhance the power of initially
subordinate groups while motivating them to resist  the old
relations of production because they have come to inhibit further
development of that productive power.  However, it is also possible
for change to come from factors that are wholly internal to the
relations of production.  The patterns of control in the existing
mode of production may make it inevitable that certain initially
subordinate groups will acquire the power and the motivation to
overthrow the existing relations of production.


George: Jim I thank you for your interesting post. It is quite simple really:

The dialectic between forces and relations of production cannot exclude the
significant existence of the class struggle. The social relations of production
are the forms by which the forces of production develop. However as the forces
of production develop the existing forms (obviously I am talking here within the
context of capitalism) become fetters on the development of these forces. This
is manifested, among other things, as class struggle. The class struggle, ipso
facto, means that that their is no sure guarantee that the existing relations of
production will be replaced with new and adequate social forms corresponding to
the needs of the forces of production. In short there is no guarntee that
socialism can be established.

Given this I dont accept any functionalist interpretations of Marx nor the
absolutising of the class struggle. The class struggle exists within specific
historical forms and is thereby necesarily specific. To simply compact history
into the social form of class struggle is to transmute it into mythical
narrative. Although class struggle exists and is of decisive importance
concerning how history proceeds it canot possess transcendental
(transhistorical) properties. To suggest this would be to deify the class
struggle to tranform into Greek mythology --the clash of the TItans.

In short  discussion of the "dialectic" of forces and relations of production to
the exclusion of class struggle, as significant, is functionalism. It is an
ideological interpretation which seeks to subtract the proletariat from history
thereby  seeking to dissolve history.

Warm regards
George





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From marko at workmail.com  Fri Feb 19 15:05:49 1999
From: marko at workmail.com (Marko Ajdaric)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:05:49 -0300
Subject: M-TH: =?iso-8859-1?Q?A_Luta_Cont=EDnua?=
Message-ID: <009001be5c54$631b62e0$315bdfc8@lilica-s>

This weekend (GMT - 3), at http://come.to/luta or http://pagina.de/luta
we do feature the following material related to this list


On the whole, more than 100 notes at disposal

Primeira greve contra Zeca do PT

Document?rio de Tania Cypriano ? premiado no Pan African Film Festival

International Federation of Journalists letter on recent attacks on the
independent media in Belarus

Satiric critique of aid to Russia

Black Radical Congress Freedom Agenda

R?tablir les droits d?mocratiques au Kurdistan, une c?ble

CGIL al tavolo. Senza appetito





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Fri Feb 19 16:20:04 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:20:04 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990219232004.0139cc4c@pop.gn.apc.org>

Abstract from an article in the latest Nature, 18th February

This is part of my campaign to reduce Andrew Austin to a quivering wreck,
sobbing and begging for a return to the crude simplicities of the
dialectics of water.

Whether the following is usefully described as dialectical, I suggest would
take a very long debate. I shall generously wait for others to begin it. 

Chris Burford

London

_________________________________________

The nature of the hydrated excess proton in water

DOMINIK MARX, MARK E. TUCKERMAN, J?RG HUTTER & MICHELE PARRINELLO

Explanations for the anomalously high mobility of protons in liquid water 
began with Grotthuss's idea of 'structural diffusion' nearly two centuries
ago.
 
Subsequent explanations have refined this concept by invoking thermal
hopping, proton tunnelling or solvation effects.

More recently, two main structural models have emerged for the hydrated
proton. 

Eigen proposed the formation of an H9O4+ complex in which an H3O+ core is
strongly
hydrogen-bonded to three H2O molecules. Zundel, meanwhile, supported the
notion of an
H5O2+ complex in which the proton is shared between two H2O molecules. 

Here we use ab initio path integral simulations to address this question.
These simulations include time-independent equilibrium thermal and quantum
fluctuations of all nuclei, and determine interatomic interactions from the
electronic structure. 

We find that the hydrated proton forms a fluxional defect in the
hydrogen-bonded network, with both H9O4+ and H5O2+  occurring only in the
sense of 'limiting' or 'ideal' structures. The defect can become
delocalized over several hydrogen bonds owing to quantum fluctuations.
Solvent polarization induces a small barrier to proton transfer, which is
washed out by zero-point motion. 

The proton can consequently be considered part of a 'low-barrier hydrogen
bond', in which tunnelling is negligible and the simplest concepts of
transition-state theory do not apply. The rate of proton diffusion is
determined by thermally induced hydrogen-bond breaking in the second
solvation shell.







     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Fri Feb 19 17:10:26 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:10:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990219232004.0139cc4c@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990219190938.10597B-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Chris Burford wrote:

>This is part of my campaign to reduce Andrew Austin to a quivering wreck,
>sobbing and begging for a return to the crude simplicities of the
>dialectics of water.

When did you launch this campaign? Do you think that you have made any
progress?

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From tmxqp at email.msn.com  Fri Feb 19 17:27:26 1999
From: tmxqp at email.msn.com (tmxqp)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:27:26 -0800
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
Message-ID: <001001be5c67$cb7ff4a0$ee0bfed0@-->


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
To: marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu
<marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 3:36 PM
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water


>Abstract from an article in the latest Nature, 18th February
>
>This is part of my campaign to reduce Andrew Austin to a quivering wreck,
>sobbing and begging for a return to the crude simplicities of the
>dialectics of water.
>
>Whether the following is usefully described as dialectical, I suggest would
>take a very long debate. I shall generously wait for others to begin it.
>
>Chris Burford
>
         I'll take it you're just being facetious here? If not you're just
a wanker that doesn't deserve the time of day.
        If you're an example of the temperment of this list I'll be leaving
soon.


R.Casement
tmxqp at email.msm.com





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Fri Feb 19 17:59:15 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:59:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
In-Reply-To: <001001be5c67$cb7ff4a0$ee0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990219195542.12209A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, tmxqp wrote:

>I'll take it you're just being facetious here? If not you're just a
>wanker that doesn't deserve the time of day.  If you're an example of the
>temperment of this list I'll be leaving soon. 

Don't confuse the temperment of the list with the temperment of Chris
Burford. 

Welcome to the list.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sat Feb 20 00:13:44 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:13:44 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
In-Reply-To: <001001be5c67$cb7ff4a0$ee0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990220071344.0150682c@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 16:27 19/02/99 -0800, you wrote:


>         I'll take it you're just being facetious here? If not you're just
>a wanker that doesn't deserve the time of day.
>        If you're an example of the temperment of this list I'll be leaving
>soon.
>
>
>R.Casement
>tmxqp at email.msm.com


The author takes it I am being facetious, but adds a question mark. 

I admit to being recently interested by the idea of dialectical irony.
Owing to the limitations of e-mail, if Andrew sobs and looks like a wreck I
would have some difficulty knowing that is the case, unless he confirms it
himself. Possibly quivering might be manifested in an increased incidence
of typos, but that might not be conclusive. Besides generally it is not
Andrew's style to present himself as a sobbing quivering wreck. I therefore
implicitly have to appeal to his sense of honour that when he reaches this
point he would see it as his bounden duty to explain the development to the
list in some detail.


As for R.Casement's comments about his (?) own decisions, it is also rather
hard to evaluate them. If he/she left the list how would we know the
difference? On a search of over 6000 previous posts I cannot see any from
tmxp, or R.Casement. If he/she has contributed from a different address
perhaps that could be made clear, and other subscribers could understand
the political position in a more comprehensive way. 

On the other hand, R.Casement is such a noted name that one must wonder if
it is a pseudonym. And if it is a pseudonym, what would be the point of
announcing an unsubbing, since it would be possible to continue to lurk or
not lurk as the subscriber wished?

If R.Casement's intention was to stir up a flame war between Andrew and
myself we both know the measure of each other pretty well now. 

The underlying irony of real substance and interest, seems to me that
current scientific research is far more complex and speculative, than any
simplistic wrote recollection of the  writings of Lenin and Engels on
nature. Certainly the constant motion, interconnectiveness and impermanence
of phenomena referred to in this abstract are striking.

I doubt my ironical challenging of Andrew on the subject of water was over
stimulating, unless he really feels that defensive. But I think I should
post my contribution on the dialectics of ice, to which I recall Andrew had
no objection that he articulated on the now defunct marxism-and-sciences.
My recollection was that in response to a more vigorous defence of the
application of dialectics to this example, Andrew criticised what he saw as
a confusion between the concepts of generalisation and of abstraction. But
he made no criticism of my article on ice itself.

Chris Burford

London








     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sat Feb 20 00:03:51 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:03:51 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of ice?
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990220070351.01540ac4@pop.gn.apc.org>

I am submitting this post I sent to marxism-and-sciences one year ago, as
shedding light on the approach to research on water.

Chris Burford

London


>Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 
>To: marxism-and-sciences at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
>From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
>Subject: M-SCI: Ice 12


>This is not an attempt to refer to the temperature to which the kinetic
>energy of m-and-s list has plummeted - it is always difficult to keep the
>adrenaline at exactly the right level for constructive exchange - but a
>reference to an article I noticed while I was away, about the discovery of
>a new form of ice.
>
>It referred in turn to an article published in Nature in mid January:
>scientists at University College, London, working with a team in Germany
>have discovered a new form of ice taking the number of known "phases" of
>ice from 11 to 12. 
>
>Ice-XII seems to consist of "a mixture of five- and seven-ringed water
>molecules". However it is found only below -10 C and at pressures a
>thousand times greater than atmospheric pressure.
>
>
>I was struck by this because the phases of ice-water-steam are one of the
>illustrations used by those who regard themselves as orthodox dialectical
>materialists, and also this was criticised by Gramsci in the form it
>surfaced in the pamphlet by Bukharin. 
>
>Now if we believe in dialectics at all, quantitative changes may lead to
>qualitative changes. But where does it leave the illustration about H2O if
>there are not only three main phases but if one of those phases, ice,
>itself has 12?
>
>My view is that it supports but does not prove, a sort of soft dialectical
>materialism, which I increasingly think I adhere to, rather than a hard
>dialectical materialism. Everything is connected to everything else.
>Interacting patterns may emerge but there is no simple extrapolation from
>lessons in the inanimate sciences to the human sciences.
>
>There may be a unity of opposites in a phenomenon (a unity of contrasting
>tendencies rather than of logical opposites) but it may be simplistic to
>say that one divides merely into two, except as a reminder to be prepared
>to analyse anything. One may divide into three, four, five or whatever. The
>subdivisions may produced further patterns. 
>
>The interactions of these contradictory phenomena may appear to take a life
>of their own, but not all forms are as probable as each other. There is not
>a unilinear road of historical development. But some roads are more
>probable than others. 
>
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London.
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-and-sciences at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From tmxqp at email.msn.com  Sat Feb 20 16:58:17 1999
From: tmxqp at email.msn.com (tmxqp)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:58:17 -0800
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
Message-ID: <000e01be5d2c$e3a8fe80$1a0bfed0@-->

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
To: marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu
<marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: M-TH: Dialectics of water



>The author takes it I am being facetious, but adds a question mark.
-------------
   Do you dislike questions marks or are you just obtuse?
----------
>As for R.Casement's comments about his (?) own decisions, it is also rather
>hard to evaluate them. If he/she left the list how would we know the
>difference? On a search of over 6000 previous posts I cannot see any from
>tmxp, or R.Casement. If he/she has contributed from a different address
>perhaps that could be made clear, and other subscribers could understand
>the political position in a more comprehensive way.
---------------
    On what grounds do you suspect I have ever subscribe to this list?
I find it strange that you felt the need to search through 6000 posts.
I find that obsessive are you in some capacity a list monitor?
   Your behavior towards me seems odd to say the least.The
length of your post seems an excessive inquiry in view that I am new to
this list.
   Or is it your function to subject all newcomers to the list to this
manner
of pre-interogation?I find little or nothing political or insightful in your
post.
-------------
>On the other hand, R.Casement is such a noted name that one must wonder if
>it is a pseudonym. And if it is a pseudonym, what would be the point of
>announcing an unsubbing, since it would be possible to continue to lurk or
>not lurk as the subscriber wished?
-----------
     A noted name,where?You seem to be obsessed with "pseudonyms"
and lurking.If someone subscribes to the list just to observe and read,is
that a problem for you?And if so on what basis is the objection grounded
on?Again are you a list monitor?
------------
>
>If R.Casement's intention was to stir up a flame war between Andrew and
>myself we both know the measure of each other pretty well now.
-----------
    A "flame  war".Again you resort to more insinuation.It seems you feel
the need to prove some sort of guilt.Why is that? I find your behavior
extremely questionable since it is directed against someone you don't
even know me.Perhaps if you had given me some time to post to the
list you would have been able to *know*me.
---------
    Now lets review the facts as they now stand.C.Burford has insinuated,
or accused me of the following:

      1.Accused me of posting from a different address.

      2. Accused me of using a psedonym.

      3.Accused me of attempting to start a flame war.

    Now I suppose I'll just have to wait too see what further crimes
I am suspected of.

R.C.
tmxqp at email.msm.com
"Oh yeah....my opinions are my own and do not reflect those
of my publisher. They passed up the publishing rights."






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From tmxqp at email.msn.com  Sat Feb 20 17:11:11 1999
From: tmxqp at email.msn.com (tmxqp)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:11:11 -0800
Subject: M-TH: Fw: BBC on GM foods
Message-ID: <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->

        Ahhhh,the mind of T.Blair never ceases to amaze.
I realize that this is only mildy interesting to the list,but
I found Mr.Blairs reasoning interesting


R.C.
tmxqp at email.msm.com


-----Original Message-----
From: MichaelP <papadop at PEAK.ORG>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 7:29 AM
Subject: BBC on GM foods


>This is where the distinction between SCIENCE  and SCIENTISTS shows up.
>
>The Brit government is stuck in a corner by relying on "our independent
>scientific advisers".
>
>Cheers
>MichaelP
>============================
>BBC Saturday, February 20, 1999 Published at 10:27 GMT
>
>Prime Minister  puts "science above 'scares'"
>
>Tony Blair has warned that the UK's position at the forefront of
>biotechnology could be jeopardised by a ban on genetically-modified foods.
>
>Food under the microscope
>
>In his most passionate defence so far of GM foods, he told the Daily
>Telegraph newspaper the biotechnology industry could be as important to
>the next century as the computer had been to the current one.
>
>But "scaremongering" without proper scientific evidence could mean the UK
>losing its lead, he said.
>
>The government's refusal to impose a moratorium on the development of GM
>foods has been under attack after scientists warned of serious potential
>health risks.
>
>Mr Blair has said GM food is welcome at Downing Street. Environmental
>groups want to freeze development for five years while more tests are
>carried out.
>
>Mr Blair vowed to resist the "orchestrated barrage" from the media and the
>"tyranny of pressure groups".
>
>If successful GM technology could lead to the development of cheaper,
>better foods, while reducing farmers' reliance on harmful pesticides and
>herbicides, he said.
>
>He stressed that the government was committed to consumer safety.  "There
>is no scientific evidence on which to justify a ban on GM foods and
>crops."
>
>Mr Blair's "personal crusade"
>
> "If we were to ban products that our independent scientific advisers tell
>us are safe, we would send a negative message to the whole biotech
>industry in the UK - in healthcare as well as in food and in agriculture -
>that its future will be governed not by evidence but by media scares," he
>said.
>
>But Mr Blair's message was questioned by environmental campaigners, who
>warned that serious questions remained over GM food.
>
>Friends of the Earth policy and campaigns director Tony Juniper said: "If
>Mr Blair really is concerned that society gains maximum benefits from
>biotechnology he should do three things.
>
>"The first is to announce a five-year moratorium on the import of
>genetically- modified food and the commercial growing of GM crops in this
>country.
>
>"The second is to show that the government is not under undue pressure
>from the United States and biotechnology companies in rushing forward with
>this technology.
>
>"The third is to eliminate any conflicts of interest between ministers'
>official duties and industrial development of biotechnology."
>
>Greenpeace director Dr Doug Parr said in a statement: "The stampede Blair
>is experiencing is not coming from the media and pressure groups but from
>the public at large who want these gene crops and food banned.
>
>"Blair's vision is simply swallowing the agro-chemical industry's hype and
>its justifications which, like its often touted 'feed the world' argument,
>don't stand up to scrutiny.
>
>WEBSITE WARNING
>
>Mr Blair's defiant message came the day after the government launched a
>public information campaign on GM food using the Number 10 Downing Street
>Website. [ Try http://www.number-10.gov.uk (MichaelP) ]
>
>The Internet campaign hits back at newspaper reports on GM foods. It
>insists no split exists on the testing of GM crops between the government
>and its adviser English Nature.
>
>And it rejects allegations that the British people are being used as
>guinea pigs for untested new foods.
>
>The government has also released a letter by five leading ministers to MPs
>to put the case against a ban on GM crops and reassure them public safety
>was the top priority.
>
>The letter was signed by five key ministers - Deputy Prime Minister John
>Prescott, Health Secretary Frank Dobson, Cabinet Office Minister Jack
>Cunningham, Agriculture Minister Nick Brown, and Trade Secretary Stephen
>Byers - and accompanied by a 50-page factfile.
>
>______________________________ ______
>
>
>** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
>is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
>in receiving the included information for research and educational
>purposes. **






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Sat Feb 20 17:28:30 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 19:28:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
In-Reply-To: <000e01be5d2c$e3a8fe80$1a0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990220191756.5248A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

Chris Burford need to take a leave of absence from the list. His rantings
have become bizarre, to say the least. The dialogue now occurring between
R. Casement and Chris Burford makes quite clear Burford's growing
paranoia. First Burford sees the dialectics of nature in nearly every
sentence Marx writes. Now he sees sneaky demons in the marxist-thaxis
list, little trolls attempting to manipulate his relations to other list
members.

Go rest up, Chris. You're cracking under the strain (and I'm not even
arguing with you!). Get some rest and come back when you feel better. But
first apologize to R. Casement. Your attacks on him are outrageous. 

You know, I think that Chris thinks R. Casement is me, that I have
somehow be able to enter the list from another e-mail account or something
to torment him in some nefarious manner. Chris's problems would be funny
if they didn't appear to be serious.

Concerned,
Andy


On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, tmxqp wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
>To: marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu
><marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
>Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 12:47 AM
>Subject: Re: M-TH: Dialectics of water
>
>
>
>>The author takes it I am being facetious, but adds a question mark.
>-------------
>   Do you dislike questions marks or are you just obtuse?
>----------
>>As for R.Casement's comments about his (?) own decisions, it is also rather
>>hard to evaluate them. If he/she left the list how would we know the
>>difference? On a search of over 6000 previous posts I cannot see any from
>>tmxp, or R.Casement. If he/she has contributed from a different address
>>perhaps that could be made clear, and other subscribers could understand
>>the political position in a more comprehensive way.
>---------------
>    On what grounds do you suspect I have ever subscribe to this list?
>I find it strange that you felt the need to search through 6000 posts.
>I find that obsessive are you in some capacity a list monitor?
>   Your behavior towards me seems odd to say the least.The
>length of your post seems an excessive inquiry in view that I am new to
>this list.
>   Or is it your function to subject all newcomers to the list to this
>manner
>of pre-interogation?I find little or nothing political or insightful in your
>post.
>-------------
>>On the other hand, R.Casement is such a noted name that one must wonder if
>>it is a pseudonym. And if it is a pseudonym, what would be the point of
>>announcing an unsubbing, since it would be possible to continue to lurk or
>>not lurk as the subscriber wished?
>-----------
>     A noted name,where?You seem to be obsessed with "pseudonyms"
>and lurking.If someone subscribes to the list just to observe and read,is
>that a problem for you?And if so on what basis is the objection grounded
>on?Again are you a list monitor?
>------------
>>
>>If R.Casement's intention was to stir up a flame war between Andrew and
>>myself we both know the measure of each other pretty well now.
>-----------
>    A "flame  war".Again you resort to more insinuation.It seems you feel
>the need to prove some sort of guilt.Why is that? I find your behavior
>extremely questionable since it is directed against someone you don't
>even know me.Perhaps if you had given me some time to post to the
>list you would have been able to *know*me.
>---------
>    Now lets review the facts as they now stand.C.Burford has insinuated,
>or accused me of the following:
>
>      1.Accused me of posting from a different address.
>
>      2. Accused me of using a psedonym.
>
>      3.Accused me of attempting to start a flame war.
>
>    Now I suppose I'll just have to wait too see what further crimes
>I am suspected of.
>
>R.C.
>tmxqp at email.msm.com
>"Oh yeah....my opinions are my own and do not reflect those
>of my publisher. They passed up the publishing rights."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From glevy at pratt.edu  Sat Feb 20 19:11:58 1999
From: glevy at pratt.edu (Gerald Levy)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:11:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: dialectics of snow
In-Reply-To: <199902210012.RAA17575@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990220210413.20511A-100000@acnet>

The latest scientific research, published in the current issue of the
_New England Journal of Meteorology_, suggests that each and every
snowflake is unique in design yet each snow flake is dialectically
connected to every other snowflake. When the contradictions among
snowflakes become ripe then a new period of ice, rain, or sleet emerges.
Each new snow storm represents an advance towards the day when -- as a
result of the withering away of snow -- a new snowless era will emerge!

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From tmxqp at email.msn.com  Sat Feb 20 19:35:59 1999
From: tmxqp at email.msn.com (tmxqp)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:35:59 -0800
Subject: M-TH: Fw: Pinochet and the Vatican
Message-ID: <002a01be5d42$eb3b2860$8714fdd0@-->

       Will the seven Law Lords extradite Pinochet to
Spain?

R.C.
tmxqp at email.msm.com


-----Original Message-----
From: MichaelP <papadop at PEAK.ORG>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 4:42 PM
Subject: Pinochet and the Vatican


Please recall that the Vatican's message to the brit government is
reported to have come from a lower level office - the Pope is still free
to deny having made any suggestions about Pinochet , if only by saying
that Pinochet's victims were also good catholics

Cheers
MichaelP

====================
                       Vatican in clash over Pinochet
              By David Graves, Bruce Johnston and A J McIlroy



    THE Vatican was drawn into embarrassing controversy last night when
    its call for Gen Augusto Pinochet to be freed was seen to be at odds
    with the views of Cardinal Basil Hume, the leader of Roman Catholics
                           in England and Wales.

   The cardinal said in a radio interview just before Christmas that the
       crimes of which the general is accused, including genocide and
      torture, were so wrong that no one responsible should have total
   immunity. He said: "They should be made accountable for their actions
           somewhere or other and I feel that very importantly."

     Yesterday a spokesman for the cardinal declined to comment on the
    Pope's intercession with the Foreign Office on the general's behalf.
         But Ian Linden, the director of the Catholic Institute for
    International Relations in London, told The World at One on Radio 4:
     "It is pretty clear from Cardinal Hume's remarks that he wants the
     Church to. . . put its weight behind the basic moral principles of
                               human rights."

   Mr Linden said it was possible that an "elderly and ailing" Pope - he
    is 78 - had been manoeuvred by politicised cardinals into supporting
   the general. The Vatican, which had consistently denied intervening in
   the Pinochet case, was forced to confirm that it had sent a letter on
         the general's behalf to the Foreign Office last November.

     This followed a visit to Rome by Mariano Fernandez, Chile's deputy
    foreign minister. A Vatican spokesman emphasised that the letter had
     not been sent by the Pope - sources said it was signed by Cardinal
    Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state and number two in the
    hierarchy. But observers said it was impossible that the Pope would
                    not have been aware of its contents.

     Cardinal Sodano was papal nuncio in Santiago between 1977 and 1988
     when Gen Pinochet was in power and knows him well. He has already
   indicated that he supports Chile's argument that, under international
     law, no foreign court has jurisdiction over the former president.

   The Vatican's letter urged Britain to block Gen Pinochet's extradition
    to Spain to face allegations of human rights crimes. It appealed for
     leniency for humanitarian reasons and in the interests of national
     reconciliation in Chile. It also supported the general's argument
   that, as a former head of state, he should be immune from prosecution.

   The Vatican's intervention, intended to be confidential, was disclosed
     by Baroness Symons, a Foreign Office minister, in a parliamentary
    written answer. The Foreign Office replied that it was a matter for
                                the courts.

   Gen Pinochet, 83, who was arrested at a private London hospital on Oct
      16 while recovering from back surgery, is being held under house
      arrest in Surrey. Seven law lords are expected to deliver their
             verdict soon on whether he has sovereign immunity.

    The Vatican's move outraged human rights campaigners. Carlos Reyes,
         the president of the anti-Pinochet campaigning group Chile
   Democratico, said he was "amazed" at the Vatican's stance, especially
      as the Pope had maintained a crusade for human rights during his
                              20-year papacy.

             19 February 1999: Pope backs call to free Pinochet
         11 February 1999: Chile may ask Pope to plead for Pinochet


                                   [LINK]

      Next report British embassy sealed off after Prague terror alert
        Search International News for  ____________________  ______

   [ Front Page | UK News | International News | City | Sport | Features
      | Reviews | Search | Feedback | Alex | Site Plan | Daily Index |
   Weather | Crossword | Matt | Travel | Books | Technology | Students |
             Schools | Opinions | Classifieds | Appointments ]

     ? Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 1999. Terms & Conditions of
                      reading. Commercial information.











     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 01:30:54 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:30:54 +0000
Subject: M-TH: dialectics of snow
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990220210413.20511A-100000@acnet>
References: <199902210012.RAA17575@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990221083054.013a37f4@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 21:11 20/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>The latest scientific research, published in the current issue of the
>_New England Journal of Meteorology_, suggests that each and every
>snowflake is unique in design yet each snow flake is dialectically
>connected to every other snowflake. When the contradictions among
>snowflakes become ripe then a new period of ice, rain, or sleet emerges.
>Each new snow storm represents an advance towards the day when -- as a
>result of the withering away of snow -- a new snowless era will emerge!
>
>Jerry


I like the dialectical irony. 

The deeper point to which it alludes I might find myself in a lot of
sympathy with. If Jerry is criticising a fairy story presented in the name
of "dialectical and historical materialism" that the march of history is
leading to an era without contradictions, without the occasional snowflake,
or the occasional tear, I would agree that is a most undialectical
distortion of the approach I am confident I read in both Marx and Engels.

Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 01:35:47 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:35:47 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Fw: BBC on GM foods
In-Reply-To: <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990221083547.013abb7c@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 16:11 20/02/99 -0800, you wrote:
>        Ahhhh,the mind of T.Blair never ceases to amaze.
>I realize that this is only mildy interesting to the list,but
>I found Mr.Blairs reasoning interesting
>
>
>R.C.
>tmxqp at email.msm.com


I think this development is indeed a significant step, and I have no
complaints at all about R.C. forwarding this matter to the list. Rather the
reverse. 

Blair's mind is interesting but underneath the attention to spin-doctoring
and focus groups I think he always attempts a very shrewd estimate of the
balance of forces including class forces.  He is almost marxist in his
opportunism. 

I attach the post I sent yesterday, prior to reading RC's post, on the same
subject, to LBO talk, linking together this and new developments on the
euro under the title "Blair and capitalism". If anyone wants to take up the
references to the euro here I suggest that is under a different thread title.

Chris Burford

London

_________________________________________


Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:02:02 +0000
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
Subject: Blair and capitalism
Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com


This week Blair appears to have taken decisive steps to align himself with
the interests of the most advanced and largest capitalists. The issues are
genetically modified food and the euro.

A. Today Blair had nailed his colours to the mast on gm food. Despite a
crescendo of public and media concern, to which William Hague, Conservative
leader has responded by calling for a 3 year moratorium on gm food in
Britain, Blair has taken him on on his own ground with an article in the
Daily Telegraph, of all papers. This argues that gm technology is the
technology of the 21st century, that Britain has substantial advantages in
it, and no signal should be given that would deter further capital
investment in this area.

No doubt Blair does not imagine he will win over the whole of the
Conservative Party but he is clearly aiming to have a wide coalition of
mainstream opinion. He would also not object to splitting the CP even
further leaving Hague as the leader of a doomed little England
organisation, defending narrow British sovereignty, fox-hunting, and other
natural forms of British life. 

It is a bold step because food is an area where the public is extremely
attentive, and demands more and more assertively that business activities
should be controlled by social foresight. Mad cow disease was an
extraordinary experience, even if only 2 million cows were killed
prematurely, not the 9 million I pointed out were at risk.



B. Not yet public and admittedly on page 7 of the Guardian an article that
Blair has taken the plunge psychologically on the euro. The government will
announce next week that the timetable for introducing the euro after a
successful referendum campaign can be cut from three years to one.

It appears that the government still considers that it must hold the
referendum after the election. This is now being pencilled in for June 2001
with the referendum that autumn. 

It is significant that there appears to be no hint of division between
Blair and Brown on this question and they are expected to present the plan
together.

They apparently see it politically and practically beneficial to release a
report announcing the possibility of a much shorter accession period.
Presumably the aim is to signal effectively to capital that they will act
with political decisiveness once the decision has been made in the
referendum, but the language will be couched so that the wider public
believe that the political decision is still dependent on the referendum.
Part of these tactics will be to encourage business to commit itself
heavily to powerful campaign, as well as to present the question as a
technical question.

The fact that Blair of course is working in the interests of capital is not
surprising. It does not suggest IMO that that automatically means it is
progressive to oppose either step in a simplistic way. Better to press for
political advantages for the power of working people in the course of it.



Chris Burford

London.





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Sun Feb 21 01:41:39 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 09:41:39 +0100
Subject: SV: M-TH: Fw: Pinochet and the Vatican
Message-ID: <008601be5d76$007452a0$5ae5a3c3@malecki>





>       Will the seven Law Lords extradite Pinochet to
>Spain?
>
>R.C.

Nope! The race is ended. Higher powers have intervened against the Labourite cronies and their third way. 

Bob




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Sun Feb 21 01:41:37 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 09:41:37 +0100
Subject: SV: M-TH: dialectics of snow
Message-ID: <008101be5d75$ff2c4240$5ae5a3c3@malecki>

Thanks Gerry! Exactly what I fucking needed. Outside of my window I got a couple of meters and more. Will think about that "each individual snowflake" bit the next shift knowing that la la land of no snow is somewhere on the horizon.

By the way reminds me of Charlie and his methodology sometimes on the ex SU.

By the way Germany is sinking under the melting snows from the Alps and avalanches are taking the toll everyday. 

Warm regards
Bob Malecki
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr?n: Gerald Levy <glevy at pratt.edu>
Till: marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu <marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Kopia: marxism-thaxis-digest at buo319b.econ.utah.edu <marxism-thaxis-digest at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Datum: den 21 februari 1999 03:23
?mne: M-TH: dialectics of snow


>The latest scientific research, published in the current issue of the
>_New England Journal of Meteorology_, suggests that each and every
>snowflake is unique in design yet each snow flake is dialectically
>connected to every other snowflake. When the contradictions among
>snowflakes become ripe then a new period of ice, rain, or sleet emerges.
>Each new snow storm represents an advance towards the day when -- as a
>result of the withering away of snow -- a new snowless era will emerge!
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 01:46:57 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:46:57 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Pseudonyms etc (was Dialectics of water)
In-Reply-To: <000e01be5d2c$e3a8fe80$1a0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990221084657.013a25a4@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 15:58 20/02/99 -0800, 


R.C.
tmxqp at email.msm.com



 wrote:


>>On the other hand, R.Casement is such a noted name that one must wonder if
>>it is a pseudonym. And if it is a pseudonym, what would be the point of
>>announcing an unsubbing, since it would be possible to continue to lurk or
>>not lurk as the subscriber wished?
>-----------
>     A noted name,where?You seem to be obsessed with "pseudonyms"
>and lurking.

Just over a year ago marxism-thaxis and marxism-unmoderated had
considerable disruption from a group of people, possibly just one, but more
likely IMO two, who changed their names frequently and appeared to stir up
personal trouble between other subscribers, then mock the list for the
degree of chaotic argument. The motivation was unclear and could have had
several causes.

>Again are you a list monitor? 


Rob and Bill try to moderate this list with a light touch, and they may
disagree with what I have to say here, and I am sure they disagree with
some of my posts, but I would assert that no list can really work unless
many members have a sense of responsibility for the culture of the list and
may intervene to argue that a post is out of order or contrary to the aims
of the list. This is better than list moderators having to administer rough
justice which then gets challenged as being rough, until they give up and
resign, or the list contracts to a small number of like minded individuals
who have not been expelled.


>I find it strange that you felt the need to search through 6000 posts.

I don't. It just so happens that I have approximately 6000 posts in my
Eudora thaxis filter box and I thought I would like to check the political
orientation of someone who had suggested I might be a "wanker". I was not
surprised to find there had been no other posts from that address, (unless
they had come in when I was on holiday) and that therefore there was very
little to go on to evalate the signifance of the seriousness of the threat
to leave.


> I am new to
>this list.

You may be very offended, but I have no coroboratory evidence of this. 

If we are to have a discussion about marxism on the internet we have to
have a few rules of wise practice. There is nothing wrong in using a
pseudonym, and some ISP's like AOL facilitate this. Privacy is important. 

These email lists have learned that consistency and integrity from the
poster is also important. It is not a problem if someone signs in as
R.Casement or changes it to R.C. as has just been done. There may be good
reasons for doing so. 

> A noted name,where?

I am sorry, I cannot help noticing that this comment does not rule out that
you might know the history of the more famous R.Casement. 

I am not prepared to take a subscriber from an e-mail address on complete
trust. To participate in an e-mail list in a class divided society with
that as a ground rule, would be negligent. If you consider a personal
injustice has been done, it may recur, and I suggest that you check the
history of that name if you wish to participate in political lists. No
doubt internet resources could track it down if you are naive to the
association. 




>It seems you feel
>the need to prove some sort of guilt.

I feel the need to be vigilant, as I hope all subscribers to this list will
be. 



>Why is that? I find your behavior
>extremely questionable since it is directed against someone you don't
>even know me.

I have given you an explanation.

>Perhaps if you had given me some time to post to the
>list you would have been able to *know*me.

You were just about to leave, so you said, and you implied the quality of
my polemic with the evasive Andrew Austin had to be constrained by an
awareness of the loss that that would imply for the list. 

Had a known subscriber written similarly (as to an extent Paul Gallagher
did when he pointed out that one of the reasons he continued to subscribe
was positively so that he could read Andrew Austin) I would have responded
differently.


>    Now lets review the facts as they now stand.C.Burford has insinuated,
>or accused me of the following:
>
>      1.Accused me of posting from a different address.
>
>      2. Accused me of using a psedonym.
>
>      3.Accused me of attempting to start a flame war.
>
>    Now I suppose I'll just have to wait too see what further crimes
>I am suspected of.
>
>R.C.
>tmxqp at email.msm.com
>"Oh yeah....my opinions are my own and do not reflect those
>of my publisher. They passed up the publishing rights."


I do not apologise for being vigilant. If R.C. decides to post
contributions of political substance to this list, I like others, would
wish to respond to them on their merits, (see my post on gm food which I do
think is an important theme  but one which needs to be analysed more
profoundly than in terms of the mind of Blair).

Because of time pressures I will not comment today on the Pinochet issue
but RC could comment himself. What does not breach privacy and is relevant
on an international list is to say which country you are posting from. 

The tone of injury that R.C. has been accused of "crimes" is inappropriate.
e-mail lists are more of a community than use-net, and as with any group if
you blunder in without assessing the culture, you may get bruised. That is
also the reason why I wondered if you really had blundered in for the first
time, or were repeating a pattern we have seen previously. Probably no-one
apart from yourself will every now. If you stay on this list, and
contribute actively to build up its ability to address problems of theory
and practice seriously you will find your credibility will grow, whatever
name or address you post under. I am prepared to take each post on its merits.

E-mail is a medium that ultimately puts a maximum degree of responsibility
on yourself as to how socially responsible you wish to be.

Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 01:55:42 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:55:42 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990220191756.5248A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>
References: <000e01be5d2c$e3a8fe80$1a0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990221085542.0139c1b8@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 19:28 20/02/99 -0500, Andrew Austin wrote:

>Chris Burford need to take a leave of absence from the list. His rantings
>have become bizarre, to say the least. The dialogue now occurring between
>R. Casement and Chris Burford makes quite clear Burford's growing
>paranoia. First Burford sees the dialectics of nature in nearly every
>sentence Marx writes. 


An opportunist argument deliberately distorting the textual evidence I have
placed in front of the list. I have given a number of references from the
Collective Works as a result of a significant number of hours of study. 

I have drawn attention to the reports of 22,000 pages of manuscripts by
Marx on the natural sciences, held in Amsterdam, Moscow and Berlin.


On the basis of the limited references I gave:

a) They are consistent with Marx's commitment to himself and his readers
that he is a materialist

b) They are consistent with his conscious commitment to the dialectical method

c) They consciously make analogies between the inanimate world and the
human world

Andrew Austin has produced no evidence at all that Marx believed that a
different form of analysis should be applied to the reality of the
inanimate world, to that which should be applied to the human world. 

To distort my careful argument that I see the dialectics of nature in
"nearly every sentence Marx writes" is an opportunist distortion designed
to dismiss the textual evidence. 

(To use this proposition further to argue that I am paranoid is barrack
room rhetoric from someone who claims serious academic credentials, but
whose academic reliability was understandably called into question on the
marxism-and-sciences list as beneath that which one would expect of a
professor or acting professor in a US university.)

Despite his rhetorical appeals to an invisible list who cannot give him
non-verbal feedback, I am confident that the burden of proof lies on him
now to argue that Marx's approach to inanimate science was broadly
consistent with the dialectical materialism attributed to him by the
overwhelming majority of his followers.

If Andrew Austin is making a different distinction between dialectical
materialism and what some attributed to the "dialectics of nature" he
should make or repeat the line of demarcation precisely and not indulge in
ad hominem attacks.

As for his suggestion that 

>You know, I think that Chris thinks R. Casement is me, that I have
>somehow be able to enter the list from another e-mail account or something
>to torment him in some nefarious manner. Chris's problems would be funny
>if they didn't appear to be serious.

that never crossed my mind. Andrew Austin's characterstic fingerprints are
consistent, as in this example of this latest subjectivist reasoning: "It
must be so because it seems so to me" , and the arbitrary conclusions he
builds on it. He is so convinced that Marx could not have approached the
natural sciences with the same dialectical and materialist intentions with
which he approached the human sciences, that each bit of evidence has been
greeted with the cry that it is "incredible" that any person should draw
such a conclusion, when an intelligent man like Andrew Austin cannot.

Andrew Austin lacks an adequate level of progressive academic integrity.
No wonder Marx described Duehring as bumptious. The same social and
psychological processes are present in Andrew Austin. The same lack of
modesty. The same readiness to concede vital territory to the prevailing
bourgeois culture of academia, and present it as his own insights.

I have never argued that dialectical materialism or the dialectics of
nature should be approached dogmatically, but it is not surprising that in
each generation and in many arenas there may have to be battles with
individuals who grasp aspects of bourgeois metaphysics to attack the basic
marxist approach, with an inflated idea of their own ability to champion
this endeavour. 

Of course Austin is not a quivering wreck. But he is unable to advance the
argument except by ill founded personal innuendo. That speaks volumes.


Chris Burford

London 






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From carob at dynamite.com.au  Sun Feb 21 07:05:30 1999
From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:05:30 +1100
Subject: M-TH: Better things to talk about?
Message-ID: <199902211406.BAA26743@tnt.dynamite.com.au>

C'mon Chris!

With the possible exception of Mr Casement, we all saw every long and
winding inch of this debate.  I think it was worth having, but, like the
others involved, don't seem to have changed my mind.  Plenty here agree with
you, and a few of us don't.  Let's agree to disagree, eh?  

Time to move on.

Anyone interested in pursuing a collective Marxian take on the
socio-economic disaster that has been stalking the world since mid-'97?

A couple of thoughts.  

The Japanese budget has gone for a debt-to-GDP ratio of over one, and has
spent a substantial lump of that on trying to kick-start consumption.  But
didn't Marx (and many others) think the problem would lie with the capital
equipment sector?  I mean, are we talking excess capacity or
underconsumption here?

Japanese consumers might easily use their coupons to buy their daily needs
and stuff even more of their wages under the bed, no?  Meanwhile, ever more
of Japan's capacity lies fallow.  Printing yen and pushing interest rates
down to near-zero is gonna push the currency down and America is gonna find
its concomitantly big buck is weakening its producers and blowing out its
current account deficit.  American capacity utilisation could then be
expected to drop, too.

A new round of pressures on US workers might follow as capital opts for more
of that overly cheap new technology and a new round of 'restructuring' is
applied.  Or will protectionism, aimed at desperate Asians and Latin
Americans, become a political issue as the presidential elections drift
nigh?  

Will a new round of commodifying the formerly uncommodified (capital seeking
new sectors within which to accumulate) come crashing down on eg. national
parks in America, public service broadcasters and prisons in Europe etc? 
Should we read some of Jim H's terrific *Need & Desire* stuff in this vein?

Is the popular push for LDC debt cancellation likely to succeed (have any
salient finance ministers had anything to say?  Would even that have
sufficient clout to address the underlying problem?

I mean, are we talking a nasty bout of therapeutic concentration and
centralisation here (ie. is this how we should read America's dream run
through all this tumult abroad?) or are we talking a structural crisis of
great depression proportions or bigger (ie. is America's dream run just a
doomed moment of debt-financed gluttony before the institutional crash, the
undreamt-of capital destruction, and the legitimation crisis of
unprecedented scale and violence in a traumatised third-world?  

I mean, a list dedicated to Marxian theory and practice would be mildly
interested in such questions, right?

Does Jim H. maintain his position that we're not near a serious crisis at
this stage?  What does Doug think we should be looking for in the way of
leading indicators towards nascent recovery (or otherwise) right now?  Does
Hugh think what we have here sits well with a Marxian crisis right now (and
where the #*! has he been)? 

Waddabout Andy?  And you, Chris?

Anybody?

Rob.






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk  Sun Feb 21 02:03:48 1999
From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 09:03:48 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Fw: BBC on GM foods
In-Reply-To: <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
References: <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <mk+7rBA0v8z2MwPF@heartfield.demon.co.uk>

In message <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0 at -->, tmxqp
<tmxqp at email.msn.com> writes
>        Ahhhh,the mind of T.Blair never ceases to amaze.
=

>>Prime Minister  puts "science above 'scares'"

In my opinion, this is the only thing that the Blair government has got
right. The GMO food panic is without foundation.

-- 
Jim heartfield


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From tmxqp at email.msn.com  Sun Feb 21 15:18:45 1999
From: tmxqp at email.msn.com (tmxqp)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:18:45 -0800
Subject: M-TH: Pseudonyms etc (was Dialectics of water)
Message-ID: <001901be5de8$25dd2b80$130bfed0@-->


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
To: marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu
<marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 1:07 AM
Subject: M-TH: Pseudonyms etc (was Dialectics of water)




>If we are to have a discussion about marxism on the internet we have to
>have a few rules of wise practice. There is nothing wrong in using a
>pseudonym, and some ISP's like AOL facilitate this. Privacy is important.
------------------------
    Your obsession with psedonyms and your need to impose
your views(list rules of your own making)on other people is
strange,and if the list
has contracted to a small number it is not difficult to see why.
-----------------
>These email lists have learned that consistency and integrity from the
>poster is also important. It is not a problem if someone signs in as
>R.Casement or changes it to R.C. as has just been done. There may be good
>reasons for doing so.
>
--------------
   If I choose to change my name to Krusty The Klown it is
none of your business .

-----------
>I am sorry, I cannot help noticing that this comment does not rule out that
>you might know the history of the more famous R.Casement.
------------------
    It's interesting to know that I am a noted person.Just what I am
noted for remains a mystery too me.And I won't rule out the case
that you are an impertinent,rather paranoid,and a bit of a busy
body.
------------------

>I am not prepared to take a subscriber from an e-mail address on complete
>trust. To participate in an e-mail list in a class divided society with
>that as a ground rule, would be negligent. If you consider a personal
>injustice has been done, it may recur, and I suggest that you check the
>history of that name if you wish to participate in political lists. No
>doubt internet resources could track it down if you are naive to the
>association.
-----------------
    You seem rather dim when it comes to matters of the internet
in general(as to common net courtesy,and netiquette.}
     Have you noticed the MSN in my email address?Thats the
Microsoft Network,and it uses SSL:Secure Server Links. Its one
of the most secure services next to EarthLink.
---------------------
>I feel the need to be vigilant, as I hope all subscribers to this list will
>be.
---------------
   Is that vigilant or vigilante?Explain what you feel the need to be
vigilant against.Is it vigilance on your part or just common paranoia?
   You last two posts have gone on at great length about me,and
psedonyms , my integrity ,my ISP,and my signature.What is your
fascination with me?I think its my turn to have some answers from
you.
--------------------

>>Why is that? I find your behavior
>>extremely questionable since it is directed against someone you don't
>>even know me.
>
>I have given you an explanation.
------------
   That explanation is unsatisfactory and I require
further explanaation.
------------
>Because of time pressures I will not comment today on the Pinochet issue
>but RC could comment himself. What does not breach privacy and is relevant
>on an international list is to say which country you are posting from.
---------------
    Why do you feel the need to ask?What bearing on anything does
my location have to anything,other then the your egregious impertinence
in asking.
---------------
>
>The tone of injury that R.C. has been accused of "crimes" is inappropriate.
----------
    The above statement is pure unadulterated
horseshit.Plain and simple.
-------------
>
>E-mail is a medium that ultimately puts a maximum degree of responsibility
>on yourself as to how socially responsible you wish to be.
-----------------
     You have shown no "socially responsible(ity)".You have shown a great
lack of courtesy,and a lack of understanding
the basic rules of  netiquette.
     I have only one request and that is C.Burford stop fixating on me and
move on to something more constructive.This is becoming an absolute
waste of time.
-------------------

R.Krusty The Klown .C.
tmxqp at email.msm.com













     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 17:13:05 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:13:05 +0000
Subject: SV: M-TH: Fw: Pinochet and the Vatican
In-Reply-To: <008601be5d76$007452a0$5ae5a3c3@malecki>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990222001305.013ba7ec@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 09:41 21/02/99 +0100, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>       Will the seven Law Lords extradite Pinochet to
>>Spain?
>>
>>R.C.
>
>Nope! The race is ended. Higher powers have intervened against the
Labourite cronies and their third way. 
>
>Bob


What higher powers? This is just the working out of class and other
contradictions. The world is changing and international law is assuming new
significance. 

Previously Pinochet would have been allowed to go back to Chile
automatically. It is not just that one of the 5 original law lords is
married to someone who has worked for Amnesty International. Amnesty
International is itself a phenomenon of the globalisation of capital.

Now they had to appoint a completely new panel of 7 law lords, which
depletes their stock of law lords so much that it will be impossible to
have a third independent panel if this one also goes wrong. Even if they do
not extradite Pinochet to Spain the fact that that the British Law Lords
have got tied up in knots over this for months, and poor Augusto has had to
face the possibility of living in exile until his death, is a symptom of
shifts in the international balance of forces.

Likewise the fate and outcry over Ocalan, over the ethnically cleared
Kosovans, over the abuse of Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, over the torture of
journalists in Zimbabwe.

Bob's invocation of higher powers and sneering at Labour Third Way cronies
is just an illustration of his inability to analyse the concrete world
dialectically. So he brings in these cardboard figures as a substitute for
an analysis.

Chris Burford

London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 17:13:13 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:13:13 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Better things to talk about?
In-Reply-To: <199902211406.BAA26743@tnt.dynamite.com.au>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990222001313.013bd988@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 01:05 22/02/99 +1100, you wrote:
>C'mon Chris!
>
>With the possible exception of Mr Casement, we all saw every long and
>winding inch of this debate.  I think it was worth having, but, like the
>others involved, don't seem to have changed my mind.  Plenty here agree with
>you, and a few of us don't.  Let's agree to disagree, eh?  
>
>Time to move on.
>


Well I think the reality is that the debate is indeed moving on. Partly for
technological reasons. As a result of browsing through web-sites and
landing up at Nature, after trying to inspect the files I found I could get
automatic access to a weekly summary, just as you (and I now) do for the
Economist.

Those abstracts caught my eye, and I think that the detail of the
scientific research now into a subject like water, which was used to
illustrate dialectical materialism, is so complex that it transcends all
the old categories. I think both the protagonists and the readers are
having to accept this. That plus the reality that some subscribers continue
strongly to respect the marxist tradition summed up as "dialectical
materialism" and some don't.

I am happy if that difference has been made starkly and unequivocally.

Chris Burford

London 





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 16:52:35 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:52:35 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Fw: BBC on GM foods
In-Reply-To: <mk+7rBA0v8z2MwPF@heartfield.demon.co.uk>
References: <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
 <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990221235235.013b2c70@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 09:03 21/02/99 +0000, you wrote:
>In message <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0 at -->, tmxqp
><tmxqp at email.msn.com> writes
>>        Ahhhh,the mind of T.Blair never ceases to amaze.
>=
>
>>>Prime Minister  puts "science above 'scares'"
>
>In my opinion, this is the only thing that the Blair government has got
>right. The GMO food panic is without foundation.
>
>-- 
>Jim heartfield


But Blair is specifically supporting advanced British capital. Is that part
of what you mean by "getting it right"?




Chris Burford







     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 22 00:49:22 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 07:49:22 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Pseudonyms etc 
In-Reply-To: <001901be5de8$25dd2b80$130bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990222074922.013b9838@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 14:18 21/02/99 -0800, R.C. wrote:
>   If I choose to change my name to Krusty The Klown it is
>none of your business .

This is a very radical assertion of bourgeois democratic rights in what to
make any sense has to be an interdependent relationship. It is my business
if I choose to make it my business. I am subscribed to a collective e-mail
list and a new-comer arrives who demands to be taken at face value. These
things take a little time. 

It is your business if you are wise enough to realise I am under no
obligation to trust at face value anyone who arrives on a marxism list, or
anywhere else, until they have started to earn that trust. 

After a time people come to be accepted more or less as wrong on some
things but perhaps not wrong on everything. They are judged among other
things by the consistency and integrity of their views. Therefore little is
gained by changing of name except confusion.

But if you do not think it is your business to build up trust in your
integrity, you do not. I cannot force you to think otherwise.


If you think your political position is a serious one which you want to
test on an e-mail list you will see it as in your interests to earn that
trust. That does not preclude robust frankness.

Chris Burford






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Mon Feb 22 03:05:08 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:05:08 +0000
Subject: M-TH: The Idiot
In-Reply-To: <001901be5de8$25dd2b80$130bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <l03130300b2f6db2ebb2e@[193.60.146.202]>


>------------------
>    It's interesting to know that I am a noted person.Just what I am
>noted for remains a mystery too me.And I won't rule out the case
>that you are an impertinent,rather paranoid,and a bit of a busy
>body.

>R.Krusty The Klown .C.
>tmxqp at email.msm.com

Bollocks- we all know who you are! Bugger off now, before I break the rules
and mention your name, there's a good boy.

Russ

PS Rob does this mean you owe me another pint of ale?





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Mon Feb 22 03:31:48 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:31:48 +0000
Subject: M-TH: GM foods
In-Reply-To: <mk+7rBA0v8z2MwPF@heartfield.demon.co.uk>
References: <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
 <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
Message-ID: <l03130301b2f6e0e111e1@[193.60.146.202]>

>In message <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0 at -->, tmxqp
><tmxqp at email.msn.com> writes
>>        Ahhhh,the mind of T.Blair never ceases to amaze.
>=
>
>>>Prime Minister  puts "science above 'scares'"
>
>In my opinion, this is the only thing that the Blair government has got
>right. The GMO food panic is without foundation.
>
>--
>Jim heartfield
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


Ok then Jim, I'll grant that it looks and smells like a classic panic, but
what about the study that showed immune system damage in rats fed GM food,
the fear of cross pollenation with wild stock and the general hit or miss
nature of the technology? And why not test it with the same procedures used
for new drugs, or are you worried about the loss of profits for those
marketing the stuff?

Russ





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb 22 10:37:12 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:37:12 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The Idiot
Message-ID: <s6d14f8f.090@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Russ,

Is this a transnominal ?

Charles 

>>> Russ <r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> 02/22/99 05:05AM >>>

>------------------
>    It's interesting to know that I am a noted person.Just what I am
>noted for remains a mystery too me.And I won't rule out the case
>that you are an impertinent,rather paranoid,and a bit of a busy
>body.

>R.Krusty The Klown .C.
>tmxqp at email.msm.com 

Bollocks- we all know who you are! Bugger off now, before I break the rules
and mention your name, there's a good boy.

Russ

PS Rob does this mean you owe me another pint of ale?





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb 22 11:01:01 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:01:01 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Better things to talk about?
Message-ID: <s6d15521.029@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Rob,

Do you think the Y2K  problems might trigger some socio-economic awakenings , stockmarket crashes (given the dependency of the current stock market boom on electronic wizardry) ? 

Charles

>>> Rob Schaap <carob at dynamite.com.au> 02/21/99 09:05AM >>>
C'mon Chris!

With the possible exception of Mr Casement, we all saw every long and
winding inch of this debate.  I think it was worth having, but, like the
others involved, don't seem to have changed my mind.  Plenty here agree with
you, and a few of us don't.  Let's agree to disagree, eh?  

Time to move on.

Anyone interested in pursuing a collective Marxian take on the
socio-economic disaster that has been stalking the world since mid-'97?

A couple of thoughts.  

The Japanese budget has gone for a debt-to-GDP ratio of over one, and has
spent a substantial lump of that on trying to kick-start consumption.  But
didn't Marx (and many others) think the problem would lie with the capital
equipment sector?  I mean, are we talking excess capacity or
underconsumption here?

Japanese consumers might easily use their coupons to buy their daily needs
and stuff even more of their wages under the bed, no?  Meanwhile, ever more
of Japan's capacity lies fallow.  Printing yen and pushing interest rates
down to near-zero is gonna push the currency down and America is gonna find
its concomitantly big buck is weakening its producers and blowing out its
current account deficit.  American capacity utilisation could then be
expected to drop, too.

A new round of pressures on US workers might follow as capital opts for more
of that overly cheap new technology and a new round of 'restructuring' is
applied.  Or will protectionism, aimed at desperate Asians and Latin
Americans, become a political issue as the presidential elections drift
nigh?  

Will a new round of commodifying the formerly uncommodified (capital seeking
new sectors within which to accumulate) come crashing down on eg. national
parks in America, public service broadcasters and prisons in Europe etc? 
Should we read some of Jim H's terrific *Need & Desire* stuff in this vein?

Is the popular push for LDC debt cancellation likely to succeed (have any
salient finance ministers had anything to say?  Would even that have
sufficient clout to address the underlying problem?

I mean, are we talking a nasty bout of therapeutic concentration and
centralisation here (ie. is this how we should read America's dream run
through all this tumult abroad?) or are we talking a structural crisis of
great depression proportions or bigger (ie. is America's dream run just a
doomed moment of debt-financed gluttony before the institutional crash, the
undreamt-of capital destruction, and the legitimation crisis of
unprecedented scale and violence in a traumatised third-world?  

I mean, a list dedicated to Marxian theory and practice would be mildly
interested in such questions, right?

Does Jim H. maintain his position that we're not near a serious crisis at
this stage?  What does Doug think we should be looking for in the way of
leading indicators towards nascent recovery (or otherwise) right now?  Does
Hugh think what we have here sits well with a Marxian crisis right now (and
where the #*! has he been)? 

Waddabout Andy?  And you, Chris?

Anybody?

Rob.






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From poseidon at tinet.ie  Mon Feb 22 12:10:10 1999
From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:10:10 -0000
Subject: M-TH: The Idiot
Message-ID: <01be5e96$f7b51e20$2efe869f@beprepared.tinet.ie>





Russ:Bollocks- we all know who you are! Bugger off now, before I break the rules
and mention your name, there's a good boy.

George: Sorry I must not be part of the club. I dont know who he is.






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb 22 13:54:29 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:54:29 -0500
Subject: SV: M-TH: dialectics of snow
Message-ID: <s6d17dc4.058@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Yea, Bob, I hear they have a lot of snow in the ex-SU.

Everybody's fingerprints are unique too, but "dialectically" related to everybody else's.

Or what about stripes on tigers' backs ? I wonder if each is unique ? 

Or long waves in economics ? A fact, but so what ? How does it help overthrow capitalism ?

CB

>>> "Bob Malecki" <malecki at algonet.se> 02/21/99 03:41AM >>>
Thanks Gerry! Exactly what I fucking needed. Outside of my window I got a couple of meters and more. Will think about that "each individual snowflake" bit the next shift knowing that la la land of no snow is somewhere on the horizon.

By the way reminds me of Charlie and his methodology sometimes on the ex SU.

By the way Germany is sinking under the melting snows from the Alps and avalanches are taking the toll everyday. 

Warm regards
Bob Malecki
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr?n: Gerald Levy <glevy at pratt.edu>
Till: marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu <marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Kopia: marxism-thaxis-digest at buo319b.econ.utah.edu <marxism-thaxis-digest at buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Datum: den 21 februari 1999 03:23
?mne: M-TH: dialectics of snow


>The latest scientific research, published in the current issue of the
>_New England Journal of Meteorology_, suggests that each and every
>snowflake is unique in design yet each snow flake is dialectically
>connected to every other snowflake. When the contradictions among
>snowflakes become ripe then a new period of ice, rain, or sleet emerges.
>Each new snow storm represents an advance towards the day when -- as a
>result of the withering away of snow -- a new snowless era will emerge!
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Feb 22 14:01:14 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:01:14 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
Message-ID: <s6d17f64.068@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

I'm still with you on this , Chris, though I haven't written much on it lately. I admire your workperson like approach. 

Charles Brown

>>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 02/21/99 03:55AM >>>
At 19:28 20/02/99 -0500, Andrew Austin wrote:

>Chris Burford need to take a leave of absence from the list. His rantings
>have become bizarre, to say the least. The dialogue now occurring between
>R. Casement and Chris Burford makes quite clear Burford's growing
>paranoia. First Burford sees the dialectics of nature in nearly every
>sentence Marx writes. 


An opportunist argument deliberately distorting the textual evidence I have
placed in front of the list. I have given a number of references from the
Collective Works as a result of a significant number of hours of study. 

I have drawn attention to the reports of 22,000 pages of manuscripts by
Marx on the natural sciences, held in Amsterdam, Moscow and Berlin.


On the basis of the limited references I gave:

a) They are consistent with Marx's commitment to himself and his readers
that he is a materialist

b) They are consistent with his conscious commitment to the dialectical method

c) They consciously make analogies between the inanimate world and the
human world

Andrew Austin has produced no evidence at all that Marx believed that a
different form of analysis should be applied to the reality of the
inanimate world, to that which should be applied to the human world. 

To distort my careful argument that I see the dialectics of nature in
"nearly every sentence Marx writes" is an opportunist distortion designed
to dismiss the textual evidence. 

(To use this proposition further to argue that I am paranoid is barrack
room rhetoric from someone who claims serious academic credentials, but
whose academic reliability was understandably called into question on the
marxism-and-sciences list as beneath that which one would expect of a
professor or acting professor in a US university.)

Despite his rhetorical appeals to an invisible list who cannot give him
non-verbal feedback, I am confident that the burden of proof lies on him
now to argue that Marx's approach to inanimate science was broadly
consistent with the dialectical materialism attributed to him by the
overwhelming majority of his followers.

If Andrew Austin is making a different distinction between dialectical
materialism and what some attributed to the "dialectics of nature" he
should make or repeat the line of demarcation precisely and not indulge in
ad hominem attacks.

As for his suggestion that 

>You know, I think that Chris thinks R. Casement is me, that I have
>somehow be able to enter the list from another e-mail account or something
>to torment him in some nefarious manner. Chris's problems would be funny
>if they didn't appear to be serious.

that never crossed my mind. Andrew Austin's characterstic fingerprints are
consistent, as in this example of this latest subjectivist reasoning: "It
must be so because it seems so to me" , and the arbitrary conclusions he
builds on it. He is so convinced that Marx could not have approached the
natural sciences with the same dialectical and materialist intentions with
which he approached the human sciences, that each bit of evidence has been
greeted with the cry that it is "incredible" that any person should draw
such a conclusion, when an intelligent man like Andrew Austin cannot.

Andrew Austin lacks an adequate level of progressive academic integrity.
No wonder Marx described Duehring as bumptious. The same social and
psychological processes are present in Andrew Austin. The same lack of
modesty. The same readiness to concede vital territory to the prevailing
bourgeois culture of academia, and present it as his own insights.

I have never argued that dialectical materialism or the dialectics of
nature should be approached dogmatically, but it is not surprising that in
each generation and in many arenas there may have to be battles with
individuals who grasp aspects of bourgeois metaphysics to attack the basic
marxist approach, with an inflated idea of their own ability to champion
this endeavour. 

Of course Austin is not a quivering wreck. But he is unable to advance the
argument except by ill founded personal innuendo. That speaks volumes.


Chris Burford

London 






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au  Mon Feb 22 16:26:37 1999
From: k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au (Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM))
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:26:37 +1100 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Macho playground
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990220191756.5248A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.990223100657.6936B-100000@student.canberra.edu.au>


I have refrained from entering into a lot of the discussion and silly
arguments that have been occuring on this list for the last couple of
months.  

I joined this list because as a relatively new comrade to
Marxism, I thought it would be an opportunity for me to learn from lots of
more experienced comrades from all over the world.  Instead I spend most
of my time quickly skimming postings because of the just plain pettiness
that seems to be characteristics of this list to find postings worth
actually reading.  

I'm not sure if this list has always been like this but to me it reminds
me of a playground where little boys try to outdo each other and see who
is the toughest or has biggest balls (only in this case the biggest
intellectual balls).  I understand that there are not many female comrades
on this list, which is not surprising because of all the macho crap that
is on it.

If the arguements were constructive points about marxism and marxist
thought I would have no problem but the list is currently dominated by
petty snipping.  I am not taking sides with anyone, I am just sick of all
the macho garabage, so for goodness sakes please start acting like
comrades and adults and treat each other with a little respect.

Thank you to those who have sent informative pieces of information and
discussions to the list.  Currently it is the only saving grace of this
list and the reason I remain on it.

Kim Bullimore




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 22 16:44:14 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:44:14 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
In-Reply-To: <s6d17f64.068@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990222234414.011e5c2c@pop.gn.apc.org>

At 16:01 22/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm still with you on this , Chris, though I haven't written much on it
lately. I admire your workperson like approach. 
>
>Charles Brown


Thanks, but there is a catch. As with the law of value, any defence of a
fundamental feature of the marxist approach has to concede that it is not a
panacea. It does not produce ready made answers that will automatically
lead to revolution if everyone faithfully follows them, for the next 7 1/2
years, or  even 17 1/2 years.  

These are higher order levels of analysis, of general significance. Only if
reapplied more consistently over many years will they maximise the
opportunities for fundamental revolutionary change.

But they can and should be salvaged from the setbacks of hitherto existing
socialism. 

As for the objections of the "other side", put at their best, I think some
of them are at least understandable and others I think we should agree
with, like not being dogmatic, and not treating Engels's distinctions
themselves as eternal idealist categories. 

Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Mon Feb 22 16:57:49 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:57:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Macho playground
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.990223100657.6936B-100000@student.canberra.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990222184235.19573A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>

One of the ugly parts of having to defend Marx's work from ideologues is
at times having to engage with people who generally argue from irrational
and/or theological points of view. Some Marxists are dogmatists and they
have to be shot down. My own contributions to the list have diminished,
because, as is usually the case, after several go arounds I figure out who
is prepared to be swayed by the evidence and logic and who isn't. It
becomes useless after that and tends to sink into precisely what you have
indicated you despise in your post. 

Of course you may be talking about me as one of the idiots on the
playground, in which case what I say here doesn't mean much. I will accept
some responsibility for dragging these sorts of affairs out. For that I
apologize. I hope other people take your criticism to heart. And I hope
you try also to meet your critique and contribute substantive posts to the
list.

Comradely thanks,
Andy

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM) wrote:

>
>I have refrained from entering into a lot of the discussion and silly
>arguments that have been occuring on this list for the last couple of
>months.  
>
>I joined this list because as a relatively new comrade to
>Marxism, I thought it would be an opportunity for me to learn from lots of
>more experienced comrades from all over the world.  Instead I spend most
>of my time quickly skimming postings because of the just plain pettiness
>that seems to be characteristics of this list to find postings worth
>actually reading.  
>
>I'm not sure if this list has always been like this but to me it reminds
>me of a playground where little boys try to outdo each other and see who
>is the toughest or has biggest balls (only in this case the biggest
>intellectual balls).  I understand that there are not many female comrades
>on this list, which is not surprising because of all the macho crap that
>is on it.
>
>If the arguements were constructive points about marxism and marxist
>thought I would have no problem but the list is currently dominated by
>petty snipping.  I am not taking sides with anyone, I am just sick of all
>the macho garabage, so for goodness sakes please start acting like
>comrades and adults and treat each other with a little respect.
>
>Thank you to those who have sent informative pieces of information and
>discussions to the list.  Currently it is the only saving grace of this
>list and the reason I remain on it.
>
>Kim Bullimore
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Mon Feb 22 21:53:08 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 05:53:08 +0100
Subject: SV: SV: M-TH: dialectics of snow
Message-ID: <00eb01be5ee8$68a94560$54e3a3c3@malecki>


Charlie wrote...


>Yea, Bob, I hear they have a lot of snow in the ex-SU.
>
>Everybody's fingerprints are unique too, but "dialectically" related to everybody else's.
>
>Or what about stripes on tigers' backs ? I wonder if each is unique ? 
>
>Or long waves in economics ? A fact, but so what ? How does it help overthrow capitalism ?
>
>CB
The machine-building plant has always been the centre of life and the only way to
get their living for thousands of workers in Yasnogorsk, a town in Tula region
close to Moscow. The plant is functioning and its productions is being sold
despite of the crisis.

Nevertheless for more than 10 months the workers have not been paid. Many times
they applied to the region administration composed in the majority by CPRF
members and to the governor of Tula region, the party protege Vasily
Starodubtsev. There was no result, the authorities has always been loyal to the
bourgeoisie law and the owners of the plant. 

In the beginning of December the workers have lost patience, organised a general
meeting of the employees and elected a new plant administration. When the owners
of the plant refused to recognise the results of the meeting, the workers took
control over the plant in their hands. The workers committee was set up that now
controls the new administration, production, selling, all the finances,
distribution of wages.But all the bank accounts of the plant were blocked by the
authorities and the owners, later two members of the new administration were
arrested. 

That provoked a real social explosion in Yasnogorsk. Workers detained members of
the previous administration and forced them to sign papers recognising the
workers committee and abdicating all their rights. The committee threatened to
blockade the nearby railway unless two of the elected directors were set free. 

Local police and town administration were obliged to collaborate with the workers
committee and in some cases replaced by the organised workers. "This is a
revolution" - they believe. Almost half of the total population of the town went
to blockade the rail road and only special police forces mobilised and brought by
the region administration from Tula prevented the workers from paralysing one of
the main railway in Russia. 

But the authority failed to take back the control of the town. 

The struggle is far from being over. 

For letters and telegrammes:

301030 Russia Tula region Yasnogorsk Zavodskaia str.5 The Workers Committee

tel. (7 08766) 2 01 43

(7 08766) 2 03 09

------------------------------------------------------------------------





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au  Mon Feb 22 22:30:54 1999
From: rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:30:54 +1100
Subject: M-TH: Moderator's Note
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990222184235.19573A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>
References:  <Pine.SOL.3.95.990223100657.6936B-100000@student.canberra.edu.au>
Message-ID: <l03130309b2f7e803c6eb@[137.92.41.119]>

Thanks to Kim for the salutary note.  We really do tend to waste ourselves
and each other here, I reckon.  Like some horses I know (too well), we show
just enough promise to keep the doubting punter interested, and just enough
bad habits to ensure no actual win ever transpires.  Such neddies leave
behind them only disappointed and resentful punters ...

And thanks to Andy and Chris for some genuinely useful and comradely
sentiments.

Now, to business.

Mr Casement was unsubbed yesterday but would like to resub today.  I'd like
the list's views on this (*privately*, to <carob at dynamite.com.au> please).

Either we refuse Mr Casement's application, or we allow him back on,
perhaps on a parole basis.  Bill <billc at waikato.ac.nz> has left work by
now, so let's give this 24 hours, eh?  If a clear majority view manifests
itself, we'll go with that, eh?

Cheers,
Rob.





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb 23 04:55:52 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 06:55:52 -0500
Subject: SV: SV: M-TH: dialectics of snow
Message-ID: <s6d2511c.081@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Thanks for the info , Bob. Perhaps this is the beginning !
Beginning of the end of the snow job.

Charles

>>> "Bob Malecki" <malecki at algonet.se> 02/22/99 11:53PM >>>

Charlie wrote...


>Yea, Bob, I hear they have a lot of snow in the ex-SU.
>
>Everybody's fingerprints are unique too, but "dialectically" related to everybody else's.
>
>Or what about stripes on tigers' backs ? I wonder if each is unique ? 
>
>Or long waves in economics ? A fact, but so what ? How does it help overthrow capitalism ?
>
>CB
The machine-building plant has always been the centre of life and the only way to
get their living for thousands of workers in Yasnogorsk, a town in Tula region
close to Moscow. The plant is functioning and its productions is being sold
despite of the crisis.

Nevertheless for more than 10 months the workers have not been paid. Many times
they applied to the region administration composed in the majority by CPRF
members and to the governor of Tula region, the party protege Vasily
Starodubtsev. There was no result, the authorities has always been loyal to the
bourgeoisie law and the owners of the plant. 

In the beginning of December the workers have lost patience, organised a general
meeting of the employees and elected a new plant administration. When the owners
of the plant refused to recognise the results of the meeting, the workers took
control over the plant in their hands. The workers committee was set up that now
controls the new administration, production, selling, all the finances,
distribution of wages.But all the bank accounts of the plant were blocked by the
authorities and the owners, later two members of the new administration were
arrested. 

That provoked a real social explosion in Yasnogorsk. Workers detained members of
the previous administration and forced them to sign papers recognising the
workers committee and abdicating all their rights. The committee threatened to
blockade the nearby railway unless two of the elected directors were set free. 

Local police and town administration were obliged to collaborate with the workers
committee and in some cases replaced by the organised workers. "This is a
revolution" - they believe. Almost half of the total population of the town went
to blockade the rail road and only special police forces mobilised and brought by
the region administration from Tula prevented the workers from paralysing one of
the main railway in Russia. 

But the authority failed to take back the control of the town. 

The struggle is far from being over. 

For letters and telegrammes:

301030 Russia Tula region Yasnogorsk Zavodskaia str.5 The Workers Committee

tel. (7 08766) 2 01 43

(7 08766) 2 03 09

------------------------------------------------------------------------





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb 23 05:43:41 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:43:41 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Macho playground
Message-ID: <s6d25c47.030@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:35:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Jon Katz <jonkatz at bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Luring the Lurkers

http://slashdot.org/features/98/12/28/1745252.shtml 

Luring the Lurkers
Posted by Jon Katz on Tuesday December 29, @09:39AM
from the Come-out,-Come-Out... dept.

Lurkers are one of the Net's biggest disenfranchised groups, unseen or
heard. Although there are many more Lurkers than posters by far on sites
like this, they get almost none of the attention. This distorts agendas
and skews perceptions. As newcomers come onto the Web in record numbers,
Lurking is growing -- you should see my e-mail. So are the reasons for
websites to take Lurkers more seriously and get them to come out. (CT:I
like this one a lot. In many ways it could be about my mail too. Check it
out)

Lurkers are the biggest single disenfranchised group on the Net and the
Web. Even though there are far more Lurkers than participants in most
websites that permit posting and open discussions, they are invisible,
sometimes counted but almost never seen or heard. 

E-mail from Lurkers is so jarringly different in tone and content than
public topic postings that they seems to exist in a parallel universe. In
some ways, they do. 

A recent survey by a computer consulting firm in Chicago found that 98 per
cent of the visitors to large sites with open forums - from AOL and MSN to
sites like Slashdot - never submit ideas or articles and never post
opinions or participate in arguments. 

In my own case, I get anywhere between 100 and 500 e-mails per column, and
I'd guess that 98 per cent of it comes from people who never post in
public topics - a stunning statistic in an intensely interactive medium
like this one. As a result, the agenda is often set by the smallest, not
the largest, group of Netizens, and so is the tone and style of public
discussion. Although the public discussions on Slashdot and other websites
are often raucous and hostile, e-mail from Lurkers almost never is. Lurker
e-mail can be plenty critical and challenging, but the style and tone of
people who communicate one on one is radically different from postings on
public forums, often dominated by hostile, frequently anonymous, mostly
young, overwhelmingly male messagers. For better or worse, flaming is an
adolescent geek rite of passage. It will never go away, and shouldn't.
Free sites tolerate even obnoxious speech. 

Since writing for Slashdot, I've been counting e-mail. Writing about the
difficulties of learning Linux, I got more than 1,000 posts in a single
week following two columns about how difficult the process was. The
overwhelming majority of these posts - 75 per cent - were from people
offering help, advice, experience. During that same week, somewhere
between 75 and 100 public posts criticized my writing - length, style and
content - suggested I shouldn't be here or should be run off. The
difference was jarring. 

Many of the Lurkers writing me were people who believed I was under
continuous and vicious assault because they read the public postings
beneath my columns. When I wrote back to say that the response to my
writing on Slashdot was overwhelmingly, and from the first, appreciative
and generous, and that reading e-mail here was a treat because it was both
nice and smart, many people are incredulous. 

"I am amazed to hear that you're not continuously under fire," wrote
James, a Dayton, Ohio school teacher and father of two who is trying to
prepare a class on the politics of OSS but who is uncomfortable about
posting after reading some of the uglier flames. "I would have told my
class that they were lynching you there." 

The point isn't that my writing is or isn't popular, but that perception
is so easily skewed and distorted. Most of the people reading, visiting,
coming onto the site are never heard from, while a handful of people who
post are seen as presenting a dominant voice that is often quite marginal,
if equally valid. 

Perhaps the most common introduction to e-mail messages that people ike me
receive, usually in these exact words is: "I don't always agree with you,
and I never post comments publicly?" I see this so often I sometimes think
it's a heading. Of course, online columnists, writers and posters don't
write for agreement. If everybody agreed with me, nobody would have any
reason at all to read me. Online, columnists are conversation-starters,
not finishers. They don't need to be right, or even to be convinced that
they are, just to believe they are correct at the moment they write, and
willing to change their minds if the feedback warrants. 

The schism between people who post and those who don't is a significant
issue for public websites for all sorts of reasons, ranging from the
commercial to free speech. 

Obviously people who lurk are less likely to register, join or support
sites. If they're not comfortable enough to join in collective
discussions, why would they stick around and learn the complexities of
Linux? 

This enormous disparity between huge numbers of Lurkers and small numbers
of public posters skews agendas, distorts arguments, and, worst of all,
drives away countless potential contributors. So many Lurkers say in
e-mail that they are uncomfortable with the tone and hostility of public
forums (this was true on Hotwired from the first) that it increasingly
becomes a free speech issue. If government or corporations drove away or
silenced as many people as flamers do, Net Libertarians would be rushing
to the barricades. 

In a culture whose most shared common ideology is the free movement of
ideas and information, who exactly fights for or protects the increasingly
large numbers of people who are afraid to speak at all? 

"I am afraid to post because the incredible arrogance and hostility among
some people on sites like this," Julia e-mailed me two weeks ago. "I'd
like to learn Linux, but I don't get the feeling that these people would
help me. They would just make me feel stupid." When I told her that I'd
received literally hundreds of offers of help from members of Slashdot,
including a dozen who invited me to their homes or volunteered to come to
mine, she didn't believe me. 

Lurkers are often either technologically advanced - "I'm a Webmaster in
Austin," wrote Jim, who disagreed with a column I wrote about digital
democracy, "and I'm sorry to add to your e-mail, but I just don't have
time to trade insults with teenagers," or technologically challenged - "I
would never dream of posting this message on Slashdot," "messaged Ann, a
Web designer in New York City. "I might say something wrong..." 

Newcomers to the Net often e-mail, just to see if anybody's really on the
other end, but they wouldn't dream of posting because they feel they don't
understand the language or rituals here. Foreigners are reluctant to post
publicly, because they don't feel confident enough about their command of
English to argue issues. Many women and elderly people often browse sites
like this but frequently write that they find much of the content
interesting, but have never posted publicly because they don't go online
to argue. 

Online, Lurkers are a culture all their own. They can cruise from site to
site in peaceful anonymity, picking up perspective, information and
insight, even though they rarely seem to light permanently. 

E-mail from Lurkers is useful and entertaining. It includes personal
experience, books and articles read, jokes and recommendations to browse
other sites they've lurked. One lurker even guided me a Lurkers anonymous
list (he made me promise to keep it a secret) where 200 Lurkers on ICQ
chat gather nightly to talk about the sites they've lurked, and the
information they've picked up. One of their favorite topics is the verbal
violence of online discussions. It's impossible to generalize about
Lurkers, but in the past five years writing for several different
websites, I've asked many of them what it would take to get them to come
out, stay on a site and publicly post their messages - the lurker posts
about digital democracy in the past few weeks were astonishing, and
included teachers, academics, voters, public policy geeks, political aides
and journalists, most of whom were uncomfortable posting in the open
message areas. But their discomfort with public posting is a loss. Their
messages shouldn't be stuck in my e-mail queue, but posted publicly so
everybody could have read them, talked about them, even argued about them. 

About a third of the Lurkers say they just prefer Lurking, that it gives
them the best of the Web, which is access to thousands of interesting
sites, while by-passing the worst, personal insults and abuse, and what
one Web designer called "the raging head-butting of the clueless against
the self-righteous. I'll post online when people can disagree without
name-calling. Probably not in this life." 

One software developer e-mailed last week that "I see that there are many
intelligent comments posted on sites like Slashdot, and I feel for the
people trying to have rational discussions. But where else in the world
would you go out of your way to have anonymous people call you offensive
names in public?" 

Of the Lurkers who say they would love to post messages on public topics
and sites, they almost all say it would take several things to get them to
feel comfortable: no anonymous postings, moderated discussions, a ban on
personal insults. "People should take responsibility for their words by
putting their name on them," e-mailed Richard H, a graphic designer in
Toronto. "If they won't do that, why should I listen to them?" 

But efforts to sanitize public discussion areas are complex. Flaming has a
tradition and value all it's own. It's a great leveler. Flamers often make
thoughtful points even when they don't mean to. They helps prevent a few
single voices from dominating sites and discussions as they do in
mainstream journalism. If nothing else, public roasting keeps the writer's
ego under control. And makes it clear that there are lots of different
points of view. If flaming shouldn't be taken too seriously, it shouldn't
be dismissed as pointless either. 

One of the best things about the Web, as many Lurkers point out, is, in
fact, one of the worst - a tolerance for open discussion that makes the
Internet the freest culture in the world. For me, this is a fair
trade-off. 

But that doesn't mean Lurkers can't be lured out. 

My own vote? Sites like Slashdot should offer special welcome areas for
Lurkers, newcomers and newbies, not to mention immigrants, the elderly,
the technically challenged or the shy. I can testify from personal
experience that there are hundreds of people on this site who would be
happy to help if they were asked, and would warmly greet newcomers. 

Established sites like the Well have long provided moderated areas where
people can identify themselves, be welcomed, and ask questions about the
site, and the different topics and discussion areas. There is no debate or
arguments on welcome sites, simply the chance for people to say who they
are, why they're here, and what they are interested in, and for the site -
usually volunteers -- to help guide them. 

The ideal world for truly interactive websites would be for the flamers
and head-butters to have at it freely and without restriction, but for the
growing numbers of online Lurkers to participate. It's hard to see who
would lose in an environment like that. 

For Open Source Software sites like this one, this is even more important,
since it is in the interest of OSS and free software advocates to spread
the message as well as the software that there is a booming new
alternative to the greedy and increasingly censorious companies -
Microsoft, Disney, AOL - that are seeking to dominate the commercial and
cultural life of the Internet. Sooner or later, the Lurkers will light.
When they do, it ought to be here, and on places like this, and not on
Disney's Go.com. 

You can e-mail me at jonkatz at bellatlantic.net 

_________


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb 23 05:54:11 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:54:11 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Dialectics of water
Message-ID: <s6d25ec5.033@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Yes, I agree with you. Nobody, including Engels, is treating his categories like eternal, idealist categories. That was a canard and a red herring thrown in in the heat of argument. Engels may be THE main one in history who warns against eternal, idealist categories, as Marx didn't write a lot directly on philosophy for publishing. Ironically, the originator of the public critique of eternal, idealist categories gets accused of it in using categories that debunk eternal, idealist categories. "Dialectical" is the exact opposite of "eternal". "Materialist" is the exact opposite of "idealist". Engels is the quintessential anti- eternal idealist. It would be a true absurdity to use Engels' categories as eternal and idealist.

Nothing is absolutely true, except this statement. That's dialectics.

As they say Engels' favorite expression was, take it easy,

Charles

>>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 02/22/99 06:44PM >>>
At 16:01 22/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm still with you on this , Chris, though I haven't written much on it
lately. I admire your workperson like approach. 
>
>Charles Brown


Thanks, but there is a catch. As with the law of value, any defence of a
fundamental feature of the marxist approach has to concede that it is not a
panacea. It does not produce ready made answers that will automatically
lead to revolution if everyone faithfully follows them, for the next 7 1/2
years, or  even 17 1/2 years.  

These are higher order levels of analysis, of general significance. Only if
reapplied more consistently over many years will they maximise the
opportunities for fundamental revolutionary change.

But they can and should be salvaged from the setbacks of hitherto existing
socialism. 

As for the objections of the "other side", put at their best, I think some
of them are at least understandable and others I think we should agree
with, like not being dogmatic, and not treating Engels's distinctions
themselves as eternal idealist categories. 

Chris Burford

London





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb 23 07:39:49 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:39:49 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Marxists gain in Greenland
Message-ID: <s6d2778c.050@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Bob,

What's the word on this ?

Charles

________________--



Who said Marxism is dead?

>Greenland PM Allies With Marxists
>
>Monday, February 22, 1999; 4:20 p.m. EST
>
>COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) -- Greenland's home-rule
>government shifted leftward Monday when the social-democrat
>premier formed a new governing alliance with a Marxist party.
>
>The move came five days after elections on the world's largest
>island, a Danish territory that has had substantial autonomy for
>the last 20 years.
>
>Under the new coalition, Jonathan Motzfeldt of the Siumut party
>remains as prime minister. But Siumut's old coalition partner, the
>liberal Atassut, was replaced by the Inuit Ataqatigiit party.
>
>Although Inuit Ataqatigiit is strongly independence-minded,
>Siumut has refused to discuss full separation from Denmark and
>the policy is not expected to change in the new coalition.
>
>However, the new government plans to form a committee
>examining Greenland's relationship to Denmark and to ensure
>what Inuit Ataqatigiit leader Josef Motzfeldt called ``Greenland's
>equal and free position in the union with Denmark.''
>
>Josef Motzfeldt will be minister for economy, tax and trade in the
>new government.
>
>Greenland's 55,000 people rely heavily on subsidies from the
>Danish government amounting to about 60 percent of the island's
>revenue.
>
>Other points on the new government's agenda include
>improvement of housing and hospitals. Greenland has an acute
>shortage of doctors and nurses.
>
>Since 1979, the Danish government has controlled Greenland's
>defense, foreign policy and law-enforcement, while the home-rule
>government handles most other matters.



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Tue Feb 23 09:56:59 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:56:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: The Eternal Relation of Human Beings to Nature
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990223104529.5098A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

List,

As we know, Marx argues that features of society may be treated
dialectically. Those feature that are dialectical are described as the
historical movement in which a mode of production emerges from the context
of an established mode of production and overtakes the latter,
transforming society and subsuming under its special character past
societal development.

History has always demonstrated this character, a larger succession of
socioeconomic epochs, each with its own special laws of development based
on the central dynamic that characterizes it, found in the particular way
production is organized. These successions are not the unfolding of
history towards a predetermined end, rather each epoch replaces the former
epoch and the form of history, or trans-history, if you will, takes shapes
as we gaze back across time. Wallerstein's famous statement, "We cannot
predict the future but we can predict the past," seems to sum this up
pretty well. We can, of course, predict, in part, the development of a
given socioeconomic epoch when we know the special laws of its
development. And we may sometimes even see the outlines of the form or
forms that may supersede the present system. But even with this knowledge,
emergent and contingent though it may be, we have no way of knowing in
advance what will in turn emerge from the socieconomic epoch that
supersede the present one. Such is the particularity of historical
systems. 

>From this theory of history it follows by logic that nothing social ever
remains eternal. History is the story of change. And, indeed, this
changing character is a feature of the dialectic as described above, the
emergence and succession of historical systems. This is all well
understood by Marxists, I believe. I would even argue that it is a core
proposition of the Marxist "worldview." Speaking for myself, I regard this
theory, along with the expose of the logic of exploitation under
capitalism, as Marx's greatest accomplishments. 

To summarize Marx, the dialectical theory of historical change holds that
there is no eternal law of historical development, i.e., a suprahistorical
law, that operates above society, but rather there is only special laws of
development, each internal and appropriate to the particular historical
system.

Now, this changing nature of society and history is contrasted by Marx
with nature, which, while also changes, has eternal properties and
relations that do not. Marx makes note of one eternal, unchanging relation
of not trivial relevance for human existence. In Capital, Marx writes that
"So far therefore as labour is a creator of use-value, is useful labour,
it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the
existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity,
without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature,
and therefore no life." Of course, how a human society goes about meeting
this eternal requirement is historical; but the relation itself is
completely transhistorical, i.e., it crosses historical systems without
exceptions. This interchange is the common thread what links all
historical systems together, what makes the human condition in part
transcendent of history, and which makes it immediately apparent that we
are natural animals, since this is requirement must be met by all living
things. It is a very important caveat, indeed, that the requirement can
only be met by humans in society, but it remains the case that this
objective relation transcends history, and that an eternal relation make
history possible. 

This passages raises an interesting question, I think: If what is
dialectical is that which is always changing, and this we see in the
succession of historical/socioeconomic systems, each with their own
special laws of development, then the relation which does not change,
namely, the eternal requirement that human beings must produce use-values
for history to even be possible, while not standing outside history,
nevertheless stands independent of history and the dialectic and is
therefore not dialectical.

In my view, this directly contradicts two arguments made on this list
recently. First, that everything is dialectical, defined by some of my
comrades as, and this is a curious, really paradoxical choice of words,
"eternal change"--this becomes what appears to be a false statement. At
least where Marx is concerned. Marx states, a clear as an azure sky, that
the necessary relationship between human beings and the natural
environment is eternal and unchanging. It must therefore be, by
definition, not dialectical. 

Second, the claim that nature is dialectical is also made immediately
problematic by Marx's statement. Human beings are, besides being social
being, natural beings, and as such our natural relation to the environment
is eternal. The changing character of history, reckoned to be dialectical,
is contrasted to the unchanging natural character of human being, which is
the natural requirement for continued physical existence. This natural
relation carries such force that it becomes the impetus to production and
the precondition for history. Indeed, throughout Marx's writings he
contrasts history with nature. He criticizes those who would impose upon
historical movement the notion of natural law, and he does so precisely
because historical development, unlike natural or physical laws, cannot be
generalized ontologically, is not universal, but is (ontologically)
specific and particular. And in this passage by Marx it is just as clear
that one cannot historicize the natural relation of human beings to nature
sufficient to make nature also dialectical, since this denies the eternal
character of the relation. 

It seems the argument against Marx's use of dialectics is in some trouble
if instead of refuting Marx it tries to instead claim Marx believed
something otherwise than he did. If one supposes that Marx believes that
all of reality can be subsumed under a general set of laws of the
dialectic, and by dialectic we use Marx's formulation, then one directly
contradicts Marx's argument, which makes a firm distinction between the
historical and the natural, both of which operate under different
principles; one the one hand, we have the physical universe which operates
under universal laws, e.g., Marx's favorite example, gravity; one the
other hand, we have historical systems, each of which operates according
to their own internal laws of development based upon the particular
organization of production.

At the very least, those one the other side must seriously address this
contradiction in their argument. Marx is not infallible. But if someone
claim that Marx believed X, and X is contradicted by his most mature work,
then it doesn't matter whether Marx was write or wrong but whether the
person making the claim about Marx is correct in comparison with what Marx
actually wrote. 

One last note. All this has less of a consequence for those who take a
more skeptical position with respect to dialectical development outside of
human society. Since Marx names at least one non-dialectical feature of
both nature and history, or more accurately, he identifies the
relationship between history and nature as having a non-dialectical
element (the most crucial one, no less), this does not rule out that the
logical structure of the dialectic might not be applied to explaining
other phenomena. But all of this does have a serious consequence for those
that argue that all reality is dialectical and that, paradoxically, the
only unchanging thing is change. No, in fact we have Marx discussing an
actual unchanging thing that is not dialectical. 

Can the dialectic, the one unchanging thing, account for another
unchanging thing that is not itself? And how can it then claim its
universality if there is at least one exception besides itself? Putting
this another way, if, according to some religions, there is only one god,
and there can only be one god, is it possible that this god can account
for another god? And if two gods in fact be present, what does this say
about the validity of the religion? 

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Tue Feb 23 10:33:29 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:33:29 +0100
Subject: SV: SV: SV: M-TH: dialectics of snow
Message-ID: <008801be5f52$a0cd03e0$e7e3a3c3@malecki>





>Thanks for the info , Bob. Perhaps this is the beginning !
>Beginning of the end of the snow job.
>
>Charles


Yeah Charlie,

But its not. Unfortunely the reports coming from russia are very bad.. Gotta a very long two part one if the list is interested. Will probably be putting it up on my Russian page... But it ain't bright.

Bob




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Tue Feb 23 10:33:36 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:33:36 +0100
Subject: SV: M-TH: Marxists gain in Greenland
Message-ID: <009201be5f52$a5161f40$e7e3a3c3@malecki>


Charlie writes...


>Bob,
>
>What's the word on this ?
>
>Charles
>
>________________--
>
Will check it out. But I think that it is a version of what we have up here in the north in the Sami Indian lands. They to have thier *own* parliment were they can decide the color of the curtains while the Swedes decide everything else. The Sami "leftists" usually adapt their politics to the Euro Communists here..

Bob


>
>Who said Marxism is dead?
>
>>Greenland PM Allies With Marxists
>>
>>Monday, February 22, 1999; 4:20 p.m. EST
>>
>>COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) -- Greenland's home-rule
>>government shifted leftward Monday when the social-democrat
>>premier formed a new governing alliance with a Marxist party.
>>
>>The move came five days after elections on the world's largest
>>island, a Danish territory that has had substantial autonomy for
>>the last 20 years.
>>
>>Under the new coalition, Jonathan Motzfeldt of the Siumut party
>>remains as prime minister. But Siumut's old coalition partner, the
>>liberal Atassut, was replaced by the Inuit Ataqatigiit party.
>>
>>Although Inuit Ataqatigiit is strongly independence-minded,
>>Siumut has refused to discuss full separation from Denmark and
>>the policy is not expected to change in the new coalition.
>>
>>However, the new government plans to form a committee
>>examining Greenland's relationship to Denmark and to ensure
>>what Inuit Ataqatigiit leader Josef Motzfeldt called ``Greenland's
>>equal and free position in the union with Denmark.''
>>
>>Josef Motzfeldt will be minister for economy, tax and trade in the
>>new government.
>>
>>Greenland's 55,000 people rely heavily on subsidies from the
>>Danish government amounting to about 60 percent of the island's
>>revenue.
>>
>>Other points on the new government's agenda include
>>improvement of housing and hospitals. Greenland has an acute
>>shortage of doctors and nurses.
>>
>>Since 1979, the Danish government has controlled Greenland's
>>defense, foreign policy and law-enforcement, while the home-rule
>>government handles most other matters.
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From Estevm at aol.com  Tue Feb 23 11:00:51 1999
From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:00:51 EST
Subject: M-TH: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <142df767.36d2ecd3@aol.com>

In a message dated 23/02/99 12:57:15 GMT, Charles writes:

<< Yes, I agree with you. Nobody, including Engels, is treating his categories
like eternal, idealist categories. That was a canard and a red herring thrown
in in the heat of argument. Engels may be THE main one in history who warns
against eternal, idealist categories, as Marx didn't write a lot directly on
philosophy for publishing. Ironically, the originator of the public critique
of eternal, idealist categories gets accused of it in using categories that
debunk eternal, idealist categories. "Dialectical" is the exact opposite of
"eternal". "Materialist" is the exact opposite of "idealist". Engels is the
quintessential anti- eternal idealist. It would be a true absurdity to use
Engels' categories as eternal and idealist.
 
 Nothing is absolutely true, except this statement. That's dialectics. >>



A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the dialectic
eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation on
this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this? 

Andy has already lost his head, referring to "the dialectic, the one
unchanging thing" (23/02). Along with not understanding dialectics in nature,
he now gives everlasting life to the dialectic itself?

Regards, Steve.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb 23 11:21:25 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:21:25 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <s6d2ab68.097@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Hello Steve,

I don't know if I am following your question, but to me "dialectic" is sort of equivalent to "non-eternal". So, to say dialectic is eternal is saying "the non-eternal is eternal". Another way of saying it is "everything changes. nothing stays the same forever."  "The" dialectic is eternal change. If there was anything that never changed, it would be god. So, I interpret the universality of dialectic as an atheist principle.

So do I lose my head ?

Charles

>>> <Estevm at aol.com> 02/23/99 01:00PM >>>

A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the dialectic
eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation on
this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this? 

Andy has already lost his head, referring to "the dialectic, the one
unchanging thing" (23/02). Along with not understanding dialectics in nature,
he now gives everlasting life to the dialectic itself?

Regards, Steve.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Tue Feb 23 11:56:35 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:56:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: The dialectic is not eternal.
In-Reply-To: <142df767.36d2ecd3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990223135458.4959A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 Estevm at aol.com wrote:

>Andy has already lost his head, referring to "the dialectic, the one
>unchanging thing" (23/02). Along with not understanding dialectics in nature,
>he now gives everlasting life to the dialectic itself?

Sorry, Steve, but I don't believe the dialectic is eternal. I was
repeating the argument made by Charles Brown, who says that this is Engels
and Lenin's argument. I believe that the position is theological and
directly contradicted by Marx's writings.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From Estevm at aol.com  Tue Feb 23 12:00:59 1999
From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:00:59 EST
Subject: Fwd: M-TH: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <621c5bf.36d2faeb@aol.com>

In a message dated 23/02/99 18:33:49 GMT,  CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
writes:

<< Hello Steve,
 
 I don't know if I am following your question, but to me "dialectic" is sort
of equivalent to "non-eternal". So, to say dialectic is eternal is saying "the
non-eternal is eternal". Another way of saying it is "everything changes.
nothing stays the same forever."  "The" dialectic is eternal change. If there
was anything that never changed, it would be god. So, I interpret the
universality of dialectic as an atheist principle. So do I lose my head ?
 
 Charles


Hiya,
         Fraid so Charles. But as I am judge and jury on this one, and as you
are defending the dialectic in nature and as a practical question of class
struggle too, I will be lenient, and try turn you (gently) from your head onto
your feet on this second matter. But not just today I'm busy designing and
setting some strikers bulletins. Now, let us now see who else dare put their
head on the block.
Steve.
 
 >>> <Estevm at aol.com> 02/23/99 01:00PM >>>
 
 A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the
dialectic
 eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation on
 this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this? 
 
 Andy has already lost his head, referring to "the dialectic, the one
 unchanging thing" (23/02). Along with not understanding dialectics in nature,
 he now gives everlasting life to the dialectic itself?
 
 Regards, Steve. >>



-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: The dialectic is not eternal.
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:21:25 -0500
Size: 2592
URL: <http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990223/b6ecd075/attachment.mht>

From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Tue Feb 23 12:34:08 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:34:08 -0500
Subject: Fwd: M-TH: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <s6d2bc6f.039@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Steve, 

I support the Reign of Terror, but I am part of the self-acting armed organization of the population, so it ain't that easy to catch me.

CB

>>> <Estevm at aol.com> 02/23/99 02:00PM >>>
In a message dated 23/02/99 18:33:49 GMT,  CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us 
writes:

<< Hello Steve,
 
 I don't know if I am following your question, but to me "dialectic" is sort
of equivalent to "non-eternal". So, to say dialectic is eternal is saying "the
non-eternal is eternal". Another way of saying it is "everything changes.
nothing stays the same forever."  "The" dialectic is eternal change. If there
was anything that never changed, it would be god. So, I interpret the
universality of dialectic as an atheist principle. So do I lose my head ?
 
 Charles


Hiya,
         Fraid so Charles. But as I am judge and jury on this one, and as you
are defending the dialectic in nature and as a practical question of class
struggle too, I will be lenient, and try turn you (gently) from your head onto
your feet on this second matter. But not just today I'm busy designing and
setting some strikers bulletins. Now, let us now see who else dare put their
head on the block.
Steve.
 
 >>> <Estevm at aol.com> 02/23/99 01:00PM >>>
 
 A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the
dialectic
 eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation on
 this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this? 
 
 Andy has already lost his head, referring to "the dialectic, the one
 unchanging thing" (23/02). Along with not understanding dialectics in nature,
 he now gives everlasting life to the dialectic itself?
 
 Regards, Steve. >>






     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Tue Feb 23 17:01:11 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:01:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: The dialectic is not eternal.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990223135458.4959A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990223185139.6510A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:

>Sorry, Steve, but I don't believe the dialectic is eternal. I was
>repeating the argument made by Charles Brown, who says that this is Engels
>and Lenin's argument. I believe that the position is theological and
>directly contradicted by Marx's writings.

I should make two further points: (1) The Marxian dialectic is a
theoretical and methodological framework that describes and explains
certain feature of sociohistorical development. This is specifically what
Marx argued. (2) I do not rule out that other developmental processes may
be described and explained using the logic of the Marxian dialectic. I
just want to hear the arguments first and see how well they describe and
explain what they purport to describe and explain. 

In sum, I take a scientific attitude towards the dialectic, and this means
that I (a) do not a priori extend the concept to the natural world, (b)
recognize that there is little if any a posteriori evidence of a dialectic
in operation in the natural world, and (c) dismiss dialectical materialism
as theology, which includes rejecting both Engels and Lenin's
epistemological and ontological stances but not their practical work,
which I admire. 

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au  Wed Feb 24 00:22:56 1999
From: rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:22:56 +1100
Subject: M-TH: Moderator's Note
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990223185139.6510A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990223135458.4959A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <l03130306b2f9586f5a82@[137.92.41.119]>

G'day Thaxists,

Mr Casement has been informed that his application has been voted down.  He
has consequently not been added to the list.

Cheers,
Rob.




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From carob at dynamite.com.au  Wed Feb 24 06:18:01 1999
From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:18:01 +1100
Subject: M-TH: Re: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <199902241312.AAA17829@mail.dynamite.com.au>

G'day Steve,

An interesting question, comrade - and one that might just be a very
important one, too:

>A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the
dialectic
>eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation on
>this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this? 

If pushed, I'd try to argue Engels and Lenin did hold this position.  I
can't launch the kind of considered and quote-supported argument the
question deserves, but I do reckon it'd be impossible for Andy (or me) to
make a coherent case for 'the eternal dialectic' (which is why Andy didn't
try to make one).  

I've stood by a necessarily humanistic conception of historical materialism
(ie. that it is the contradictory unity of social consciousness and social
being we're actually talking about when we speak of the 'dialectic',
therefore of 'historical materialism', therefore of the 'materialist
conception of history' - the view we can trace through the young Lukacs,
Jakubowski, and Fromm) so the dialectic has an objective beginning and end
to the extent humanity can be said to have an objective beginning and end.  

I think it's worth going the extra yard, and maintaining that where humanity
persists, so does the dialectic.  We'd be expecting too many things to come
to a stop if we expected anything else.  Would our physical environment not
change?  Would it become impossible to think and express anything that had
never before been articulated in that precise way?  Would our forces of
production become inertly stable?  Would our relations become a sea of inert
placidity?  

We're not noble gases, comrades.

So my conclusion - my grand metaphysical arrogance for the day - is this: 
show me humanity, any humanity, past, present and future - and I'll show you
the dialectic.  

Communism must, I think, be taken as a history-to-be, not as an end to
history.  Marx and Lukacs go so far as to say history doesn't really start
until we grab it by the short and curlies.  I reckon the beast on the other
end of those short and curlies still has a few surprises in store for the
more sanguine Utopians among us.  

That's only dialectical, innit?

Cheers,
Rob.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb 24 06:35:09 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:35:09 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Re: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <s6d3b9c8.043@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Rob, Andy and Steve,

Of course, by Rob and Andy's definition of "dialectic" (limiting it to human society), dialectic is not infinite. The human species has not always existed, and unless we get to another solar system, the human species will become extinct when the sun burns out ( if not before from nuclear war or a meteror shower).

But that's not the Marx/Engels/Lenin version of dialectic. For them, dialectic is not limited to human society.
 
Dialectic is the motion of matter in motion.

Charles Brown

>>> Rob Schaap <carob at dynamite.com.au> 02/24/99 08:18AM >>>
G'day Steve,

An interesting question, comrade - and one that might just be a very
important one, too:

>A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the
dialectic
>eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation on
>this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this? 

If pushed, I'd try to argue Engels and Lenin did hold this position.  I
can't launch the kind of considered and quote-supported argument the
question deserves, but I do reckon it'd be impossible for Andy (or me) to
make a coherent case for 'the eternal dialectic' (which is why Andy didn't
try to make one).  

I've stood by a necessarily humanistic conception of historical materialism
(ie. that it is the contradictory unity of social consciousness and social
being we're actually talking about when we speak of the 'dialectic',
therefore of 'historical materialism', therefore of the 'materialist
conception of history' - the view we can trace through the young Lukacs,
Jakubowski, and Fromm) so the dialectic has an objective beginning and end
to the extent humanity can be said to have an objective beginning and end.  

I think it's worth going the extra yard, and maintaining that where humanity
persists, so does the dialectic.  We'd be expecting too many things to come
to a stop if we expected anything else.  Would our physical environment not
change?  Would it become impossible to think and express anything that had
never before been articulated in that precise way?  Would our forces of
production become inertly stable?  Would our relations become a sea of inert
placidity?  

We're not noble gases, comrades.

So my conclusion - my grand metaphysical arrogance for the day - is this: 
show me humanity, any humanity, past, present and future - and I'll show you
the dialectic.  

Communism must, I think, be taken as a history-to-be, not as an end to
history.  Marx and Lukacs go so far as to say history doesn't really start
until we grab it by the short and curlies.  I reckon the beast on the other
end of those short and curlies still has a few surprises in store for the
more sanguine Utopians among us.  

That's only dialectical, innit?

Cheers,
Rob.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb 24 08:01:21 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:01:21 -0500
Subject: M-TH: In dialectic revolution is absolute; conservatism is
	relative
Message-ID: <s6d3ce0a.093@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

This seems a  handy post from Andy. It succinctly summarizes and suggests the differences on this quasi-eternal thread. 

Give me anytime the side of the argument that Lenin and Engels are not "theological". Oh please don't throw me into that briar patch :>). One wonders how Lenin and Engels stumbled into such admirable practical work, when they had such a defective fundamental theory, "theological illusions" and all that.

Of course, Marx's writing is saturated with evidence that he thought there is plenty of evidence of dialectic operating in natural history, and that his a posteriori presumption in investigating natural history was to use the dialectical method. Chris Burford has adduced a good amount of that evidence to the list. And even more, Marx used natural historical dialectics he discovered as heuristics in elucidating historical materialist dialectics.

The other part is that upon examining the enormous volume of evidence of Marx and Engels intellectual collaboraton,the notion that Marx and Engels disagreed on these philosophical fundamentals is really very funny. This actually amounts to a 
mystification of Marx's life and knowledge, which is one step down a road of none other than a "theology" of Marxism. What is this mysterious, almost unknowable "dialectic" that even Engels couldn't really understand despite intense personal "tutoring" by Marx ?  Why, in thousands of pages of writing, not one word from Marx about this phantom split with Engels ? This is a whodunnit suggesting the supernatural. This aspect of Andy's argument reminds of the Skoobie Doo kids cartoon show, where they are always uncovering fake ghosts.

Of course, we've already had this argument, so, those who want to take it up might want to argue with the archives.

Charles Brown

>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 02/23/99 07:01PM >>>
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:

>Sorry, Steve, but I don't believe the dialectic is eternal. I was
>repeating the argument made by Charles Brown, who says that this is Engels
>and Lenin's argument. I believe that the position is theological and
>directly contradicted by Marx's writings.

I should make two further points: (1) The Marxian dialectic is a
theoretical and methodological framework that describes and explains
certain feature of sociohistorical development. This is specifically what
Marx argued. (2) I do not rule out that other developmental processes may
be described and explained using the logic of the Marxian dialectic. I
just want to hear the arguments first and see how well they describe and
explain what they purport to describe and explain. 

In sum, I take a scientific attitude towards the dialectic, and this means
that I (a) do not a priori extend the concept to the natural world, (b)
recognize that there is little if any a posteriori evidence of a dialectic
in operation in the natural world, and (c) dismiss dialectical materialism
as theology, which includes rejecting both Engels and Lenin's
epistemological and ontological stances but not their practical work,
which I admire. 

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb 24 08:13:32 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:13:32 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
Message-ID: <s6d3d0de.021@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

I agree with the "better to know what they are up to" approach. I have a standing hypothesis that ever since 1917 the smartest bourgeoisie have been studying Marx vigorously to learn how to counter revolution. In fact, as of now, the bourgeoisie and their think tanks may know more about Marx than the Marxists of the world. The bourgeoisie are doing _Capital_ in reverse. This makes Capital an objectively self-reflecting Subject. 

Charles Brown

>>> Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YorkU.CA> 02/24/99 08:16AM >>>
Harry M. Cleaver asks with regard to:
Subject: Re: Critical Theory and Organizational Change
> Is this the flat out effort at co-optation it appears to be? Will
> there be a future issue on "What Managers can Learn from Karl Marx
> about controling the working class"? Harry

Better to know what they are up to than not to know. As for how they will
use it, have to wait for the CNN coverage for the official global view
:-}.

Sam Lanfranco, ListMgt Labor-L "All the Truth that Fits.."



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From carob at dynamite.com.au  Wed Feb 24 08:32:20 1999
From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:32:20 +1100
Subject: M-TH: Re: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <199902241527.CAA28365@mail.dynamite.com.au>

C'mon Chas!

Gratuitous repetition like this is of no possible use to us.  We've known
for many weeks that you hold this position.  Following the contending
positions we have to where they lead is a way of teasing out their
respective implications.  That's what I thought Steve's interesting question
might be headed, and it was to that end I chucked in my little effort.

And anyway, I don't hold that the dialectic is limited to human society -
not in the narrow sense here implicit.  Just that human society is the
logically essential core of it.  Nothing with which we engage is outside the
province of the dialectic.  Mere apprehension is such an engagement.  I do
not exclude nature, I just don't start from there (as I think Lenin did).  

We still differ though, as I have long been of the impression that where
humanity is not complicit (as we were not for most of our planet's career so
far), we can not speak usefully of the dialectic.  Here, perhaps, I go even
further than Andy in irritating you.  But at least I'm not irritating you by
way of dogmatic repetitious assertions where even the opportunity to proffer
new evidence/argument is spurned.

A bit blunt, perhaps, but it had to come out.  

Nuff said this end.
Rob.


----------
> From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
> To: <marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu> 
> Subject: M-TH: Re: The dialectic is not eternal.
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:35:09 -0500 
> 
>Rob, Andy and Steve,
>
>Of course, by Rob and Andy's definition of "dialectic" (limiting it to
human society), dialectic is not infinite. The human species has not always
existed, and unless we get to another solar system, the human species will
become extinct when the sun burns out ( if not before from nuclear war or a
meteror shower).
>
>But that's not the Marx/Engels/Lenin version of dialectic. For them,
dialectic is not limited to human society.
> 
>Dialectic is the motion of matter in motion.
>
>Charles Brown
>
>>>> Rob Schaap <carob at dynamite.com.au> 02/24/99 08:18AM >>>
>G'day Steve,
>
>An interesting question, comrade - and one that might just be a very
>important one, too:
>
>>A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the
>dialectic
>>eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation
on
>>this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this?

>
>If pushed, I'd try to argue Engels and Lenin did hold this position.  I
>can't launch the kind of considered and quote-supported argument the
>question deserves, but I do reckon it'd be impossible for Andy (or me) to
>make a coherent case for 'the eternal dialectic' (which is why Andy didn't
>try to make one).  
>
>I've stood by a necessarily humanistic conception of historical materialism
>(ie. that it is the contradictory unity of social consciousness and social
>being we're actually talking about when we speak of the 'dialectic',
>therefore of 'historical materialism', therefore of the 'materialist
>conception of history' - the view we can trace through the young Lukacs,
>Jakubowski, and Fromm) so the dialectic has an objective beginning and end
>to the extent humanity can be said to have an objective beginning and end. 

>
>I think it's worth going the extra yard, and maintaining that where
humanity
>persists, so does the dialectic.  We'd be expecting too many things to come
>to a stop if we expected anything else.  Would our physical environment not
>change?  Would it become impossible to think and express anything that had
>never before been articulated in that precise way?  Would our forces of
>production become inertly stable?  Would our relations become a sea of
inert
>placidity?  
>
>We're not noble gases, comrades.
>
>So my conclusion - my grand metaphysical arrogance for the day - is this: 
>show me humanity, any humanity, past, present and future - and I'll show
you
>the dialectic.  
>
>Communism must, I think, be taken as a history-to-be, not as an end to
>history.  Marx and Lukacs go so far as to say history doesn't really start
>until we grab it by the short and curlies.  I reckon the beast on the other
>end of those short and curlies still has a few surprises in store for the
>more sanguine Utopians among us.  
>
>That's only dialectical, innit?
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb 24 09:12:17 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:12:17 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Re: The dialectic is not eternal.
Message-ID: <s6d3deac.048@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>



>>> Rob Schaap <carob at dynamite.com.au> 02/24/99 10:32AM >>>
C'mon Chas!

Gratuitous repetition like this is of no possible use to us.  We've known
for many weeks that you hold this position.  Following the contending
positions we have to where they lead is a way of teasing out their
respective implications.  That's what I thought Steve's interesting question
might be headed, and it was to that end I chucked in my little effort.
_______

Charles: What you are saying sounds repetitious to me too, Rob. I don't see any new thoughts in what you are saying. 
____--------

And anyway, I don't hold that the dialectic is limited to human society -
not in the narrow sense here implicit.  Just that human society is the
logically essential core of it.  Nothing with which we engage is outside the
province of the dialectic.  Mere apprehension is such an engagement.  I do
not exclude nature, I just don't start from there (as I think Lenin did).  
_________

Charles: Nothing new in that statement Rob. I can find a post from you saying the same thing from weeks ago. And Wow, Rob disagrees with Lenin. So what else is new ?
___________



We still differ though, as I have long been of the impression that where
humanity is not complicit (as we were not for most of our planet's career so
far), we can not speak usefully of the dialectic.  Here, perhaps, I go even
further than Andy in irritating you.  But at least I'm not irritating you by
way of dogmatic repetitious assertions where even the opportunity to proffer
new evidence/argument is spurned.
________

Charles: This doesn't irritate me. It's helpful because I'm pretty sure that there are lots of Marxists especially in academe who make the exact same distinctions that you and Andy are. I'm now prepared to critique them all much faster.

You don't  irritate me, but you are making dogmatic repetitious assertions and not proffering any new evidence/arguments.
___________
A bit blunt, perhaps, but it had to come out.  

Nuff said this end.
____________

Charles: Hey, I'm the most ruthless , blunt person I know on these lists. I shoot you right between the eyes. Bang , bang, you're (argument is) dead.


Comradely,

Charles


----------
> From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
> To: <marxism-thaxis at buo319b.econ.utah.edu> 
> Subject: M-TH: Re: The dialectic is not eternal.
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:35:09 -0500 
> 
>Rob, Andy and Steve,
>
>Of course, by Rob and Andy's definition of "dialectic" (limiting it to
human society), dialectic is not infinite. The human species has not always
existed, and unless we get to another solar system, the human species will
become extinct when the sun burns out ( if not before from nuclear war or a
meteror shower).
>
>But that's not the Marx/Engels/Lenin version of dialectic. For them,
dialectic is not limited to human society.
> 
>Dialectic is the motion of matter in motion.
>
>Charles Brown
>
>>>> Rob Schaap <carob at dynamite.com.au> 02/24/99 08:18AM >>>
>G'day Steve,
>
>An interesting question, comrade - and one that might just be a very
>important one, too:
>
>>A Question! If the categoriess of dialectics are not eternal, is the
>dialectic
>>eternal? My personal answer is a defintie no! I will give my explanation
on
>>this soon, but dare others put their head on the guillotine block on this?

>
>If pushed, I'd try to argue Engels and Lenin did hold this position.  I
>can't launch the kind of considered and quote-supported argument the
>question deserves, but I do reckon it'd be impossible for Andy (or me) to
>make a coherent case for 'the eternal dialectic' (which is why Andy didn't
>try to make one).  
>
>I've stood by a necessarily humanistic conception of historical materialism
>(ie. that it is the contradictory unity of social consciousness and social
>being we're actually talking about when we speak of the 'dialectic',
>therefore of 'historical materialism', therefore of the 'materialist
>conception of history' - the view we can trace through the young Lukacs,
>Jakubowski, and Fromm) so the dialectic has an objective beginning and end
>to the extent humanity can be said to have an objective beginning and end. 

>
>I think it's worth going the extra yard, and maintaining that where
humanity
>persists, so does the dialectic.  We'd be expecting too many things to come
>to a stop if we expected anything else.  Would our physical environment not
>change?  Would it become impossible to think and express anything that had
>never before been articulated in that precise way?  Would our forces of
>production become inertly stable?  Would our relations become a sea of
inert
>placidity?  
>
>We're not noble gases, comrades.
>
>So my conclusion - my grand metaphysical arrogance for the day - is this: 
>show me humanity, any humanity, past, present and future - and I'll show
you
>the dialectic.  
>
>Communism must, I think, be taken as a history-to-be, not as an end to
>history.  Marx and Lukacs go so far as to say history doesn't really start
>until we grab it by the short and curlies.  I reckon the beast on the other
>end of those short and curlies still has a few surprises in store for the
>more sanguine Utopians among us.  
>
>That's only dialectical, innit?
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From farmelantj at juno.com  Wed Feb 24 09:51:50 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:51:50 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
References: <s6d3d0de.021@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <19990224.115151.4062.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

The bourgeoisie have long enjoyed the assistance of renegade
ex-Marxist intellectuals to educate them on how to use Marxist
analysis to promote their own class interests.  In the US ex-Marxists
played a key role in developing the post-WW II anti-communist
ideological offensives.  Especially important roles were played
by such figures as Sidney Hook, Max Eastman and James Burnham.
Also, ex-Marxist intellectuals helped to persuade the bourgeosie
in the post WW II period that their longterm class interests would
be best served by embracing Keynesian economics and the welfare
state.  Interestingly enough, several decades later  ex-Marxists
would play a significant role in convincing the bourgeoisie that it
was now safe to abandon both Kenesianism and the welfare state.


If one looks at any of the significant intellectual journals of the
center
or the right, one finds ex-Marxists playing key roles.  The whole
neo-con movement (centered arounf Commentary) was created by
ex-Trots like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.  William Buckley
would never have gotten National Review going without the assistance
of James Burnham and Max Eastman.  Partisan Review (which in turn
has spawned a host of journals including the NY Review of Books
and Dissent) was founded by ex-Communists like WIlliam Philipps.
The Reagan and Bush administrations were reliant upon the talents
of ex-leftists of various stripes.  Reagan's budget director in his first
term, David Stockman was an ex-New Left activist.   Many foreign
policy positions in the Reagan-Bush administrations were filled by
members of the Social Democrats of America (which can be thought
of as a kind of right-social democratic offshoot of Trotskyism).
It is evident that at least in the US, the ruling class has been
particularly
dependent upon ex-Marxists for much of its intellectual firepower.

		Jim Farmelant

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:13:32 -0500 "Charles Brown"
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
>I agree with the "better to know what they are up to" approach. I have 
>a standing hypothesis that ever since 1917 the smartest bourgeoisie 
>have been studying Marx vigorously to learn how to counter revolution. 
>In fact, as of now, the bourgeoisie and their think tanks may know 
>more about Marx than the Marxists of the world. The bourgeoisie are 
>doing _Capital_ in reverse. This makes Capital an objectively 
>self-reflecting Subject. 
>
>Charles Brown
>
>>>> Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YorkU.CA> 02/24/99 08:16AM >>>
>Harry M. Cleaver asks with regard to:
>Subject: Re: Critical Theory and Organizational Change
>> Is this the flat out effort at co-optation it appears to be? Will
>> there be a future issue on "What Managers can Learn from Karl Marx
>> about controling the working class"? Harry
>
>Better to know what they are up to than not to know. As for how they 
>will
>use it, have to wait for the CNN coverage for the official global view
>:-}.
>
>Sam Lanfranco, ListMgt Labor-L "All the Truth that Fits.."
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Wed Feb 24 10:16:48 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:16:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
In-Reply-To: <19990224.115151.4062.0.farmelantj@juno.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990224121238.10526A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>


At the same time, James, Marxists have benefited from life in bourgeois
institutions. Some of the best Marxian/ist analysis has come from
academics whose lives revolve/d around the university system. It is/was in
many ways the closeness of these scholars to means and influence that
permit/ted them to carry out complex research projects and free/d their
time sufficient to produce expansive works on theory and history. 

Andy




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Wed Feb 24 10:32:55 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:32:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: Re: The dialectic is not eternal.
In-Reply-To: <199902241527.CAA28365@mail.dynamite.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990224121706.10526B-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>

I made an unqualified statement earlier when I expressed my admiration for
the practice of Engels and Lenin but rejected their metaphysical
orientation. Let me state the matter more precisely. I can reject the
stance on dialectical nature and recognize the contribution to Marxist
praxis without contradiction because neither Engels nor Lenin were
physical scientists; they only lifted examples from the physical sciences
and gave them a superficial dialectical cover. When I speak of practical
successes, then, I am not talking about non-existent practical successes
in physical science but rather successes in the sociopolitical realm.

Had Engels and Lenin been actively involved in attempting to apply the
Marxist dialectic to the physical world they would have discovered with
the Soviet scientists discovered, namely, that the notion of a dialectic
of physical science doesn't work in practice and that non-dialectical
physical scientific orientations are appropriate for tasks in this domain
of the world. The physical domain is qualitatively different from the
social domain - neither can be reduced to the other nor deduced from the
other - such that processes induced from social development cannot be
mapped upon processes in the physical world, and vice versa. This is why
Marx developed the dialectic as a science of history, not a science of
nature. This is not to say that the social world is not amenable to
scientific analysis, but rather that the social world and the physical
world represent generally incommensurable objects for science. Of course,
the theoretical or empirical object, if we are to avoid idealisms, must
force a tailoring in the method applied. 

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From farmelantj at juno.com  Wed Feb 24 11:26:15 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:26:15 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990224121238.10526A-100000@moe.cas.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <19990224.132615.3622.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

This of course raises the whole question of to what extent is
the bourgeoisie willing to tolerate the presence of Marxist
academics within "their" universities.  I think they are willing
to tolerate a small number of Marxists on the chance that some
of their work may in fact prove useful to the bourgeoisie.  Marxists
more than other scholars are willing to study issues concerning
the long term viability of capitalism that are presumably of vital
concern to the bourgeoisie.  The critical analyses that Marxists
develop are recognized by the more enlightened bourgeoisie as
helping to expose their own blindspots thereby allowing them
to take corrective action.  Also, as I pointed out in my previous post,
a certain percentage of Marxist academics will eventually defect to
the side of the bourgeoisie, thereby putting their intellectual talents
and political experience in the direct service of the bourgeoisie.
So, it is in the best interest of the bourgeoisie to have a relatively
small number of Marxists within the academy.  However, as we know,
bourgeois tolerance for Marxists within the university has its limits.
There isn't too much tolerance for academics who are activists,
especially
if they are seen as using their positions for recruiting students to
their
politics.  And since the universities play a key role in the reproduction
and
renewal of bourgeois ideology, the bourgeoisie will not tolerate the
presence of too many Marxists, since they may undermine the university's
ability for performing the crucial function of reproducing bourgeois
ideology.  In short the bourgeoisie will tolerate a small number of
Marxists
within the academy, but their tolerance has its limits as soon as either
these Marxists become "too activist" or their numbers become such
that they pose a threat to bourgeois ideological hegemony.

		Jim Farmelant
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:16:48 -0500 (EST) Andrew Wayne Austin
<aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> writes:
>
>At the same time, James, Marxists have benefited from life in 
>bourgeois
>institutions. Some of the best Marxian/ist analysis has come from
>academics whose lives revolve/d around the university system. It 
>is/was in
>many ways the closeness of these scholars to means and influence that
>permit/ted them to carry out complex research projects and free/d 
>their
>time sufficient to produce expansive works on theory and history. 
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu  Wed Feb 24 11:39:30 1999
From: aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Andrew Wayne Austin)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:39:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
In-Reply-To: <19990224.132615.3622.0.farmelantj@juno.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990224133404.8622A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>

James,

I agree, in the main, with the points you are raising. I want to put one
caution, though, on assuming that the bourgeoisie tolerating Marxists in
the academy for the reasons given exhausts the character of the
relationship. There is this matter of relative autonomy of institutions
and a normative system which, to some degree, permits free, radical
thought. This is one of the positive aspects of liberalism. One can easily
exaggerate this point, so I don't want to push it. I just want to note it
as an interesting problematic.

Andy



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Wed Feb 24 12:07:18 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:07:18 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
Message-ID: <s6d407a0.073@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

And the one school of Marxist thought that the powers of academe will not tolerate is Leninism.

Charles Brown

>>> James Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> 02/24/99 01:26PM >>>
This of course raises the whole question of to what extent is
the bourgeoisie willing to tolerate the presence of Marxist
academics within "their" universities.  I think they are willing
to tolerate a small number of Marxists on the chance that some
of their work may in fact prove useful to the bourgeoisie.  Marxists
more than other scholars are willing to study issues concerning
the long term viability of capitalism that are presumably of vital
concern to the bourgeoisie.  The critical analyses that Marxists
develop are recognized by the more enlightened bourgeoisie as
helping to expose their own blindspots thereby allowing them
to take corrective action.  Also, as I pointed out in my previous post,
a certain percentage of Marxist academics will eventually defect to
the side of the bourgeoisie, thereby putting their intellectual talents
and political experience in the direct service of the bourgeoisie.
So, it is in the best interest of the bourgeoisie to have a relatively
small number of Marxists within the academy.  However, as we know,
bourgeois tolerance for Marxists within the university has its limits.
There isn't too much tolerance for academics who are activists,
especially
if they are seen as using their positions for recruiting students to
their
politics.  And since the universities play a key role in the reproduction
and
renewal of bourgeois ideology, the bourgeoisie will not tolerate the
presence of too many Marxists, since they may undermine the university's
ability for performing the crucial function of reproducing bourgeois
ideology.  In short the bourgeoisie will tolerate a small number of
Marxists
within the academy, but their tolerance has its limits as soon as either
these Marxists become "too activist" or their numbers become such
that they pose a threat to bourgeois ideological hegemony.

		Jim Farmelant
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:16:48 -0500 (EST) Andrew Wayne Austin
<aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> writes:
>
>At the same time, James, Marxists have benefited from life in 
>bourgeois
>institutions. Some of the best Marxian/ist analysis has come from
>academics whose lives revolve/d around the university system. It 
>is/was in
>many ways the closeness of these scholars to means and influence that
>permit/ted them to carry out complex research projects and free/d 
>their
>time sufficient to produce expansive works on theory and history. 
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From farmelantj at juno.com  Wed Feb 24 14:02:45 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:02:45 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990224133404.8622A-100000@larry.cas.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <19990224.160245.3622.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

The relative autonomy of univeristies and the whole ideology of
academic freedom are of relatively recent vintage. At the beginning
of this century it was not at all uncommon for American universities
to boot out professors because they were perceived as being even
vaguely sympathethic to Populism or other  forms of progrssive
politics.  The boards of trustees at most major universities were
dominated by wealthy businessmen who thought nothing of using
their positions to ruthlessly enforce their political views on their
institutions.  Professors had few protections against political
persecution.  At most universities, administrators uncomplainingly
knuckled under the rule of big business.  The sociologist and
economist, Thorstein Veblen, wrote about this state of affairs in
his  _Higher Learning in America_.  Academic freedom did not
come about until after decades-long struggles by professors
and others, and its hold on universites has always been rather
tenous.  During the 1950s radicals were purged from the faculties
of most univeristies, while many state legislatures passes laws
requiring that professors at public universities take "loyalty oaths."
It was only in the 1960s that academic freedom began to become
a reality at many institutions.

As Andy points out, the reality of academic freedom presupposes
the autonomy of institutions but many universities are finding
themselves under growing pressure to function more and more
like business corporations.  In the new model of academic administration,
univeristies are seen as businesses in which students are customers
who come to consume certain types of services, while university
research is seen as a device for raising revenues from corporate
and government clients.  Departments that do not prove to be profitable
are to be ruthlessly downsized or eliminated, while new academic
programs are to be created at the behest of the university's business
clientale.  Under such conditions, academic freedom is in danger of
being stripped of whatever meaning it might have had in the past.

		Jim Farmelant
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:39:30 -0500 (EST) Andrew Wayne Austin
<aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> writes:
>James,
>
>I agree, in the main, with the points you are raising. I want to put 
>one
>caution, though, on assuming that the bourgeoisie tolerating Marxists 
>in
>the academy for the reasons given exhausts the character of the
>relationship. There is this matter of relative autonomy of 
>institutions
>and a normative system which, to some degree, permits free, radical
>thought. This is one of the positive aspects of liberalism. One can 
>easily
>exaggerate this point, so I don't want to push it. I just want to note 
>it
>as an interesting problematic.
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Sat Feb 20 16:52:02 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:52:02 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political   practice (1/2)
Message-ID: <m10FrHH-000CeVC@secyt.gov.ar>

I haven?t addressed yet Chris Burford?s demand for the specific 
consideration of three issues:   

a) Abstract labor as inhering in human labor whichever its social 
form, the historical nature of the social representation of abstract 
labor as the value of commodities, and the inversion of these 
determinations that is gaining popularity among Marxists 
economists.  

b) How clearly English, German and Spanish reflect the difference 
between human generic being and animal species being.  

c) The historical nature of logic as the general form of the abstract, 
therefore alienated, thought.  

My replies will have to wait, since I will be out for the next weeks. 
Besides, after the sixth day with a third of Buenos Aires city 
without electricity (this was one of the public services that the 
present national government privatized first under the ideological 
coverage of ?efficiency?), my e-mail provider has gone out of 
service. So when this message will finally reach the list, probably I 
will not be here.  

Chau, hasta la vuelta.   


Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jinigo at inscri.org.ar  Sat Feb 20 13:30:24 1999
From: jinigo at inscri.org.ar (jinigo at inscri.org.ar)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:30:24 -0300
Subject: M-TH: The materiality of dialectics shown in political   practice (1/2)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990215230000.0137f238@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <m10C7LB-000CYDC@secyt.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <m10FrHH-000CeZC@secyt.gov.ar>

In reply to my:

> >Consciousness is the most developed form of 
> >cognition. It develops itself as the necessary form of ruling the 
> >human collective process of producing the own means of living 
> >through work. Therefore, consciousness is a concrete form of the 
> >human generic being.  
> >
> >Monkeys lack consciousness. 

Chris Burford wrote:

> I am very surprised that this statement can be made, despite the fact that
> I am not in a position to quote precise research literature. My
> understanding from semi-popular television presentations, based on actual
> research, is that you have to define types of mental activity and context
> under different headings to answer this question. And BTW you have to
> distinguish between apes and monkeys. But in any case I think informed
> opinion, and not just fashionable opinion, is moving to a recognition of
> animals as sentient beings  on a continuum with ourselves.

Consciousness implies the capacity of ruling one?s own action by 
appropriating in thought the mediate determinations and potencies 
of that action. Therefore, it implies ruling one?s own action by 
appropriating in thought one?s own determinations and potencies 
as an individual organ of social production.  

The process in which monkeys (I will keep this crude expression, 
to avoid any confusion that could emerge from the zoological 
classification of man among apes) produce and reproduce their 
lives reaches enough complexity as to separate the process in 
which they produce the means to produce their means of living 
from the process in which they consume the latter means. For 
example, a monkey searches for an anthill, cuts a branch, peels it, 
impregnates it with saliva, introduces it in the hole, and only after 
all these productive processes it is able to consume. In the very 
moment it looks for a proper branch to cut, the monkey?s brain has 
to produce the awareness about the mediate results of that action. 
It is a very complex process of animal life, that very few species 
are able to perform.  

Yet, the mediations the monkey?s brain has to manage are turned 
to immediateness when confronted to a process of producing life 
by producing the means needed to produce the means needed to 
produce the means needed to 
 produce the objects apt for 
individual consumption. This multitude of mediations includes, for 
example, the production of machines, to produce iron, to produce 
cages, to hunt monkeys, to transform them into living objects to be 
trained to perform tasks of a complexity they would never be able 
to reach by themselves.  

The difference between the mediations the brain has to manage in 
one process of life and the other is such, that we identify as 
_immediate cognition_ the management by our brain of processes 
much more complex than those that trained monkeys perform. And 
we oppose to it the _scientific_ nature of the cognition needed, for 
example, to experiment with monkeys.  

It can always be said that between the capacity of monkey-
cognition and of human-cognition to manage mediations there only 
exists a quantitative difference. But we know (of course monkeys 
don?t) that quantitative differences transform themselves into 
qualitative differences. The continuum has developed into a 
discontinuity. And, concerning the complexity of the mediations 
through which animals, including apes, produce their lives and 
those corresponding to human life, the qualitative difference has a 
concrete name: animal species as opposed to the generic human 
being. Concerning the complexity of the cognition needed to rule 
one and the other life processes, the qualitative difference has its 
own concrete name: animal cognition as opposed to 
consciousness. So much so, that our lack of cognition about the 
mediations involved turns itself into the concrete negation of 
consciousness, i.e., unconsciousness.  

Consciousness is not a starting point in the development of the 
generic human being, but a necessary concrete form of this 
development and, therefore, its product.  

The secret of ethology?s current popularity lies in its ideological 
content as a naturalization of the concrete forms taken by the 
generic human being, that is, of social relations. Its specific aim is 
to negate the potencies of society to transcend its present form, by 
presenting this form as inhering in nature. Some time ago, Chris 
developed a sound critic to another face of this same inversion: that 
of presenting social relations as the product of genetic 
determinations. And ?semi-popular television presentations? (some 
of which I really enjoy) are the perfect vehicle for both faces of the 
ideological content to reach the specific audience that must absorb 
it. The apparent pure production of consciousness is the vehicle for 
the production of an inverted consciousness and, therefore, of 
unconsciousness.

Juan Inigo
jinigo at inscri.org.ar


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au  Thu Feb 25 04:17:31 1999
From: rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au (Rob Schaap)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:17:31 +1100
Subject: M-TH: The Fetish
Message-ID: <l03130304b2fae0113b40@[137.92.41.119]>

G'day all,

Picked this up from a mate of Jerry's.  It's out of a Wallace Shawn
monologue *The Fever* (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1991).  It's bloody
marvellous!

____________________________________________________________________________

One day there was an anonymous present sitting on my doorstep -- Volume
One of *Capital* by Karl Marx, in a brown paper bag. A joke? Serious? And
who had sent it? I never found out. Late that night, naked in bed, I
leafed through it. The beginning was impenetrable, I couldn't understand it,
but when I came to the part about the lives of the workers -- the coal
miners, the child laborers -- I could feel myself suddenly breathing more
slowly. How angry he was. Page after page. Then I turned back to an
earlier section, and I came to a phrase that I'd heard before, a strange,
upsetting, sort of ugly phrase: this was the section on "commodity
fetishism," "the fetishism of commodities." I wanted to understand that
weird-sounding phrase, but I could tell that, to understand it, your whole
life would probably have to change.

His explanation was very elusive. He used the example that people say,
"Twenty yards of linen are worth two pounds." People say about every thing
that it has a certain value. This is worth that. This coat, this sweater,
this cup of coffee: each thing worth some quantity of money, or some number
of other things -- one coat, worth three sweaters, or so much money -- as if
that coat, suddenly appearing on the earth, contained somewhere inside itself
an amount of value, like an inner soul, as if the coat were a fetish, a
physical object that contains a living spirit. But what really determines
the value of a coat? The coat's price comes from its history, the history of
all the people who were involved in making it and selling it and all the
particular relationships they had. And if we buy the coat, we, too, form
relationships with all of those people, and yet we hide those relationships
from our own awareness by pretending we live in a world where coats have no
history but just fall down from heaven with prices marked inside. "I like
this coat," we say, "It's not expensive," as if that were a fact about the
*coat* and not the end of a story about all the people who made it and sold
it, "I like the pictures in this magazine."

A naked woman leans over a fence. A man buys a magazine and stares at
her picture. The destinies of these two are linked. The man has paid the
woman to take off her clothes, to lean over the fence. The photograph
contains its history -- the moment the woman unbuttoned her shirt, how she
felt, what the photographer said. The price of the magazine is a code that
describes the relationships between all those people -- the woman, the man,
the publisher, the photographer -- who commanded, who obeyed. The cup of
coffee contains the history of the peasants who picked the beans, how some of
them fainted in the heat of the sun, some were beaten, some were kicked.

For two days I could see the fetishism of commodities everywhere around
me. It was a strange feeling. Then on the third day I lost it, it was gone,
I couldn't see it anymore.




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 25 07:16:36 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:16:36 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
Message-ID: <s6d5150b.002@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

James F.,

Do you mind if I send your comments on this thread to Labor-y ? See a response from that list to my comment below.

Charles



On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

> Harry M. Cleaver asks with regard to:
> Subject: Re: Critical Theory and Organizational Change
> > Is this the flat out effort at co-optation it appears to be? Will
> > there be a future issue on "What Managers can Learn from Karl Marx
> > about controling the working class"? Harry
>
> Better to know what they are up to than not to know. As for how they will
> use it, have to wait for the CNN coverage for the official global view
> :-}.
>
Sam, I couldn't agree more. I wasn't complaining about your posting the
notice, I was just surprised about how blatant the effort at co-optation
seemed to be, and I gather, is.

Charles Brown wrote:
I agree with the "better to know what they are up to" approach. I have a
standing hypothesis that ever since 1917 the smartest bourgeoisie have
been studying Marx vigorously to learn how to counter revolution. In fact,
as of now, the bourgeoisie and their think tanks may know more about Marx
than the Marxists of the world. The bourgeoisie are doing _Capital_ in
reverse. This makes Capital an objectively self-reflecting Subject.

Charles: There is no doubt capitalist policy makers have studied Marx. But
from all I have seen, the vast majority of the work has been ideological
in character. Long before the Cold War even. When you go looking for
efforts to instrumentalize Marx's understanding for capitalist development
you find much, much less. One famous example is Leontief's input-output
tables (used as the basis for multisectoral planning models. They were
based on a study of Quesnay's Tableau Economique and Marx's reproduction
schemes.  And then there is the most extensive case (for those who
understand the Soviet Union as state capitalist): the Soviet use of
CAPITAL as a guide to what is to be done, starting with Preobrachensky's
"Primitive SOCIALIST Accumulation."

A more recent example was the period of the onset of the crisis in the
1970s when bouregois thinkers were faced with the crisis of Keynesian
ideas and were looking around. So were Marxists, so BusinessWeek, the WSJ,
etc ran articles on "What to the Marx Men have to say?" --clearly trying
to see if anything was said that might be of use. Not much was, of
course,....

I used to say that I could have made more money writing a book called
"Reading CAPITAL for the Businessman"... but then what's money?

So, anytime capital tries to use Marx, or some derivative of Marx, it is
certainly worth keeping an eye on them.
Harry

............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave at eco.utexas.edu 
Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html 
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html 
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ 
............................................................................

>>> James Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> 02/24/99 11:51AM >>>
The bourgeoisie have long enjoyed the assistance of renegade
ex-Marxist intellectuals to educate them on how to use Marxist
analysis to promote their own class interests.  In the US ex-Marxists
played a key role in developing the post-WW II anti-communist
ideological offensives.  Especially important roles were played
by such figures as Sidney Hook, Max Eastman and James Burnham.
Also, ex-Marxist intellectuals helped to persuade the bourgeosie
in the post WW II period that their longterm class interests would
be best served by embracing Keynesian economics and the welfare
state.  Interestingly enough, several decades later  ex-Marxists
would play a significant role in convincing the bourgeoisie that it
was now safe to abandon both Kenesianism and the welfare state.


If one looks at any of the significant intellectual journals of the
center
or the right, one finds ex-Marxists playing key roles.  The whole
neo-con movement (centered arounf Commentary) was created by
ex-Trots like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.  William Buckley
would never have gotten National Review going without the assistance
of James Burnham and Max Eastman.  Partisan Review (which in turn
has spawned a host of journals including the NY Review of Books
and Dissent) was founded by ex-Communists like WIlliam Philipps.
The Reagan and Bush administrations were reliant upon the talents
of ex-leftists of various stripes.  Reagan's budget director in his first
term, David Stockman was an ex-New Left activist.   Many foreign
policy positions in the Reagan-Bush administrations were filled by
members of the Social Democrats of America (which can be thought
of as a kind of right-social democratic offshoot of Trotskyism).
It is evident that at least in the US, the ruling class has been
particularly
dependent upon ex-Marxists for much of its intellectual firepower.

		Jim Farmelant

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:13:32 -0500 "Charles Brown"
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
>I agree with the "better to know what they are up to" approach. I have 
>a standing hypothesis that ever since 1917 the smartest bourgeoisie 
>have been studying Marx vigorously to learn how to counter revolution. 
>In fact, as of now, the bourgeoisie and their think tanks may know 
>more about Marx than the Marxists of the world. The bourgeoisie are 
>doing _Capital_ in reverse. This makes Capital an objectively 
>self-reflecting Subject. 
>
>Charles Brown
>
>>>> Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YorkU.CA> 02/24/99 08:16AM >>>
>Harry M. Cleaver asks with regard to:
>Subject: Re: Critical Theory and Organizational Change
>> Is this the flat out effort at co-optation it appears to be? Will
>> there be a future issue on "What Managers can Learn from Karl Marx
>> about controling the working class"? Harry
>
>Better to know what they are up to than not to know. As for how they 
>will
>use it, have to wait for the CNN coverage for the official global view
>:-}.
>
>Sam Lanfranco, ListMgt Labor-L "All the Truth that Fits.."
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html 
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From farmelantj at juno.com  Thu Feb 25 07:32:39 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:32:39 -0500
Subject: M-TH: The bourgeoisie study Marx
References: <s6d5150b.002@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <19990225.093740.3494.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

I don't mind at all Charles.

	Jim F.

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:16:36 -0500 "Charles Brown"
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
>James F.,
>
>Do you mind if I send your comments on this thread to Labor-y ? See a 
>response from that list to my comment below.
>
>Charles
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 25 07:42:48 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:42:48 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Re: your mail
Message-ID: <s6d51b29.060@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Thanks for your reply Harrry. My comment is heavily speculative, I admit. So, if you'll let me get away with it , I'll say that the use the bourgeoisie has made of _Capital_ is largely secret :>). But I have been in a meeting with a businessman on city work where he was claiming that the city should only be able to charge fees when city workers "add value" to something or other. I guess I think the bourgeoisie use Marxist value theory in everything they do. They know that they make their profits from unpaid labor of workers and not from top executives' genius, and their whole program is put together accordingly. Also, it seems to me that Keynesianism uses Marxist business cycle theory in trying to allieviate or ameliorate the worse dimensions of crises. 

Also, I think they have industrial concentration in reverse. In other words, they focus on selecting certain types of people for factory and other fundamental industrial work, people with certain personality types that industrial psychologists have determined are least likely to be politically radical. Once someone is hired they are subject to an ongoing psychological training (especially the industrial proletariat), not only at work, but in their ghettoized neighborhoods. All of this is because the bosses take Marx and Lenin seriously, that proletarians are the main potential gravediggers of capitalism.

Really the bourgeosie don't have to read Marx all of the time. They can just pick up copies of Marxist party papers and journals for a Marxist analysis applied to the current concrete situation. These documents are filled with cogent Marxist critiques of the current situation. The bourgeosie can then take steps to coverup and brainwash the masses of the population against the specific Marxist understanding of the current situation. Of course, they do this in clever way that does not use the same terminology or appear to be responding to the Marxist parties, but they can taylor their own propaganda accordingly. In other words, this is in addition to the explicitly anti-communist brainwashing that we all know about.

As a specific example, if Marx emphasized the shorter workweek with no cut in pay, and Marxists have that as a standing demand, then the bourgeoisie focus on rationalizations of why that is "impossible" a bad thing, but they don't do it in such a way that it seems like they are replying to Marxists. 

This is the type of thing I am thinking of.

Charles Brown


>>> "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave at ECO.UTEXAS.EDU> 02/25/99 08:49AM >>>
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

> Harry M. Cleaver asks with regard to:
> Subject: Re: Critical Theory and Organizational Change
> > Is this the flat out effort at co-optation it appears to be? Will
> > there be a future issue on "What Managers can Learn from Karl Marx
> > about controling the working class"? Harry
>
> Better to know what they are up to than not to know. As for how they will
> use it, have to wait for the CNN coverage for the official global view
> :-}.
>
Sam, I couldn't agree more. I wasn't complaining about your posting the
notice, I was just surprised about how blatant the effort at co-optation
seemed to be, and I gather, is.

Charles Brown wrote:
I agree with the "better to know what they are up to" approach. I have a
standing hypothesis that ever since 1917 the smartest bourgeoisie have
been studying Marx vigorously to learn how to counter revolution. In fact,
as of now, the bourgeoisie and their think tanks may know more about Marx
than the Marxists of the world. The bourgeoisie are doing _Capital_ in
reverse. This makes Capital an objectively self-reflecting Subject.

Charles: There is no doubt capitalist policy makers have studied Marx. But
from all I have seen, the vast majority of the work has been ideological
in character. Long before the Cold War even. When you go looking for
efforts to instrumentalize Marx's understanding for capitalist development
you find much, much less. One famous example is Leontief's input-output
tables (used as the basis for multisectoral planning models. They were
based on a study of Quesnay's Tableau Economique and Marx's reproduction
schemes.  And then there is the most extensive case (for those who
understand the Soviet Union as state capitalist): the Soviet use of
CAPITAL as a guide to what is to be done, starting with Preobrachensky's
"Primitive SOCIALIST Accumulation."

A more recent example was the period of the onset of the crisis in the
1970s when bouregois thinkers were faced with the crisis of Keynesian
ideas and were looking around. So were Marxists, so BusinessWeek, the WSJ,
etc ran articles on "What to the Marx Men have to say?" --clearly trying
to see if anything was said that might be of use. Not much was, of
course,....

I used to say that I could have made more money writing a book called
"Reading CAPITAL for the Businessman"... but then what's money?

So, anytime capital tries to use Marx, or some derivative of Marx, it is
certainly worth keeping an eye on them.
Harry

............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave at eco.utexas.edu 
Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html 
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html 
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ 
............................................................................


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 25 09:19:58 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:19:58 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Bourgeois use of Marx
Message-ID: <s6d531f0.095@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Charles Brown wrote:

> Thanks for your reply Harrry. My comment is heavily speculative, I
admit. So, if you'll let me get away with it , I'll say that the use the
bourgeoisie has made of _Capital_ is largely secret :>).

Charles: Sometimes perhaps (as in a closed-door meeting of the CFR back in
the 1940s where the term  American Imperialism was used and the person who
used it was told you  can't talk like that... but generally, I doubt it. I
think most of what use there has been, has been fairly open.


But I have been
in a meeting with a businessman on city work where he was claiming that
the city should only be able to charge fees when city workers "add value"
to something or other. I guess I think the bourgeoisie use Marxist value
theory in everything they do. They know that they make their profits from
unpaid labor of workers and not from top executives' genius, and their
whole program is put together accordingly.

Charles: it doesn't take a knowledge of Marx to be concerned with the
marginal value added of ANY factor of production, including labor. After
all neoclassical economics --which was partly invented to shift economics
away from its focus on labor-- teaches that in every micro class. And,
btw, if the executives use their brains within production, then they do
contribute to SV.


Also, it seems to me that
Keynesianism uses Marxist business cycle theory in trying to allieviate
or ameliorate the worse dimensions of crises.

Charles: In what sense? Keynes certainly claimed the contrary. They both
understood aggregate demand and the errors of underconsumptionist
theories of crisis but beyond that....??

>
> Also, I think they have industrial concentration in reverse. In other
words, they focus on selecting certain types of people for factory and
other fundamental industrial work, people with certain personality types
that industrial psychologists have determined are least likely to be
politically radical. Once someone is hired they are subject to an ongoing
psychological training (especially the industrial proletariat), not only
at work, but in their ghettoized neighborhoods. All of this is because
the bosses take Marx and Lenin seriously, that proletarians are the main
potential gravediggers of capitalism.

Charles: They need have no knowledge of Marx to know they need workers
they can control. Machines get greased, workers get brainwashed. Both are
just factors of production for capital on a day to day basis. I think you
can make a better case at a more aggregate level, e.g., in a now infamous
Chase newsletter the author wondered how long the Mexican "working class"
was going to put up with austerity. (his terms)

>
> Really the bourgeosie don't have to read Marx all of the time. They can
just pick up copies of Marxist party papers and journals for a Marxist
analysis applied to the current concrete situation. These documents are
filled with cogent Marxist critiques of the current situation.

Charles: 1) I don't see much evidence of them doing ythis and 2) I have a
much less positive opinion of such analyses so I don't know why they would
bother in most cases.


The
bourgeosie can then take steps to coverup and brainwash the masses of the
population against the specific Marxist understanding of the current
situation. Of course, they do this in clever way that does not use the
same terminology or appear to be responding to the Marxist parties, but
they can taylor their own propaganda accordingly. In other words, this is
in addition to the explicitly anti-communist brainwashing that we all
know about.

Charles: You writing scripts for the X-files?  Shall I play Scully and
ask for some evidence?
>
> As a specific example, if Marx emphasized the shorter workweek with no
cut in pay, and Marxists have that as a standing demand, then the
bourgeoisie focus on rationalizations of why that is "impossible" a bad
thing, but they don't do it in such a way that it seems like they are
replying to Marxists.

Charles: the bourgeoisie will provide rationalizations for anything they
want or do not want to do, quite independently of Marxists. But you are
right that they publically "recognize" the enemy (Marxist or otherwise) as
little as possible so as not to legitimize.

Harry

>
> This is the type of thing I am thinking of.
>
> Charles Brown
>
>
> >>> "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave at ECO.UTEXAS.EDU> 02/25/99 08:49AM >>>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> > Harry M. Cleaver asks with regard to:
> > Subject: Re: Critical Theory and Organizational Change
> > > Is this the flat out effort at co-optation it appears to be? Will
> > > there be a future issue on "What Managers can Learn from Karl Marx
> > > about controling the working class"? Harry
> >
> > Better to know what they are up to than not to know. As for how they will
> > use it, have to wait for the CNN coverage for the official global view
> > :-}.
> >
> Sam, I couldn't agree more. I wasn't complaining about your posting the
> notice, I was just surprised about how blatant the effort at co-optation
> seemed to be, and I gather, is.
>
> Charles Brown wrote:
> I agree with the "better to know what they are up to" approach. I have a
> standing hypothesis that ever since 1917 the smartest bourgeoisie have
> been studying Marx vigorously to learn how to counter revolution. In fact,
> as of now, the bourgeoisie and their think tanks may know more about Marx
> than the Marxists of the world. The bourgeoisie are doing _Capital_ in
> reverse. This makes Capital an objectively self-reflecting Subject.
>
> Charles: There is no doubt capitalist policy makers have studied Marx. But
> from all I have seen, the vast majority of the work has been ideological
> in character. Long before the Cold War even. When you go looking for
> efforts to instrumentalize Marx's understanding for capitalist development
> you find much, much less. One famous example is Leontief's input-output
> tables (used as the basis for multisectoral planning models. They were
> based on a study of Quesnay's Tableau Economique and Marx's reproduction
> schemes.  And then there is the most extensive case (for those who
> understand the Soviet Union as state capitalist): the Soviet use of
> CAPITAL as a guide to what is to be done, starting with Preobrachensky's
> "Primitive SOCIALIST Accumulation."
>
> A more recent example was the period of the onset of the crisis in the
> 1970s when bouregois thinkers were faced with the crisis of Keynesian
> ideas and were looking around. So were Marxists, so BusinessWeek, the WSJ,
> etc ran articles on "What to the Marx Men have to say?" --clearly trying
> to see if anything was said that might be of use. Not much was, of
> course,....
>
> I used to say that I could have made more money writing a book called
> "Reading CAPITAL for the Businessman"... but then what's money?
>
> So, anytime capital tries to use Marx, or some derivative of Marx, it is
> certainly worth keeping an eye on them.
> Harry
>
> ............................................................................
> Harry Cleaver
> Department of Economics
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
> Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
>                (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
> E-mail: hmcleave at eco.utexas.edu 
> Cleaver homepage:
> http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html 
> Chiapas95 homepage:
> http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html 
> Accion Zapatista homepage:
> http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ 
> ............................................................................
>

............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave at eco.utexas.edu 
Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html 
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html 
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ 
............................................................................


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 25 12:19:56 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:19:56 -0500
Subject: M-TH: reply to Jim F.
Message-ID: <s6d55c2c.067@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

 >
> Here's someone else's comment on this thread.
>
> The bourgeoisie have long enjoyed the assistance of renegade
> ex-Marxist intellectuals to educate them on how to use Marxist
> analysis to promote their own class interests.  In the US ex-Marxists
> played a key role in developing the post-WW II anti-communist
> ideological offensives.  Especially important roles were played
> by such figures as Sidney Hook, Max Eastman and James Burnham.
> Also, ex-Marxist intellectuals helped to persuade the bourgeosie
> in the post WW II period that their longterm class interests would
> be best served by embracing Keynesian economics and the welfare
> state.  Interestingly enough, several decades later  ex-Marxists
> would play a significant role in convincing the bourgeoisie that it
> was now safe to abandon both Kenesianism and the welfare state.
>
>
> If one looks at any of the significant intellectual journals of the
> center
> or the right, one finds ex-Marxists playing key roles.  The whole
> neo-con movement (centered arounf Commentary) was created by
> ex-Trots like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.  William Buckley
> would never have gotten National Review going without the assistance
> of James Burnham and Max Eastman.  Partisan Review (which in turn
> has spawned a host of journals including the NY Review of Books
> and Dissent) was founded by ex-Communists like WIlliam Philipps.
> The Reagan and Bush administrations were reliant upon the talents
> of ex-leftists of various stripes.  Reagan's budget director in his first
> term, David Stockman was an ex-New Left activist.   Many foreign
> policy positions in the Reagan-Bush administrations were filled by
> members of the Social Democrats of America (which can be thought
> of as a kind of right-social democratic offshoot of Trotskyism).
> It is evident that at least in the US, the ruling class has been
> particularly
> dependent upon ex-Marxists for much of its intellectual firepower.

Jim: Yes, I'm familiar with this history and the roles these people have
played from ex-Stalinists to ex-New Leftist. But your sketch leaves out
any evidence about the issue being discussed: capital's use of Marx or the
work of Marxists (as opposed to ex-Marxists). What evidence do we have
that these characters continued to USE the Marxism they came to reject and
combat as opposed to engaging in ideological campaigns against their
former beliefs and politics?  I'm willing to believe there are cases of
this but I would like to see some evidence. As I remember the book "The
New York Intellectuals" which tells some of this story, doesn't show that.
Do you have some examples, sources?

Harry

>
>                 Jim Farmelant
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:13:32 -0500 "Charles Brown"
> <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
> >I agree with the "better to know what they are up to" approach. I have
> >a standing hypothesis that ever since 1917 the smartest bourgeoisie
> >have been studying Marx vigorously to learn how to counter revolution.
> >In fact, as of now, the bourgeoisie and their think tanks may know
> >more about Marx than the Marxists of the world. The bourgeoisie are
> >doing _Capital_ in reverse. This makes Capital an objectively
> >self-reflecting Subject.
> >
> >Charles Brown
> >
> >>>> Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YorkU.CA> 02/24/99 08:16AM >>>
> >Harry M. Cleaver asks with regard to:
> >Subject: Re: Critical Theory and Organizational Change
> >> Is this the flat out effort at co-optation it appears to be? Will
> >> there be a future issue on "What Managers can Learn from Karl Marx
> >> about controling the working class"? Harry
> >
> >Better to know what they are up to than not to know. As for how they
> >will
> >use it, have to wait for the CNN coverage for the official global view
> >:-}.
> >
> >Sam Lanfranco, ListMgt Labor-L "All the Truth that Fits.."
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
> >
>

............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave at eco.utexas.edu 
Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html 
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html 
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ 
............................................................................


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Thu Feb 25 12:22:47 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:22:47 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Bourgeois use of Marxism
Message-ID: <s6d55ccd.074@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, David Jacobs wrote:

>
> I could be wrong, but I think this thread on the bourgeoisie's reliance upon
> ex-Marxists misses the point of the posting on critical theory and
> organizational change.  There are radicals in business schools these days.
> They are now developing critical perspectives on business issues.  They tend
> to be gradualists who believe that labor struggles, public policy, and
> Fabian interventions can establish models of more democratic and egalitarian
> organizations.  I believe it is academics of this kind rather than the
> bourgeoisie who call for critical theory in organizational change.
>
> Of course, if you believe that all "thinkers" who develop novel theoretical
> perspectives in the context of business schools are objectively agents of
> the bourgeoisie, then I will not convince you.

David, perhaps there are radicals in business schools, perhaps you are
one, but if what such radicals are about is not to the benefit of business
what are such schools doing employing them? Perhaps they got hired to do
one thing but now try to do another? But then the burden is on them to
demonstrate that they are doing something other than providing capitalism
with newer and cleverer ways, with a human face, to do what it has always
done, which is to say exploit workers. I have some familiarity with
contemporary neoshumpterian efforts to harness the creativity of workers
by creating proper environments, etc. but their strategies are clearly
those of co-optation and integration of a potentially antagonistic force,
chanelled into higher productivity.

So, tell us about these radicals and what they are doing and why it is not
in the service of a vicious and exploitative system.

Harry



>
> David Jacobs
> Associate Professor
> Labor, Business, and Society
> Kogod College of Business Administration
> American University
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> (202)-885-1923
>
>

............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 478-8427
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave at eco.utexas.edu 
Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html 
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html 
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ 
............................................................................



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From magellan at netrio.com.br  Fri Feb 26 06:17:46 1999
From: magellan at netrio.com.br (R. Magellan)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:17:46 -0300
Subject: M-TH: Catholics against the Pope on Pinochet
Message-ID: <199902261317.KAA03437@lin.momentus.com.br>


The news below, to be read on radio waves as written by Pulsar news agency, 
came from Tambo, a progressive Catholic and Iberian-American bilingual list  
(Spanish and Portuguese).  It refers to an open letter addressed to the Pope 
by Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo  (The Mothers at the Mayo Square).  Las 
Madres, as most of you know, is a group formed by the mothers and 
grandmothers of the disappeared prisioners of the Argentinian military 
dictatorships  (disappeared, i.e., killed, including newborn babies, and the 
late prisioners'  children adopted by military families).

Las Madres are by far Catholic people and closely linked to other Southerm 
Cone human right movements, since the military terrorism knew no frontiers 
in South America and even abroad.  Chiefly among these linked movements is 
the Tortura Nunca Mais association  (Torture Never More), a Brazilian group 
based upon the Catholic Church structures and nowadays the main human rights 
NGO in Brazil.

So,  what is most impressive in the message below is that the harsh 
criticism contained in it against the diplomatic moves of Vatican to get 
Pinochet  free back to Chile came all along militant Catholic sources.  The 
message says that Las Madres...

                "delivered to the Apostolic Nunciature  [the Holy See 
embassy in Buenos Aires]  a letter in which they complain against John Paul 
II for its effots towards the former dictator Augusto Pinochet. (...)   The 
subscribers CALLED THE POPE A JUDAS ISCARIOT  [calificaron al papa de Judas] 
 for defending murderers and pray to God that He does not forgive the Pope 
for this action."

Lutero may be laughing !

In solidarity,
 Roberto

Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans  (....)
Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand PARTI DES TRAVAILLEURS.  (L' Internationale)

1919/1999   Entweder Sozialismus, oder Barbarei !

###################################################

From: michele at ibw.com.ni   Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 
To: tambo at aleph.pangea.ORG
Subject: [TAMBO] Protestas al Papa


De Agencia Pulsar, miercoles 23 febrero 99.

2.- Argentina: Protestan contra actitud del Papa. (nota ampliada)
_______________________________________________________

LOCUTOR    "Nos dirigimos a Usted como a un ciudadano com?n 
porque nos parece aberrante que desde su sill?n de Papa en el 
Vaticano, sin conocer, ni haber sufrido en su cuerpo la picana, las 
mutilaciones, la violaci?n, se anime en nombre de Jesucristo a 
pedir clemencia", dice la carta dirigida al Papa por las Madres de 
la Plaza de Mayo. La carta fue entregada en la Nunciatura.

LOCUTORA   BUENOS AIRES, Argentina .- Las Madres de Plaza 
de Mayo, dirigidas por Hebe Bonafini, entregaron a la Nunciatura 
Apost?lica una carta en la que reclaman a Juan Pablo II por sus 
gestiones a favor del exdictador Augusto Pinochet. 

LOCUTOR   La carta est? firmada por una larga lista de madres 
que perdieron a sus hijos e hijas en el tiempo de la dictadura 
militar argentina. Las firmantes calificaron al Papa de Judas por 
defender a los asesinos y piden a Dios que no le perdone por esta 
acci?n.

LOCUTORA  La agrupaci?n Madres de la Plaza de Mayo naci? el 
30 de abril de 1977, en un principio las madres peregrinaban por el 
Vicariato de la Armada y el Ministerio del Interior en b?squeda de 
informaci?n de sus hijos desaparecidos. Posteriormente se 
tomaron la plaza de Mayo, la principal de Buenos Aires.

LOCUTOR Tambi?n en Chile asociaciones de derechos humanos, 
partidos pol?ticos y grupos de familiares de torturados y 
desaparecidos hicieron el mismo reclamo al Papa. Representantes 
de estas organizaciones sociales dijeron que es sorprendente que 
se pida clemencia por un criminal antes de someterlo a juicio e 
investigar sus delitos.

LOCUTORA   La semana anterior, el secretario de Estado del 
Vaticano, cardenal Angelo Sodano, admiti? que el Vaticano hizo 
una gesti?n ante el gobierno brit?nico, a favor de Augusto 
Pinochet. La gesti?n respalda la posici?n del gobierno chileno que 
pide el regreso del exdictador a su pa?s.

LOCUTOR   Augusto Pinochet fue dictador de Chile entre 1973 y 
1990 y durante este tiempo sembr? terror y muerte. Alrededor de 
3000 personas desaparecieron o murieron por oponerse al 
r?gimen. (Ar/YZ/Po/Dh/ap)

*******************************************************************
*   En lo necesario, unidad;        No necess?rio, unidade;
*   en lo discutible, libertad;        no discut?vel, liberdade;
*   en todo, CARIDAD.                em tudo, CARIDADE.
*              (San Agust?n)                         (Santo Agostino)
*   TAMBO:   http://www.uca.ni/koinonia/varios/tambo.htm
*******************************************************************



               



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk  Fri Feb 26 07:45:36 1999
From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:45:36 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Bourgeois use of Marxism
In-Reply-To: <s6d55ccd.074@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <l03130301b2fc605d7a64@[193.60.146.202]>

This thread is out of kilter. The key point is not bourgeois thinkers using
Marxism, but the reverse- that of the 'Marxist' totally emboiled in
bourgeois theory and practice.
Hence the unceasing prattle about the reproduction of ideology, hegemonic
shifts and the whole caboodle of radical-functionalist garbage that gets
passed off revolutionary thought.  As Meszaros enjoys pointing out, such is
the power of the functionalist paradigm, that those who paint a radical
veneer on its surface, are precisely those who fail to realise that their
thought is inescapably are caught up its essence.


Russ




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Feb 26 07:56:44 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:56:44 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Bourgeois use of Marxism
Message-ID: <s6d66ff1.059@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

I would distinguish between bourgeois thinkers and the bourgeois ruling class. Bourgeois thinkers serve the actual owners of the basic means of production, but do not own it, by and large. Bourgeois practice gains by being guided by reverse marxist theory, because Marxism is an objective and true assessment of capitalism, unlike bourgeois political economy from the classics to the neo-classics.

"Marxist" thinkers using bourgeois theory and practice is a true problem, but that doesn't mean the above is not a problem too. The problem of Marxists reaching working class masses is compounded since 1917, when the bourgeoisie started to take Marxism seriously.

Charles Brown

>>> Russ <r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> 02/26/99 09:45AM >>>
This thread is out of kilter. The key point is not bourgeois thinkers using
Marxism, but the reverse- that of the 'Marxist' totally emboiled in
bourgeois theory and practice.
Hence the unceasing prattle about the reproduction of ideology, hegemonic
shifts and the whole caboodle of radical-functionalist garbage that gets
passed off revolutionary thought.  As Meszaros enjoys pointing out, such is
the power of the functionalist paradigm, that those who paint a radical
veneer on its surface, are precisely those who fail to realise that their
thought is inescapably are caught up its essence.


Russ




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Feb 26 14:55:39 1999
From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:55:39 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Bourgeoisie use Marxism
Message-ID: <s6d6d237.031@mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Re: this discussion whether or not the bourgeoisie reads us Marxists:

1)  I believe there is a generational seepage of student radicals who have
entered the bourgeosie.  Lacking a student movement/and/or labor movement/or
civil rights movement many of my generation decided that being a
revolutionary was not a career with much of a future in the US.
Together with the collapse of the Soviet Union,  Marxism appears to be many
to be an interesting "thought experiment", rather than having anything to do
with their lives.
--------
2) The social democracy throughout much of the world outside of the US has
become the transmission belt of  bits and pieces of Marxism to the
bourgesoie.  Actually, Marxism is acceptable to the bourgeosie...if you
leave out the class struggle.  Several months ago the former president of
Colombia quoted Gramsci.  "Cultured" people in most of the world outside the
US have read Marx--even if they oppose everything in Marxism. The "cultured"
boourgesie in the US tends to be more ignorant.

3)  According to the book "Making the Corps" about the U.S. Marines by
Thomas Ricks  all Marine Captains are required to read "On Guerrilla
Warfare" by Mao Tse Tung. (That proves there's something wrong with Mao!)
Marine coronels are expected to read Tolstoy's ""War and Peace" and "August
1914" by Solzheniitsyn.            EARL GILMAN
                                   El NUEVO TOPO magazine
                                   Socorro Obrero Sindical

>From: 



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk  Fri Feb 26 20:05:40 1999
From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:05:40 +0000
Subject: M-TH: GM foods
In-Reply-To: <l03130301b2f6e0e111e1@[193.60.146.202]>
References: <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@-->
 <002c01be5d2e$b0a5fea0$1a0bfed0@--> <mk+7rBA0v8z2MwPF@heartfield.demon.co.uk>
 <l03130301b2f6e0e111e1@[193.60.146.202]>
Message-ID: <NuERJDAEE212Mw7a@heartfield.demon.co.uk>

In message <l03130301b2f6e0e111e1@[193.60.146.202]>, Russ
<r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk> writes
>Ok then Jim, I'll grant that it looks and smells like a classic panic, but
>what about the study that showed immune system damage in rats fed GM food,
>the fear of cross pollenation with wild stock and the general hit or miss
>nature of the technology? And why not test it with the same procedures used
>for new drugs, or are you worried about the loss of profits for those
>marketing the stuff?


Well, I think everybody now knows that Arpad Pusztai's research does not
show that genetically modified foods are in principle bad for you. It is
certainly a classic panic when the panic continues irrespective of the
scientific evidence.

I am not concerned about Monsanto's profits, but I am concerned about
the loss of real advances for science if investigation is prevented.

The suggestion that drug-style tests are appropriate rests on a
misunderstanding. Drugs are designed to impact upon your health - which
is why they are tested more stringently.

In principle GMOs are no more nor less likely to harm your health than
any other foodstuff. Pusztai's rats were eating a vegetable that
contained harmful lectins, but there are of course many poisons that
naturally occur. One scientist made the point succinctly when he pointed
out that the ordinary, genetically unmodified potato would not pass the
tests in place for GMOs.
-- 
Jim heartfield


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Sat Feb 27 00:03:11 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:03:11 +0100
Subject: M-TH: Croatia!
Message-ID: <00eb01be621f$3d5a7840$4fe4a3c3@malecki>

>
>Title:  Croatian unions take things into their own hands 
>Author:  Davor Huic, Reuters 


>ZAGREB, Croatia -- The notion of the good old days has taken on a new
>meaning in Croatia as workers decide to take things into their own 
hands,
>convinced it is the only way to keep their jobs in an increasingly dire
>economic situation. 
>
>Across the country labour unions are setting up ``crisis committees'' 
to
>save jobs and prevent their firms from going under, prompting observers 
to
>ask whether the country is returning to the old socialist days of
>self-management. 
>
>In the soft variant of socialism dominant in former Yugoslavia until 
the
>1990 transition to democracy and a market economy, workers were the 
nominal
>owners of companies and had elaborate control systems through which 
they
>could influence and overlook the activities of managers. 
>
>Having vanished from the workplace, the idea now seems to be returning 
with
>thousands of workers setting up ad hoc pressure groups and taking 
control of
>companies from new-era owners who emerged from Croatia's sometimes 
messy
>privatisation process. 
>
>``I have worked for this company for 27 years, and I feel I have the 
right
>to take part in deciding about its future,'' said Mira Stambuk, a
>49-year-old archivist at the Diona market chain. 
>
>She had joined some 300 colleagues at a protest in front of Zagreb's
>commercial court, calling for it to stop bankruptcy proceedings against 
the
>heavily-indebted company, and for the government to save it, along with 
some
>2,500 jobs. 
>
>``We don't want bankruptcy. We want work, we want bread,'' read banners
>carried by a crowd of peaceful but resolved protesters. 
>
>Others contained less friendly messages about what should happen to the
>person responsible -- in their view -- for their plight, the new-style
>capitalist Miroslav Kutle who owns Diona. 
>
>``This is our company much more than Kutle's, because we have been 
building
>it for decades,'' said Stambuk. 
>
>Kutle's giant empire, said to contain more than 150 firms organised in 
the
>holding company Globus, started falling apart last April when a bank 
that
>helped finance its acquisitions went bankrupt and had to be bailed out 
by
>the government. 
>
>Diona's crisis committee wants the government to take it back from the
>Globus group and bail it out, just as it did with another three of 
Kutle's
>firms that ran into financial troubles -- the daily paper Slobodna
>Dalmacija, dairy industry KIM and kiosk operator Tisak. 
>
>
>QUESTIONING PRIVATISATION 
>
>In fact, the effective nationalisation of private firms is the 
expressed
>goal of many crisis committees -- and more than 30 such groups have 
been set
>up so far -- prompting questions about the efficiency of the entire
>privatisation process. 
>
>The trend was set by workers at Petrokemija Kutina, a giant loss-making
>fertiliser producer, who staged a protest when their firm was slated 
for
>privatisation through a voucher scheme. 
>
>They managed to prevent the sale, winning government guarantees to sort 
out
>the firm's huge debts to suppliers while it continues to produce 
fertilisers. 
>
>Niko Gunjina, head of one of the major unions involved in the workers'
>revolution, denied the spontaneous self-organising should be labelled 
as a
>return to the old system. 
>
>``We are pro-market, but we want it to be regulated and have a social
>component,'' Gunjina said. ``We must not allow the kind of wild 
capitalism
>we have here to dictate all the relations in the market. The workers 
need to
>have a say as well. 
>
>He accused the government of not having done enough to prevent
>politically-connected tycoons acquiring enormous wealth with little 
money of
>their own, and then ruining firm after firm along the way by pumping 
cash
>out of them. 
>
>
>UNEMPLOYMENT 
>
>Left-leaning unions blame the hasty privatisation and the government's
>liberal economic doctrine for the loss of some 800,000 jobs since 1991. 
>
>Croatian unemployment rose to 18.6 percent in December and the number 
of
>pensioners and unemployed has reached the number of those working to 
support
>them -- though extreme levels of tax evasion by companies mean there is
>little money to pay their benefits. 
>
>According to sociologist Marina Kokanovic from SSSH, another union, 
some 35
>percent of Croats live below the poverty line, rather than the four 
percent
>claimed by the government. 
>
>Zeljko Ivancevic, speaking for an association of employers, was quoted 
as
>saying ``Those committees could be dangerous if they are a hint that 
workers
>are prepared to resort to extra-institutional measures to protect their
>interests'' in the Vecernji List daily.
>
>His fears do not seem too far off target, judging by graffiti that 
recently
>appeared on a wall in the coastal town of Zadar: ``Give Factories Back 
to
>Workers, and Land to Peasants. Power to the People.'' 
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6116 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990227/e1189144/attachment.txt>

From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk  Sat Feb 27 09:16:31 1999
From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:16:31 +0000
Subject: M-TH: 'socialism of fools'
Message-ID: <pHZqVBAfpB22Mw1i@heartfield.demon.co.uk>

Does anyone have a reference, or better still some context, for German
Socialist August Bebel's comment that "Anti-Semitism is the socialism of
fools" (1893?).
-- 
Jim heartfield


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From farmelantj at juno.com  Sat Feb 27 05:07:35 1999
From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:07:35 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Croatia!
References: <00eb01be621f$3d5a7840$4fe4a3c3@malecki>
Message-ID: <19990227.130945.3486.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

I believe that Rosser Barkley has said in the past that Slovenia has
largely retained the Titoist-era system of 'self-managing' socialism.

		Jim Farmelant
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:03:11 +0100 "Bob Malecki" <malecki at algonet.se>
writes:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_00E6_01BE6227.9E5E9D80
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>>
>>Title:  Croatian unions take things into their own hands=20
>>Author:  Davor Huic, Reuters=20
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From 74742.1651 at CompuServe.COM  Sat Feb 27 13:38:48 1999
From: 74742.1651 at CompuServe.COM (neil)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 15:38:48 -0500
Subject: M-TH: 'socialism of fools'
Message-ID: <199902271542_MC2-6C07-EF35@compuserve.com>

Jim H;

Bebel was probably responding to the growth in
Germany   (and a few other countries - a la France ) of "anti-semitic
leagues" which at this time were still marginal but
inflenced petty bourgeois and lumpen elements .

German Social Democracy was not yet the 'stinking
corpse' it would become by 1914  and most of SD still took a quite
principled stand exposing these racialist  outfits  , their use to
the bourgeoisie, unscientific ideas, ties to monied 
 nationalist reactionaries, etc.

But matters would change by WW1 and its aftermath 
and German chauvinism was to have greater influence
inside the SDs ranks as well. Especially in the German 
defeat , the ranks of anti-semites and  their political influence grew,
and the Nazis themselves were an otgrowth of the 
seminal  pre-war  'anti -semitic leagues", then with the heat
of war hyteria and nationalism that had not only been 
promoted  by the monarchists,  junkers,  Republicans and big 
bourgeois , but  the SD too, leading to the outfits like
the "freikorps" to smash up the  communist workers councils , etc.

In fact , when one studies the mass struggles in the
wake of WW1 , the revolutionary wave , even then in the
ranks of  not just  the SD, but  the KDP , even  KAPD, you see the left
communists are also having to battle a minority anti-semitic
nationalism-- even inside the ranks of workers.

So i guess Bebel & co. , with  mistakes taken to account, were  still
quite far-seeing on the issue of attemting to combat anti-semitism
in Germany and in seeing the pernicious effects of it.

See left-communist web for inquiries
http://www.ibrp.org

Neil


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From dhenwood at panix.com  Sun Feb 28 08:20:54 1999
From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:20:54 -0500
Subject: M-TH: macabre dance
Message-ID: <v04011701b2ff0f49f337@[166.84.250.86]>

Anyone know where Marx said "M. le Capital and Mme. La Terre danced their
macabre dance"?

Doug


     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From james.lawler at sympatico.ca  Sun Feb 28 15:20:52 1999
From: james.lawler at sympatico.ca (James Lawler)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:20:52 -0500
Subject: M-TH: Life Is Beautiful
Message-ID: <003901be636b$98d99780$e7eeacce@b1ognq47>

Here is a review of the film I wrote for the Sartre listserve. Sartre, I
think, would say that Marx would agree with this.

--Jim Lawler

 I just saw the amazing film, "Life Is Beautiful." Such a title for a film
centered on life in a Nazi concentration camp. And yet, it is convincing.
Life can be beautiful even in the horrors of the death camp.
 One of my favorite passages in Sartre's Being and Nothingness is from his
discussion of the nature of values. "Ordinarily . . . my attitude with
respect to values is eminently reassuring. In fact I am involved in a world
of values. The anguished apperception of values as sustained in being by my
freedom is a secondary and mediated phenomenon. The immediate is the world
with its urgency; and in this world where I engage myself, my acts make
values spring up like partridges."
 In the middle of a thick book of disturbing philosophy, Sartre gives us
partridges. I thank him for that.
 Ordinarily, we don't realize that we cause the values to spring up,
wonderfully, like partridges.  We take our values as reassuring, rigid facts
of life. Existential anguish arises when one discovers that the values one
accepts only work as values because of one's own free, creative complicity
with them. We don't want to have to ask ourselves whether these are the
values we want to live by, whether this the kind of life we want to create.
 There must however be a step, or many steps, beyond the initial experience
of anguish. Such a recognition opens up the possibility of creating values
freely, like an inspired artist.
 Guido is the existentialist Master, a person who is able consciously to
make the values of his choice spring up like partridges. He is a moral
magician, who sees and creates beauty in the worst ugliness.
Why does the sign say, "No Jews or Dogs Allowed"? his five or six-year-old
son asks him. Guido, a Jew, tells his Jewish son that nobody likes everybody
or everything. The son says that he doesn't like spiders. ?There, you see?
And I don't like . . . Visigoths! So let's put a sign on our store: No
Spiders and Visigoths Allowed.?
 Those who know Sartre's book may find special significance in Guido's
occupation. He is . . . a waiter. Guido's performance of being-a-waiter
would make a wonderful film clip to accompany Sartre's description of the
waiter whose "being a waiter" is inevitably a playing at being a waiter. The
waiter creates himself as a waiter. But the ordinary, at least Parisian
waiter takes his waiter values very seriously, thinking of them as stern
facts rather than as creative fictions. Guido creates himself as he goes
along, in all the roles he is forced to play as well as the ones he is free
to make up himself, as when he plays prince to his beautiful princess.
 Central to Sartrean existentialism is the  idea that individuals freely
create their own values.  This does not mean that all values are equal. It's
not relativism.  There are two kinds of freely created values: those that
are freely created but in the ?bad faith? that they are determined by
outside forces--nature, tradition, a god, the Leader. And there are the
values created by people who know they are creating values, and whose values
must therefore reflect this knowledge.
 Guido sees and exposes the ridiculousness of the ordinary, conformist
majority who have fallen under the self-induced spell of the first type of
values. He asks the new employer of a friend what his politics are. The man
is momentarily distracted by his twin sons, rough-housing rudely nearby.
"Adolfo, Benito, stop that. Now, what were you asking?" Guido tactfully
drops his question. He had just seen the values of that other person jumping
up and down, almost partridge-like, in the form of two very large round
boys.
 The absurdity of the Nazi values is demonstrated by Guido when he takes on
the guise of a school inspector, in order to get another meeting with Dora,
his ?princess.? After going through a ludicrous inspection to Dora?s
amusement, he finds that he has to give a lecture on the superiority of the
Aryan race. By the time the real inspector has arrived, Guido has stripped
down to his underwear to display the superiority of the Aryan belly button.
The school authorities ridiculously force themselves to maintain their roles
of admiring audience for the supposedly higher wisdom they are receiving.
The power of human freedom, in the form of bad faith or self-deception,
apparently knows no bounds. Why then not also the opposite use of such power
on behalf of honesty and freedom?
 Sartre's formulated his theory of existentialist freedom under the Nazi
occupation. We are free even in prison, he said.  This concept of "absolute
freedom" has frequently been criticized as indicating a problem with this
philosophy. Life Is Beautiful demonstrates that we can indeed be
meaningfully, creatively, effectively free even in a concentration camp.
Even there we can cause beautiful values to spring up around us like
partridges.
 The film suggests the question: if there can be such a possibility of
creative freedom in under the worst conditions of human degradation, what
are we not capable of in better conditions?
 Naziism has helped us to see how far down the human being can go when the
idea of egotistical power  over others is taken to its ultimate conclusion.
Sartre's existentialist theory of the free creation of values explores the
crevasses and caverns of this underground world of self-imposed darkness. He
takes us on a modern tour of Plato's cave where people take concocted images
seriously even though they have disturbing glimpses of their delusion. But
the point of this is not a pessimistic idea that the cave is all that
exists. It is to show us that if we can put ourselves in this condition, we
can also take ourselves out of it.
 Life Is Beautiful shows what an individual can do in the dankest depths of
the cave, thanks to an awareness of human beauty and the recognition that it
is up to us to create, cultivate and protect it.

_______________________________________
Dr. James Lawler
Philosophy Department
SUNY at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY
USA  14260
Base e-mail:  jlawler at acsu.buffalo.edu
  forwards to:  james.lawler at sympatico.ca
Work phone:  716-645-2444 x770
Work fax: 716-645-6139
Home phone:  905-687-6651



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 28 16:48:38 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:48:38 +0000
Subject: M-TH: US asylum seeker in Sweden
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990228234838.014915a0@pop.gn.apc.org>

Yesterday's (London) Guardian has a story which perhaps Bob Malecki knows
more about: a US asylum seeker in Sweden, Ritt Goldtein. 

Age 46, mother refugee from Austria, degree in economics, middle class
lifestyle in Connecticut, donating money to both political parties, but
sympathies mainly Republican, started his own marketing company, became a
millionaire and a justice of the peace. But in 1995 he got involved in a
campaign to reform the US police, founding the Standing Committee on Law
Enforcement and drafted a bill providing for legal redress in cases of
police misconduct. He says soon after his home and office were ransacked,
tyres and steering wheel of his car were tampered with, and he was
repeatedly sprayed with mace and pepper: He lost his home and business. In
1997 his asylum application to Sweden was turned down and since then he has
been hiding in the north of that country under an assumed name. In Sweden
Amnesty International, and leading Christian and Jewish groups have spoken
out on his behalf. Sweden rejected his application on the grounds that the
US is a recognised democracy and that it was inconceivable that systematic
persecution could take place without any form of redress.

His case has been taken up by Sweden's "top" immigration lawyers, Robert
Camerini, and Sten de Greer. He is appealing to the European Court in
Strasbourg but is not optimistic.

Does anyone know the case in Sweden or the USA?

Chris Burford
London



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From cburford at gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 28 16:36:09 1999
From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:36:09 +0000
Subject: M-TH: 'socialism of fools'
In-Reply-To: <199902271542_MC2-6C07-EF35@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990228233609.0148f6dc@pop.gn.apc.org>

This looks relevant to the anti-semitic position taken by Makashov in the
Soviet Union, and the caution that Zyuganov shows in denouncing him. He
gets presented by the liberals as purely anti-semitic, but his position is
probably more dangerous. 

Chris Burford






At 15:38 27/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Jim H;
>
>Bebel was probably responding to the growth in
>Germany   (and a few other countries - a la France ) of "anti-semitic
>leagues" which at this time were still marginal but
>inflenced petty bourgeois and lumpen elements .
>
>German Social Democracy was not yet the 'stinking
>corpse' it would become by 1914  and most of SD still took a quite
>principled stand exposing these racialist  outfits  , their use to
>the bourgeoisie, unscientific ideas, ties to monied 
> nationalist reactionaries, etc.
>
>But matters would change by WW1 and its aftermath 
>and German chauvinism was to have greater influence
>inside the SDs ranks as well. Especially in the German 
>defeat , the ranks of anti-semites and  their political influence grew,
>and the Nazis themselves were an otgrowth of the 
>seminal  pre-war  'anti -semitic leagues", then with the heat
>of war hyteria and nationalism that had not only been 
>promoted  by the monarchists,  junkers,  Republicans and big 
>bourgeois , but  the SD too, leading to the outfits like
>the "freikorps" to smash up the  communist workers councils , etc.
>
>In fact , when one studies the mass struggles in the
>wake of WW1 , the revolutionary wave , even then in the
>ranks of  not just  the SD, but  the KDP , even  KAPD, you see the left
>communists are also having to battle a minority anti-semitic
>nationalism-- even inside the ranks of workers.
>
>So i guess Bebel & co. , with  mistakes taken to account, were  still
>quite far-seeing on the issue of attemting to combat anti-semitism
>in Germany and in seeing the pernicious effects of it.
>
>See left-communist web for inquiries
>http://www.ibrp.org
>
>Neil
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From mjb at comserver.canberra.edu.au  Sun Feb 28 19:17:38 1999
From: mjb at comserver.canberra.edu.au (Michael Booth)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:17:38 +1100
Subject: M-TH: US asylum seeker in Sweden
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990228234838.014915a0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <l0313030bb2ffa4e6b298@[137.92.41.128]>

I don't know any details of this particular case, but it certainly rings
true with everything I have heard about Sweden, which is that it is an
authoritarian state with fascist leanings hidden not very far under the
surface.

As examples of their politics one can examine their history, including the
ways that the Swedes experimented with eugenics and racial engineering back
in the 1920s and 1930s. Admittedly it was fashionable to do so back then -
even the USA was forcibly sterilising people deemed to be unworthy of the
right to reproduce, but the Swedes did so enthusiastically and on a scale
that would have attracted the approval of their nordic cousins in national
socialist Germany. Their neutrality during WWII enabled numerous Swedes to
keep doing business with Nazi businesses, and it was, of course, through
Sweden that the Nazi leadership tried to negotiate with the Allies during
the closing months of the war.

The Swedish approach to issues that involve anything like civil liberties
for their own people also fails to stand up to critical scrutiny, young
Swedes are regularly arrested and persecuted on the mere suspicion of being
a user of any of the drugs that are currently banned. What is amazing is
that somehow the Swedes have managed garner  and maintain a reputation for
being freedom loving democrats who are steadfastly independent.

>Yesterday's (London) Guardian has a story which perhaps Bob Malecki knows
>more about: a US asylum seeker in Sweden, Ritt Goldtein.
>
>Age 46, mother refugee from Austria, degree in economics, middle class
>lifestyle in Connecticut, donating money to both political parties, but
>sympathies mainly Republican, started his own marketing company, became a
>millionaire and a justice of the peace. But in 1995 he got involved in a
>campaign to reform the US police, founding the Standing Committee on Law
>Enforcement and drafted a bill providing for legal redress in cases of
>police misconduct. He says soon after his home and office were ransacked,
>tyres and steering wheel of his car were tampered with, and he was
>repeatedly sprayed with mace and pepper: He lost his home and business. In
>1997 his asylum application to Sweden was turned down and since then he has
>been hiding in the north of that country under an assumed name. In Sweden
>Amnesty International, and leading Christian and Jewish groups have spoken
>out on his behalf. Sweden rejected his application on the grounds that the
>US is a recognised democracy and that it was inconceivable that systematic
>persecution could take place without any form of redress.
>
>His case has been taken up by Sweden's "top" immigration lawyers, Robert
>Camerini, and Sten de Greer. He is appealing to the European Court in
>Strasbourg but is not optimistic.
>
>Does anyone know the case in Sweden or the USA?
>
>Chris Burford
>London
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


-
Take care of yourself
Michael Booth




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Sun Feb 28 21:46:38 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:46:38 +0100
Subject: SV: M-TH: US asylum seeker in Sweden
Message-ID: <006401be639e$800a64e0$aae3a3c3@malecki>





>Yesterday's (London) Guardian has a story which perhaps Bob Malecki knows
>more about: a US asylum seeker in Sweden, Ritt Goldtein. 

No, first time. In fact nothing in the news here about it. 

Bob
>
>Age 46, mother refugee from Austria, degree in economics, middle class
>lifestyle in Connecticut, donating money to both political parties, but
>sympathies mainly Republican, started his own marketing company, became a
>millionaire and a justice of the peace. But in 1995 he got involved in a
>campaign to reform the US police, founding the Standing Committee on Law
>Enforcement and drafted a bill providing for legal redress in cases of
>police misconduct. He says soon after his home and office were ransacked,
>tyres and steering wheel of his car were tampered with, and he was
>repeatedly sprayed with mace and pepper: He lost his home and business. In
>1997 his asylum application to Sweden was turned down and since then he has
>been hiding in the north of that country under an assumed name. In Sweden
>Amnesty International, and leading Christian and Jewish groups have spoken
>out on his behalf. Sweden rejected his application on the grounds that the
>US is a recognised democracy and that it was inconceivable that systematic
>persecution could take place without any form of redress.
>
>His case has been taken up by Sweden's "top" immigration lawyers, Robert
>Camerini, and Sten de Greer. He is appealing to the European Court in
>Strasbourg but is not optimistic.
>
>Does anyone know the case in Sweden or the USA?
>
>Chris Burford
>London
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>




     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


From malecki at algonet.se  Sun Feb 28 21:46:43 1999
From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:46:43 +0100
Subject: SV: M-TH: US asylum seeker in Sweden
Message-ID: <006701be639e$81f8c760$aae3a3c3@malecki>


>I don't know any details of this particular case, but it certainly rings
>true with everything I have heard about Sweden, which is that it is an
>authoritarian state with fascist leanings hidden not very far under the
>surface.

      
SWEDISH GRAFITTI 

AN A                                                          

TRAVEL GUIDE


Recently the United Nations gave and award to Sweden because of its 
work on equality. Obviously the United Nations representatives have 
had the wool pulled over their eyes or are blind to the fact that 
Sweden has become a racist society.
           
That in Sweden, discrimination and segregation in the workplace, in 
the living areas, in the schools, has become a serious problem and 
in some areas of the country, general praxis. That in other words 
means that 20% of the population (non Swedes and families of the 
first and second generation of non Swedes) are treated unfairly, 
undemocratically and unequaly.
          
Furthermore the situation has become so serious that last night on 
national TV, on the program Striptease, we had a situation where 
Swedes in a little town in the south quite openly defended a racist 
youth gang who murdered a black youth in brutal cold blood. Where a 
leader of this bloodthirsty mob was allowed on the program to defend 
their program of extermination. In fact, a Jewish woman was forced 
to leave the program because she refused to be in the same room with 
this racist. This Jewish woman stated that she felt that she was 
reliving the thirties of Germany once again.
            
So naturally one has to question the sanity of those in the United 
Nations who have given this award to Sweden. The equality for the 
non-Swedes in      Sweden is beginning to look like the equality 
black people had in Alabama or    Little Rock, Arkansas in the United 
States during the late fifties and early    sixties... Believe me, I 
was there.
           
When I say racism, I mean the general rise in vicious attacks on 
non-Swedes. People murdered in cold blood on public streets or thrown 
in to lakes      after being severely beaten, in order to die. I mean 
the burning of crosses on the front lawns of people's homes. In fact 
even firebombing of homes and stores owned by non-Swedes. These acts 
of ever increasing terror are perpetrated on people who's only crime 
is not being a Swede or having black skin.
           
The courts, the prosecutors and even the minister of justice appear 
to be paralysed and do nothing to stop these racist attacks. In fact 
there is a death sheet with 300 names on it, people the racist 
terrorists say should die. One prosecutor actually recommends people 
not to do anything when confronted with his or her name on it.
           
Recently the courts sentenced a non-Swede for protecting his home 
from a vicious attack by racists. For months these people were being 
persecuted by    the racists and even their house was repeatedly 
attacked and windows and  doors smashed. When the man in the family 
defended himself, he was tried and convicted for injuring one of the 
racists!
           
People are literally being burned out of their homes by racist gangs. 
Firebombs in the middle of the night and crosses burning on the lawn. 
Does this sound like "equality" to the United Nations? To me it sounds 
like "Dixie" during the years of the Klu Klux Klan..
           
The above is the open racist attacks on non-Swedes. However racism      
which is hidden under the surface is generally widespread throughout 
the country. "Nigger" and "Blackskull" has become the general 
reference among the general population, in talking about people who's 
skin is of another colour. In fact you don't even have to be black, 
a Turk, a Iranian, a Latin American with brown skin are treated as 
second and third class citizens. In fact if you talk with an accent 
in Sweden today, it is enough to get your head bashed in or your 
house attacked!
           
Everyday practically there are reports of new incidents of open 
racist  terror or hidden racist practice. How can the United Nations 
turn a blind eye to those events. In fact by giving Sweden a prize 
for equality, is basically like giving George Wallace a prize during 
the sixties for raising the status of equal rights for white middle
-class women in Alabama!
           
Today in Sweden we are talking about 15% of the population that do 
not have a job. Over 500,000 people are directly unemployed or are 
in some sort of job education program. However that figure does not 
give a true picture of reality. In fact in many of the larger cities 
80% (!) of the non-Swede population do not have jobs. In fact 
non-Swedes, procentually, are the overwhelming majority of unemployed, 
those on welfare, or in job training.
           
Today it has become common place that if you are not a Swede, then 
you don't get a job...People who have worked in the areas which 
before relied on non-Swedes, such as cleaning toilets, changing 
bedpans or taking care of the mentally undeveloped, have become 
nearly total Swedish workplaces. Today a non-Swede has a chance of 
getting a job as a snowball in hell. The only area where this has 
not become norm, is the picking of strawberries, during the 
strawberry season. That area has been reserved for east Europeans 
and non-Swedes. Because it is a lot like picking cotton in the 
south during slavery or picking grapes in California, which is 
usually reserved for the Mexicans who illegally come to the United 
States to pick.
           
This is discrimination on a broad level. Although you will never 
hear a Swedish employer say that "you do not get the job because 
your skin is black"   or " because you have an accent" the fact is 
that non-Swedes do not get jobs.
           
However if your skin is black and you want to go out to a club and 
have a beer or go dancing, you will be turned back at the door with 
"only members allowed". This means whites only...This white only 
policy has become fairly widespread in many areas of nightlife Sweden. 
So if your skin is black or brown you stay home or organise parties 
with your own kind.
          
Discrimination appears in all walks of life and levels of government. 
The percentage of non-Swede participation in leading positions in 
government is basically zero%. The same goes for government on the 
local level. Now really, how could anyone believe that the Swedes 
deserve a prize for equality from the United Nations. I mean for 
twenty percent of the population, we are a statistic: either 
unemployed, on welfare, or deported from Sweden.
          
Segregation in the living areas and schools in the large cities and 
even        large towns has become a serious problem, if not general 
praxis. There are areas        in Stockholm, Malm? or Ume?, where 
most if not all Swedes have moved out. There are classes in school 
where there is not one Swede. In fact these areas are considered the 
Swedish ghettos with high unemployment, high welfare, high crime 
rates, and 98% non-Swede.
     
In fact this segregation is generally recognised both by the 
population in general and Swedish politicians. However nothing is 
being done that can      change the situation to the better. Instead, 
policies by the government, of cutting unemployment and welfare 
benefits are in general making economic and living conditions worse 
for people. This tends to increase the rate of segregation. What we 
are seeing here are the future Watts and Harlem's of Sweden! In fact 
the only thing lacking is the cry of "Burn Baby Burn" which perhaps 
will come in the next 5 or 10 years.
         
Internationally Sweden has been known as a "Social Welfare State" 
of the more progressive type. In 1972 when I first came to Sweden 
this claim was      perhaps true. However this is the 90ties and 
reality is in fact, of a fastly growing racist, discriminating 
and segregated society here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


But to be honest, Sweden has not been a racist, discriminating and 
segregated society since the beginning of time. In fact when I came 
here in  1972, Sweden really was a nice place to live! This has its 
special historical reasons. Sweden was a so called "neutral country" 
during both World Wars. In reality that meant that the Swedes got to 
sell their enormous reserves of iron ore, timber, and cement to both 
sides during the wars.
          
Especially the Second World War which laid most of Europe and a good 
part of Russia in ruins, the clever Swedes were able to sell their 
products to     both sides, the Axis and the Allies, with enormous 
profits which laid the foundation of its modern Welfare State under 
the leadership of the Social Democracy.
           
Naturally a political price had to be paid. Although most Swedes 
really believed that they were "neutral" during the war, the 
politicians and capitalists, were certainly not. First they were 
pro-German, allowing the Germans free transport through the country 
in order to occupy the other Scandinavian countries. In fact today 
their are reports coming from Finland saying that the Swedish 
secret police co-operated and gave lists of names of resistance 
people in Denmark and Norway to the Nazis,s! This is from files 
now being opened in         Finland 50 years after the war. Some 
people are demanding that the Swedish Secret Police now open their 
archives to see exactly what they were doing. However there are 
others that believe that any comprehending material to the Swedes 
has already been destroyed.
          

Then as the Allies got to be the winning side, the Swedes became 
pro-allied. This meaning also the Russians, who demanded that the 
Balts who were fleeing the advancing Red Army by coming to Sweden 
be sent back. The Swedes quickly capitulated to the Russians, just 
as they did to the Nazi's demands earlier in the war.
           
Anyhow, if the Swedes made enormous profits selling iron ore and 
Cement for Nazi U-boats and "Festung" Europe during the beginning 
of the war. It was nothing!, compared to the enormous profits to be 
made in building up a Europe which lay in ruins after the war!
           
Just as America came out of the war with its industry production 
intact, and which laid the basis for the "American Century" as a 
superpower. The Swedes also had a enormous industry intact which 
laid the basis for the creation of enormous wealth in order for the 
Social Democrats to build its welfare state.
           
The position that the Swedish capitalists had at the end of the war 
was terrific. An enormous iron ore industry, a huge cement industry, 
and endless forests to be exploited for timber in order to rebuild 
Europe. 
           
However, the Swedes had one major problem, its labour force was to      
small, with a population under 8 million,they could not get enough 
workers tothe industries to generate even more profits.
           
Thus began the beginning of a forced migration of people living in 
the  small towns and countries in the north of Sweden to the 
industrial centres in the south. When I came here in the seventies 
more then half of the Swedish workers I met in the industries had 
been forced to move to the southern industrial centres during their 
lifetimes.
           
Even this forced migration of tens of thousands of families was not     
enough. So the Swedes began importing enormous amounts of workers from  
European countries to man there expanding and profitible industries.
          
The Social Democrats created vast building projects like the "million 
program"  a million apartments to house the workers moving into the  
industrial centres. Of course this program took on some very funny 
architectural proportions.
            
I mean Sweden with a cement industry that helped build the "Atlantic 
Wall" and Hitler's bunker, in tact after the war. They naturally 
started building the housing needed for the armies of workers in 
cement! If you look at the houses built in the fifties and early 
sixties, its cement walls, floors and ceilings everywhere.
           
For the Swedes this had some funny cultural quirks also. I mean if 
you empty the countryside of people to fill the industries who were 
born and raised in the country. They get homesick for the country. 
However the Social Democrats were smart and claimed that everybody 
now would have the money   to build a summerhouse in the country. 
And the Social Democrats could   basically hold their promise, 
because the capitalists were prepared to pay quite well, because 
of the superprofits they were making in building up a Europe in 
ruins. So most Swedes got to buy a summerhouse in the country!
           
While the Swedish capitalists were making billions in super profits, 
the Social Democrats were keeping the workers calm with all sorts 
of reforms.  Almost free Health care, pension funds, good housing, 
good pay, new cars, and summer houses in the country. 
             This also led to the gigantic growth of the bureaucracy to administrate this growing welfare state. It also led to the creation of an enormous middle-class with its social values and ideology. But the middle-class was not satisfied with a three room apartment in cement and the wooden cheese boxes industry began to grow and flourish. Surburbs with shopping centres and malls and pretty little houses for the middle-class just started popping up everywhere.
          
However even with imported labour industries could not get enough 
labour, so childcare centres developed and Swedish women entered 
the labour market. The public sector kept growing and growing and 
female labour filled these institutions. Life was just great and 
the future looked bright. Then the ballong exploded...


-------------------------------------------------------------------


When I came here in 1972 Sweden was at the peak of its development. 
I received a humanitarian asylum in Sweden because of my opposition 
to the war in Vietnam.                                                                                                                                                                  

These were the final years of Social Democratic reforms. The last 
great reform I remember quite clearly it was called "the wage 
workers fund". This  was a scheme by the Social Democrats of 
scooping off the top of the capitalist classes ever growing profits, 
(the capitalists called it a confiscation), and putting it in a fund 
controlled by the trade unions in order to buy out the capitalists 
industries stocks and bonds and ultimately take over. 
            
In reality this scheme was a product of the reformist trade union 
bureaucracy who wanted a part of the capitalist action while letting 
the workers decide the colour of the curtains to be hanged in the 
windows of the factories. On every board of directors was a Social 
democratic trade union bureaucrat and the wage worker fund became 
a major actor on the Swedish      stock market. This Social 
Democratic invention invested millions, billions of   crowns in 
stocks and property. The peaceful way to socialism in a nutshell, 
buy the capitalists out by scooping a percentage of the profits from 
the top.
            
It was the first "great reform" that the bourgeois parties wiped 
out after coming to power for the first time,( in over 50 years), 
in the eighties.
           
Because the good times were over. 
            
Now that the major economic powers, including the defeated Germany 
and Japan, were again playing a major role on the International 
scene, the super profits of Swedish Capitalism were decreasing.
           
With the major imperialist powers up to full and even better pre-war 
economic strength, the Swedish economy became and over inflated 
ballong, living far beyond its economical potential. It exploded in 
the 80ties when the bottom fell out of the stockmarket and property 
investments dived to record lows.
           
The Swedish banks who had speculated heavily in property all over 
Europe were in trouble, big trouble. Billions in losses could not 
be covered and they turned to the welfare state for garantees for 
their international losses and debts in the billions. At the same 
time Swedish industry production dropped like a bomb because of 
the inflated prices. Unlike their Norwegian brothers and sisters 
they had no offshore oil to drop back on.So the state controlled by 
the bougeois parties started borrowing money internationally. One 
hundred crowns, two hundred billion crowns and more to cover their 
asses. At the same time trying to hold up the welfare state built up, 
under extremely particular circumstances and conditions. 
           
Money was pooring out like diarir, borrowed money, to save the banks 
and hold up the welfare state. An then the Soviet Union collapsed!
           
But also the Swedish Crown was set free and collapsed!
           
These two events caused the capitalist and political leaders of 
Sweden to drastically change political course.
            
It also was the end of the Social Democratic pipedream of a peaceful 
way        to socialism. It also began the plundering an rape of the 
welfare state. It ended the long history of fake "neutrality" for 
Sweden, which however was excepted internationally.
           
And it also led to the society which I have described in the first 
part of this chapter! And finally it led to that foreign capital is 
taking over here and the Swedes have less and less to sayor own!


------------------------------------------------------------------------


When the Soviet Union disintegrated because of the bankruptcy and       
historical betrayals of the Stalinists. The Swedes made a sharp turn 
in their long standing policy of neutrality.
            
If the policy of neutrality saved the Swedes from two World wars in 
the beginning of this century. The Swedes thought wisely that 
neutrality would save them during the Cold War if it became a hot 
war. However even before the echoes of the Berlin wall crashing down, 
reunifying Imperialist Germany came to a halt. The Swedes decided to 
join, what they thought to be, the winning side and applied for 
membership in the Common Market. 
           
The big debate was not membership or not, economically the Swedes 
had no choice. The big debate was around neutrality for Sweden in 
the next war. They chose to drop their neutrality as you can well 
see that for the first time in modern history the Swedes are 
intergrated into the NATO forces in former Yugoslavia. However the 
Swedish people really think that they are still neutral. I am afraid 
that they will not wake up till their boys start coming back in 
boxes. Or perhaps a little longer from when inter-imperialist 
rivalry really starts to heat up. Then perhaps the Swedish people 
will wake up and realise that their leaders have changed a course 
of over 200 years without war for them.
            
When the inflationary ballong exploded. The Swedes were forced to 
float the Swedish Crown in order to find its real worth on the 
International market. The Swedish Crown dropped like a bomb to 
historical low levels. Over night the worth of a Swedish Crown 
dropped by half. It was the final nail driven into the sinking 
welfare state. The rats started immediately to desert the sinking 
ship, carrying or stealing everything possible with them before 
it goes down.
           
The sinking of the Swedish welfare state is not like the Titanic 
which hit an iceberg and went down very quickly. The Swedish 
welfare state is sinking far slowly at least at first, but the 
deeper down it goes the quicker it sinks.
           
The rats are taking everything of worth and stuffing it in their 
pockets.         Companies and businesses are systematically 
plundered and the workers thrown out on the streets. 
           
Bureaucrats who sit in high state owned companies and the trade 
unions open their parachute agreements, (agreements giving them 
millions of crowns in pension and early retirement benefits), worked 
out between themselves in the board of directors rooms. State own 
industries sold out to the capitalists both foreign and domestic. 
Thousands of acres of forests sold, cut down, plundered of the 
treasures and then left too rot. 
            
As the  welfare state is plundered, unemployment goes up like a 
skyrocket. Permanent mass unemployment is a fact, the first time 
since the thirties! The whole welfare state straining and busting 
apart under the pressure. So then come the cuts. First in the 
periphery of the social system and reaching    out to wrip its heart 
out. Today we are there, the cuts have come to the very pillars of 
the welfare state. Unemployment insurance, Pensions, Healthcare, 
childcare. The workers, the old people, the young people left 
standing with their pockets empty.
           
The Social Democratic paradise a plundered and empty shell.The 
confusion in the workers movement is total except for those busy 
grabbing everything they can. The Social Democrats have become a 
27% party. Historically a level never reached it its long history 
after coming to power. The party is split between the 
"traditionalists" , those who want to go back to the good old times 
of a welfare state that does not exist any longer and the "new 
thinkers" who engineered, along with its bougeois allies, entering 
the common market, dropping neutrality, and pushing the welfare 
state over the cliff to its slow death.
            
In the workers movement to the left (?) of the Social democracy 

is the  former Euro-Communists, ( they dropped the Communist after 
the fall of the      Soviet Union) who are growing to new historic 
levels of 14% which is really historical. Plus a few left groups 
who still exist on the fringe of the workers movement. 
           
However they are all still tailing or criticising the Social 
Democrats and hardly from the left! In fact they have become 
isolationist, feminists, and environmental activists instead of 
trying to tell the hard truth to the workers about what is happening 
or what the future brings, especially after the fall of  the Soviet 
Union.
            
At best there demands are back to the welfare state, women's 
equality, and a clean world for the kiddies without atomic power. 
They are trying to       pressure the traditionalists in the Social 
Democracy to fight for reforms that will bring back the good old 
times.
           
They are blind about what is going on because they have never 
experienced anything else then the welfare state. They are fighting 
for bringing back a  Social Democratic pipedream, which developed 
here for a short    historical period because of very special 
conditions mentioned above.
          
The left does not even realise what's happening here because in 
this isolated little backwater a really revolutionary leadership 
or tendency in the workers movement never developed. It will take 
bodies coming home in boxes  and empty stomachs, poverty and 
starvation before these healthy Swedes wake up I am afraid.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


Finally I would like to take up here that everything which lies 
under the feet of the Swedes is being sold out by the state to 
foreign investment. While        the lovely little summer houses once 
owned by Swedes during the good times are quickly being sold to rich 
Europeans especially Germans in the south of Sweden. The biggest 
mining company in the world Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) is moving in to 
take over the rich mineral desposits in the north of Sweden, 
especially diamonds.
           
Last year, while writing about Vietnam, a friend of mine from 
Australia warned about this company. Specifically, they RTZ, were 
involved in a little dirty war on the island of Bougainville along 
with the Australian government. That this mining company, the largest 
in the world, historically had a lot of blood on its hands.
           
My friend told me about Bougainville, a little island in the Pacific 
Ocean, where a war of liberation has been going on since 1988. 
The island belongs to the state of Papua New Guinea and is a part of 
the Salomon islands.
           
During the Second World War the Solomons were occupied by the   
Japanese and after the war became part of the Australian colonial 
sphere. Bougainville is one of the richest areas in the world of 
deposits of gold and copper.
         
The troubles on the island started when the Australian based mining 
company CRA began its operations of exploitation of copper and gold. 
CRA is owned by RTZ which has mining interests all over the world and 
is now trying to get what's lying in the ground here in Sweden.
            
On Bougainville their are about 200,000 people living. There lifestyle 
is fairly simple fish, coconuts, fruits. Lying near the equator a 
warm climate.
           
When the mining company started operations whole villages were moved, 
the rain forest was cut down, wild life died out and poisonous waste 
from the mining operations pumped out into the rivers and lakes and 
the fish died. The mining company basically destroyed the very basis 
for these island people to survive.
      
So in 1988 a rebellion by the people on the island started. They 
closed the mine and declared that they wanted independence from the 
state of Papua, New guinea (PNG).
           
Closing the mine on Bougainville meant that the mining company had 
lost one of its most precious and profitable jewels. During the 
80ties the mine      was the largest and most profitable company 
in Australia.
         
So the mining company with Australian military advisors, including 
helicopter gunships and big money backed the Papua, New Guinea 
government    in order to get back what it had lost. They have 
even set up a naval blockade around the island to stop the flow 
of supplies and medicine from getting to the island people 
fighting for their independence.
           
Over 10,000 people have died on Bougainville have died since 1988,
five percent of the population. Only a few hundred have died in 
battle. The rest have died because lack of food, medicine, summary 
executions, murder, torture, and just disappearing. Still today as 
I write this the people of Bougainville still control the island 
and the mine has not been reopened. This is not the only blood 
this company has on its hands. The RTZ is also deeply involved in 
the present border conflicts going on between Peru and Equator. 
The prize is the rich minerals resources found in the area that 
they are fighting about.
            
In fact it would not surprise me at all if I were to say that RTZ 
was standing in line during the war in Vietnam to get exploration 
rights if the Americans and their Australian allies had not been 
thrown out of Vietnam when the Vietnamese marched into Saigon in 
1975 and took back its own country from the colonialists, who had 
occupied their country since the second world war.
            
So as the Swedish bourgeoisie and their political spokesman really 
were getting into the plundering of the welfare state they put the 
following announcement out.

Welcome to Sweden
           
See the changes since 1992:


NEW MINERAL OPPORTUNITIES                                                                                              

NEW MINERAL POLICY                                                                                             

NEW MINERAL LEGISLATION                                                                                        

FAVOURING PRIVATE                                                                              

ENTERPRISING 


Join the present "never before seen" claim-staking rush for 
base-metals, gold and diamonds in northern Sweden by the 
International Mining Industry.
           
Don't wait. Free ground, potential for exploration is rapidly 
diminishing.

THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF SWEDEN
will give you information and assistance.


The announce goes on and describes the Geological Survey of Sweden. 
A state run institution which for years collected information on 
minerals and finds, paid for by the welfare state. Now it would be 
used to sell out the whole state mining industry to private 
interests. So the Swedes now have lost their base for their very 
existence to International finance. This is one of the best 
examples of ripping off the Welfare State as the rats leave the 
sinking ship!
            
The vast areas of northern Sweden, owned an run by the Welfare State, 
are being given away, for free! All of this under the guise of that 
we have lived over our resources and have to cut the states expenses. 
And guess who has come to Sweden to get part of the booty. Yes, Rio 
Tinto Zinc, is moving in order to take the very ground that the 
Swedish people though taxes had financed as part of the Welfare State.
           
The Swedish people and especially the working class and poor appear 
to be paralysed. The state which has always taken care of them from 
birth to death is disintegrating before their eyes. Without 
leadership, or rather as the leadership deserts the ship, those 
left are whining about going back to the good       old times at 
best. No one appears to see the truth, or has the guts to tell 
the truth. The Welfare state is dead and it was your own leaders 
that killed it.
          
Perhaps the only good that will come out of all this is that, through 
a         series of splits of the parties presently claiming to 
stand on the side of the working-class, a militant tendency, will 
develop or crystallise, here in Sweden as elsewhere Internationally 
leading to a new leadership which can show the way forward in the 
coming battles. However these groups that exist will have to be 
tested both in theory and practice in the coming battles. No one 
deserves a free ticket after the historic defeats imposed on the 
International workers movement in the last 75 years.
            
In ending, I would like to say that this section of this book on 
Sweden is my gift to the Swedish workers movement. A thank you for 
a place to survive, recuperate after the war in Vietnam. It is a 
gift from my heart and belly button which is my Crystal ball. So 
cheer up, things get worse before they get better...   














     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu ---