Charlie | 1 Aug 2007 01:05
Picon
Favicon

Peter Barnes, a "modern" defender of inequality

Spinning off the discussion of Capitalism 3.0 by Peter Barnes from
another thread:

Barnes' basic device is to increase rents (in the technical economic
sense) and spread them around. He makes the rents attractive by putting
prices on aspects of nature, as he says, and even on advertising
clutter. Although Barnes sprinkles around occasional rhetorical
allusions to inequality, he is actually tries to firm up the wage
relation with all its inevitable inequality.

"Argument: Paying dividends to everyone would undermine the work ethic.
Counterargument: This might be true if the dividends were very high, but
is unlikely to be true if they're kept at a modest level. Such dividends
would supplement, but not replace, labor income." (p. 116)

Barnes wants to tie wage earners to their exploitation by making them
dependent on healthy corporate profits for the last 10 percent or so of
their income, much as advocates of "pension capitalism" agitated for
about 30 years ago:

"Eventually, when a post-carbon infrastructure is built, carbon
emissions would stabilize at a low level, and so would this revenue
source for the American Permanent Fund. By this time, the second revenue
source--dividends from holding a portion of publicly traded corporate
shares--would kick in. This revenue source would give every citizen a
stake in increasing corporate profits, just as the first source gives
them a stake in decreasing pollution. Who could object to that
combination?" (p. 144)

As a working hypothesis, I recommend a healthy suspicion that the more
(Continue reading)

Louis Proyect | 1 Aug 2007 01:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: The Ward Churchill firing

Marvin Gandall wrote:
> How is Ward Churchill's scholarly work generally viewed by historians and
> other academics in his field without an ideological ax to grind?

His major work is "A Little Matter of Genocide". I found it
well-researched and authoritative. It is basically a comparative study
of the genocide against the Indian and the Jew and how there has been a
systematic effort to downplay the former and give prominence to the
latter. Like Norman Finkelstein, Churchill is a polemicist. I doubt that
you will find a single article by him in "Journal of Indigenous Studies"
(if there was such a thing.) He writes for a broader audience. With
respect to his credentials, I am quite sure that he is a terrific
teacher since I had the pleasure of chairing a meeting for him once.
Ward can be kind of prickly (Norman F., as well) but so can I. He got
fired because he said something outside the bounds of acceptability. If
he said them today, now that the right wing is badly discredited, it
wouldn't have become such an issue.

Marvin Gandall | 1 Aug 2007 02:10
Picon

Re: The Ward Churchill firing

Louis wrote:

> Marvin Gandall wrote:
>> How is Ward Churchill's scholarly work generally viewed by historians and
>> other academics in his field without an ideological ax to grind?
>
> His major work is "A Little Matter of Genocide". I found it
> well-researched and authoritative. It is basically a comparative study
> of the genocide against the Indian and the Jew and how there has been a
> systematic effort to downplay the former and give prominence to the
> latter. Like Norman Finkelstein, Churchill is a polemicist. I doubt that
> you will find a single article by him in "Journal of Indigenous Studies"
> (if there was such a thing.) He writes for a broader audience. With
> respect to his credentials, I am quite sure that he is a terrific
> teacher since I had the pleasure of chairing a meeting for him once.
> Ward can be kind of prickly (Norman F., as well) but so can I. He got
> fired because he said something outside the bounds of acceptability. If
> he said them today, now that the right wing is badly discredited, it
> wouldn't have become such an issue.
=====================
Sounds about right - especially your last point.

ken hanly | 1 Aug 2007 04:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: query: John Elster and methodological individualism

I don't know whether he has rejected the view but if
it is trivially true then if he rejects it then he
contradicts himself. Something that is trivially true
is a tautology and is true independently of what may
be factually true. A trivial truth contains no
information. An example would be: It is raining or it
is not raining. This is true independently of weather
conditions--of course actually you need to specify
time place etc. to get a proposition and its negation
disjoined.
   I think that he is just wrong. Methodological
individualism is not trivially true.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
--- Jim Devine <jdevine03@...> wrote:

> In 1989, the sociologist and erstwhile Marxist Jon
> Elster wrote that
>
> "The elementary unit of social life is the
> individual human action. To
> ex-plain social institutions and social change is to
> show how they
> arise as the result of the actions and interaction
> of individuals.
> This view, often re-ferred to as methodological
> individualism, is in
> my view trivially true."
>
> Am I correct to understand that he has since
(Continue reading)

Jim Devine | 1 Aug 2007 06:06
Picon

Re: query: John Elster and methodological individualism

i think by "trivial true" he meant the same as Jefferson's phrase,
"self-evident." Equal bullshit. My source says that Elster hasn't
rejected methodological individualism. Rather, he rejected the idea of
individual rationality (as economists define it).

On 7/31/07, ken hanly <northsunm@...> wrote:
> I don't know whether he has rejected the view but if
> it is trivially true then if he rejects it then he
> contradicts himself. Something that is trivially true
> is a tautology and is true independently of what may
> be factually true. A trivial truth contains no
> information. An example would be: It is raining or it
> is not raining. This is true independently of weather
> conditions--of course actually you need to specify
> time place etc. to get a proposition and its negation
> disjoined.
>    I think that he is just wrong. Methodological
> individualism is not trivially true.
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
> --- Jim Devine <jdevine03@...> wrote:
>
> > In 1989, the sociologist and erstwhile Marxist Jon
> > Elster wrote that
> >
> > "The elementary unit of social life is the
> > individual human action. To
> > ex-plain social institutions and social change is to
> > show how they
> > arise as the result of the actions and interaction
(Continue reading)

Louis Proyect | 1 Aug 2007 15:26
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

A sobering assessment

Rightwing radio and TV news shows have been gloating over the fact that 
two "opponents" of the war in Iraq recently wrote an op-ed piece in the 
NY Times claiming that the surge was working.

July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK

Washington

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American 
and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in 
Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost 
essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in 
part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are 
finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two 
analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable 
handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the 
potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable 
stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in 
Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often 
found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the 
wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their 
lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

(Continue reading)

Jim Devine | 1 Aug 2007 15:30
Picon

Re: A sobering assessment

right. But we have to be open to the fact that the bad guys sometimes
win and that their apologists can be partially right.

On 8/1/07, Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
> Rightwing radio and TV news shows have been gloating over the fact that
> two "opponents" of the war in Iraq recently wrote an op-ed piece in the
> NY Times claiming that the surge was working.
>
> July 30, 2007
> Op-Ed Contributor
> A War We Just Might Win
> By MICHAEL E. O'HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK

--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) --  Karl, paraphrasing Dante.

Louis Proyect | 1 Aug 2007 15:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: A sobering assessment

Jim Devine wrote:
> right. But we have to be open to the fact that the bad guys sometimes
> win and that their apologists can be partially right.
>

I honestly don't know what it means to win in Iraq. There is no single
unified political-military force like the FLN in Algeria or the NLF in
Vietnam. You have a highly decentralized guerrilla movement that can go
on fighting for years. I don't think the American people have the
patience for that.

The Buffalo In Da' Midst | 1 Aug 2007 15:52
Picon

Re: A sobering assessment

Kenneth Pollack? Against the war?

Do tell...

When was the Brooking Institute against the Iraq war?

It just wasn't being prosecuted as they might like.

Leigh

On 8/1/07, Jim Devine <jdevine03@...> wrote:
> right. But we have to be open to the fact that the bad guys sometimes
> win and that their apologists can be partially right.
>
> On 8/1/07, Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
> > Rightwing radio and TV news shows have been gloating over the fact that
> > two "opponents" of the war in Iraq recently wrote an op-ed piece in the
> > NY Times claiming that the surge was working.
> >
> > July 30, 2007
> > Op-Ed Contributor
> > A War We Just Might Win
> > By MICHAEL E. O'HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
>
> --
> Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
> way and let people talk.) --  Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
>

(Continue reading)

Jim Devine | 1 Aug 2007 16:12
Picon

Re: A sobering assessment

On 8/1/07, Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
> Jim Devine wrote:
> > right. But we have to be open to the fact that the bad guys sometimes
> > win and that their apologists can be partially right.
> >
>
> I honestly don't know what it means to win in Iraq. There is no single
> unified political-military force like the FLN in Algeria or the NLF in
> Vietnam. You have a highly decentralized guerrilla movement that can go
> on fighting for years. I don't think the American people have the
> patience for that.

it's true. I don't know what a US win would be. It's a monkey trap...

--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) --  Karl, paraphrasing Dante.


Gmane