L-I: RE: Ceding ground to capitalist ideologues

Craven, Jim jcraven at SPAMclark.edu
Mon Dec 13 14:28:22 MST 1999



Response:

Why is this sociologist wannabe (even more useless than bourgeois economics)
and De Long clone writing on these lists? Notice, again, nothing of any
substance but chit chat and one-liners from this creature. You leave pen-l
because of bootlicking/attention-desperate punks like this dominating the
space with nothing, and they just migrate over to other lists, again with
nothing of substance to say except more mindless chit-chat.

OK punk, why not lay out what you consider an example of an insightful,
substantive, and penetrating critique and/or comment by the likes of De Long
or by De Long himself followed by your own rendition of why, in particular,
this comment or insight or critique is so penetrating and supported by
concrete evidence. In other words, let's see what you've got besides your
usual snide and devoid-of -substance-or-content comments--so easy to type
and sling. And by the way you fucking punk, I know you don't have to know
any math to do Sociology ( talk any kind of shit and like bourgeois
economics, telling people what they already know in Pasonian-like language
that no one understands), but familiarity with the English language should
be requisite; "someone" not "some one" I believe is the usual eh? And while
your at it, why not lay out what concrete struggles you are involved in,
what you have published and what makes you worth even a response.

And by the way, this is also more response than you deserve but what the
hell, everyone needs a hobby once in awhile. If you can count and do simple
percentages, calculate the simple percentage of words directly or indirectly
referring to De Long and junior wannabe minions such as yourself as a
percentage of total words written below; then calculate how many missives or
words, as a percentage of the totals written, that refer to De Long and his
junior wannabe minions in the total missives and words I have written since
leaving pen-l. It's called not making summary general inferences or
conclusions from very limited and biased samples--i.e. one part of one
missive--punk.

Scum like this, along with the comnfortable house "Marxists",  have already
wrecked pen-l; please demand substantive comments and not provocations or
unsub their punk asses.

Jim Craven


Jim C



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen E Philion [mailto:philion at HAWAII.EDU]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 12:12 PM
To: 'leninist-international at buo319b.econ.utah.edu'
Cc: 'marxism at lists.panix.com'
Subject: Re: L-I: RE: Ceding ground to capitalist ideologues


For some one who doesn't want to focus his energies on liberals like
Delong, you sure do spend a lot of space and time discussing him below...

Steve

Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822


On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Craven, Jim wrote:

> Just got back from up north and my daugter and I loved "The Iron Giant".
> I've begun to explain to her about metaphor and allegory; beatniks, the
> yin-yang symbol on Dean's bathroom (as a metaphor for dialectics), the
> insanity of "duck and cover", the military-industrial complex, Mutual
> Assured Destruction, the paranoid-belicose ultra-right CIA (Kent the
agent),
> reconstitution of a new left (the Iron Giant coming back together piece by
> piece at the end), the end of the Ozzie and Harriet era (Hobarth's single
> mother) etc etc.
>
> I left pen-l because I just don't have time (or energy or inclination) to
> give the pimps/whores of imperialism that have taken over even one minute.
> The only possible argument for giving the likes of De Long any space is
that
> with each message they expose not only how morally bankrupt they are, but
> they also expose how incompetent they are even solely in terms of basic
> bourgeois economics. There is simply too much to do and too much to
> seriously analyze/discuss with serious people who actually doing
something,
> or attempting to do something--other than narcissistic masturbation and
> self-promotion behind their keyboards. I feel the same about the
> self-professed anarchists. I expect them to feel the same about me.
>
> We shouldn't feel bad about not bothering with the anarchists or
> petiti-bourgeois neoliberal globalists (I'm sure De Long sends copies of
his
> harassment to his mentors in DC with "See me, I'm taking on the infidels,
> see, I'm not dangerous, got a consulting contract for me?") or these
> anarchist punks. they are not worth one minute--not even to read and learn
> how bankrupt anarchism and neoliberal globalism are as their arguments, if
> one can call their polemics any kind of "arguments", are nothing new. But
if
> these creatures are allowed to dominate lists with their verbiage, serious
> people will leave--perhaps that is their intention as they behave like
> outright agents provocateurs and wreckers.
>
> I do agree that we need to evolve new constructs that go deeper below the
> surface of capitalism and imperialism to the essence, only some of which
can
> be originated from existing data bases and constructs. Many will require
> whole new sampling approaches and whole new constructs (way beyond GPI etc
> etc) and of course that can only be done by being active in real change in
> the real world. Many of the constructs necessary to quantify as well as
> qualify cannot be gathered or synthesized from data in the likes of the
> National Income Accounts or Statistical Abstract of the U.S.--some can.
Also
> we need to go beyond rehashing and slinging the same old quotes and
appeals
> to "authority" IMHO or replaying the same old debates of 130 years ago and
> more recent. And of course we need to expose the organizational agenda,
> interests and intentions of the academic/policy wonk/ politician
> pimps/whores of imperialism (e.g. see "The Cold War and the University" or
> "Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During
> the Cold War" etc)
>
> Jim Craven
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Proyect [mailto:lnp3 at panix.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 1999 6:44 AM
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com; pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: Ceding ground to capitalist ideologues
>
>
> Last night I thought about the never-ending debate that the left has been
> having with people like Brad DeLong on PEN-L, Thomas Friedman, the Rostow
> brothers, et al. If the left is not careful, it can cede ground to the
> pro-capitalist camp on one very important question. This has to do with
the
> acceptability of using some variety of econometrics as a key criterion.
For
> example, Brad loves to cite statistics that show some kind of improvement
> on GDP, life expectancy, etc., in a third world country in order to settle
> the question of whether capitalism "works" or not. This is absolutely the
> wrong way to discuss these matters, because it implicitly allows the
> possibility for more powerful countries to punish weaker countries who
> refuse to abide by the "wisdom" of such numbers.
>
> For example, the Rostow brothers decided to use South Vietnam as an
> economics "demonstration" of their development ideas against obvious signs
> that the population had different ideas. For those Vietnamese who refused
> to go along with the game plan, the Phoenix Program--i.e., a bullet to the
> head--was the answer. This, by the way, has nothing to do with leftist
> "authoritarian" schemas. A country can democratically elect governments
> that opt for socialist measures, but will still get the bullet to the
head.
> As Kissinger said, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a
country
> go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." And it
> really doesn't matter whether a liberal or a conservative is in the White
> House. Both parties feel free to kill or maim those peoples who choose
> taboo development paths. If the Serbs decide to stick with their corrupt
> and inefficient Titoist economy, they must be punished. Big daddy Bill
> Clinton knows better.
>
> Implicit in Brad's defense of US warmaking initiatives on behalf of a
> "superior" free market economy is a kind of paternalism that is deeply
> ingrained in the American psyche. It goes back to the Monroe Doctrine in
> many ways. It used to be put forward in a much more naked fashion. At one
> time it was fitting and proper for politicians like Albert Beveridge, who
> was US Senator from Indiana to make speeches like this one from his 1898
> campaign ("The March of the Flag"):
>
> "The commercial supremacy of the Republic means that this Nation is to be
> the sovereign factor in the peace of the world. For the conflicts of the
> future are to be conflicts of trade-struggles for markets--commercial wars
> for existence. And the golden rule of peace is impregnability of position
> and invincibility of preparedness. So, we see England, the greatest
> strategist of history, plant her flag and her cannon on Gibraltar, at
> Quebec, in the Bermudas, at Vancouver, everywhere."
>
> Nothing has changed since the days of Beveridge except the rhetoric.
> Nowadays the same desire to impose US economic mandates is couched in
terms
> of "humanitarian interventions", while from 1917 to 1990 it was about a
> fight for "democracy" against "Communist totalitarianism".
>
> Let me tell you what this really is about. It is really a very sick form
of
> paternalism that characterizes the American empire as much as the swastika
> characterized the fitful Third Reich. In effect American imperialism sees
> itself as some kind of benign but disciplining father, with wayward
> teenagers who have to be shown the correct way. "Jennie, no you can't have
> a tattoo." "Why not, daddy?" "Because when you are older and more mature,
> you will realize that tattoos make you look like a low-life and will get
in
> the way of a good job. Also, as long as I pay for your meals and give you
> an allowance, what I say goes." "Well, what if I get one without your
> permission?" "If you do, I will ground you. You will not be able to use
the
> car for a full year."
>
> The same relationship is implied in Brad's defense of imperialism's right
> to shove its economic policies down the throat of wayward nations. "Chile,
> you can not nationalize the copper industry." "Why not, daddy?" "Because
> economic statistics prove that a free market in mineral resources is
better
> in the long run." "But what if we decide to go ahead and nationalize them
> anyhow?" "If you do, I will engineer a coup that will result in the murder
> of your democratically elected president and throw the country into
> economic ruin for 15 years."
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
>
>
>
>      --- from list leninist-international at lists.econ.utah.edu ---
>



     --- from list leninist-international at lists.econ.utah.edu ---









More information about the Marxism mailing list