en-us http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/ Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:13:36 GMT Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:13:36 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000909.html Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:18:46 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000908.html wrote: > I don't have time or energy to develop this now, but isn't it at least > worth considering that the whole collection of campaigns to reform, change, > measure, etc. schools and teachers can only be seen clearly from the > perspective of current class struggles? They're businesses too, of course. -- -- Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com I'll get you, Wilson, and your little Dawkins too.]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:40:38 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000907.html Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:09:22 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000906.html > On Jan 28, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Miles Jackson wrote: > > > I think you're missing the dog whistle here. For the "colleges should be > > run like a business" types, efficiency is just cost per student. > > There's always the revenue side. When I was out in Riverside the other night, > people were talking about how UC is recruiting students in China who'll pay > through the nose. The administration swears this won't reduce access >From an acquaintance [sp?] I have in a college admissions dep't, this is a common practice--actively recruiting students whose families will pay outright. My informant suggested that these tend to be wealthy kids not quite bright enough to make into a first-tier school. In the case of California, I simply refuse to believe that putting "butts in the chairs", in this case, butts that don't qualify for state funding, is not completely motivated by the double-benefit of 1. not paying state $$$ 2. gett]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:41:38 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000905.html wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Miles Jackson wrote: > >> I think you're missing the dog whistle here.  For the "colleges should be run like a business" types, efficiency is just cost per student.  Given that salary and benefits are about 80% of the budget at most colleges, it is pretty obvious what a college must do to "increase efficiencies."  --And cutting enrollment won't generate any efficiencies, because that won't lower the cost per student.  In fact, if a college cut enrollment drastically, the lowest paid instructors (adjusts and contingent lecturers) would be laid off first, a higher proportion of classes would be taught by highly paid tenured faculty, and the cost of education per student would substantially increase. > True. The efficiency argument is clearly aimed at increasing class sizes and decreasing the amount of time students are allowed to stay in school. Slashing faculty pay and making ev]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:25:27 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000904.html Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:18:37 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000903.html >There's always the revenue side. When I was out in Riverside the other night, people were talking about how UC is recruiting students in China who'll pay through the nose. The administration swears this won't reduce access for California residents - apparently they just want to add rich Chinese to the mix. One faculty member said she ran into a horde of other U.S. university people also recruiting in China. > >Doug > Yes, that's happening in WA state too. The U of W is increasing out-of-state and international admissions and cutting out the in-state community college transfer students. For the U of W, it's a logical response to significant cuts in state funding, but it doesn't generate the kind of "efficiencies" that the Gates Foundation, Lumina, and Obama are advocating. They want colleges to produce more graduates at a lower cost. From the perspective of the higher ed "reformers", cranking up revenues by cherry-picking high tuition students is part of the ]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:45:18 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000902.html I think you're missing the dog whistle here. For the "colleges should be run like a business" types, efficiency is just cost per student. Given that salary and benefits are about 80% of the budget at most colleges, it is pretty obvious what a college must do to "increase efficiencies." --And cutting enrollment won't generate any efficiencies, because that won't lower the cost per student. In fact, if a college cut enrollment drastically, the lowest paid instructors (adjusts and contingent lecturers) would be laid off first, a higher proportion of classes would be taught by highly paid tenured faculty, and the cost of education per student would substantially increase. There's always the revenue side. When I was out in Riverside the other night, people were talking about how UC is recruiting students in China who'll pay through the nose. The administration swears this won't reduce access for California residents - apparently they j]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:35:12 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000901.html > How does one measure "value and efficiency" of college education? > > > Hoever you do it, they could be made to go up by cutting enrollment in > half. > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > I think you're missing the dog whistle here. For the "colleges should be run like a business" types, efficiency is just cost per student. Given that salary and benefits are about 80% of the budget at most colleges, it is pretty obvious what a college must do to "increase efficiencies." --And cutting enrollment won't generate any efficiencies, because that won't lower the cost per student. In fact, if a college cut enrollment drastically, the lowest paid instructors (adjusts and contingent lecturers) would be laid off first, a higher proportion of classes would be taught by highly paid tenured faculty, and the cost of education per student would substantially increase. Miles]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:20:48 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000900.html How does one measure "value and efficiency" of college education? Hoever you do it, they could be made to go up by cutting enrollment in half.]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:17:09 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000899.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/education/obama-to-link-aid-for-colleges-to-affordability.html?_r=1&hp > > "The president also wants to create a $1 billion grant competition, > along the lines of the Race for the Top program for elementary and > secondary education, to reward states that take action to keep college > costs down, and a separate $55 million competition for individual > colleges to increase their value and efficiency." How does one measure "value and efficiency" of college education? I for one would think that every university board of dirs. would fight tooth and nail to suppress alumni employment data, which makes me think that could be a good thing. My hunch, though, is that "value and efficiency" means some new version of standardized testing. Giving college seniors SATs four years later. That's to ignore the obvious "it's not a stick it's a carrot" competetive ethos at play. -- Nathan]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:38:53 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000898.html > I lost my way on the web page so I can't give you a link, but google: > > Barbara Jeanne Fields, Slavery Race, and Ideology > > And yu will find an article of that title which might help you. > Thank you for the ref Carrol. Here s the link for others interested: http://www.solidarity-us.org/pdfs/cadreschool/fields.pdf. Reading now ravi]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:46:40 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000897.html Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:31:09 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000896.html Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:22:26 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000895.html wrote: > A Chinese visiting scholar in the U.S., friend of a close friend of > mine, just returned from a brief trip to China.  She told my friend > that the impact of OWS on China is "tremendous."  Ideological > "neoliberalism" in China -- which exercises a strong influence among > the urban "middle class," the academy, etc. -- is now going on the > defensive. > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:40:33 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000894.html Comments interlinear: > >shag carpet bomb wrote at Friday, January 27, 2012 9:21 AM: > >you've lost me. > >[cbc] That's partly because I deliberately shifted the basis of the >discussion, and I'm not an accomplished epistemologist to make myself as >clear as necessary. I'll continue to muddle along. A preliminary >observation, when real debates about real relations of theory and practice >come up they _never_ extend "practice" to refer to ordinary human behavior. >To get into that is to muddle the discussion irreparably and wander for ever >talking past each other. This discussion makes sense only in the domain of >conscious action and serious questions as to the basis of a particular >_course_ of conscious action to Theory regarded as existing only in >conscious minds. "Theory" becomes meaningless if you see it as something >somehow drifting u]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:28:44 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000893.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:22:53 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000892.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:02:16 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000891.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:50:19 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000890.html wrote: > On Jan 27, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Wojtek S wrote: >> [WS:]  I think a lot of it has more to do with actual behavior than >> prejudice - in which case the more exposure the less tolerance obtains >> (contrary to your hypothesis.)  It has a lot to do with  social norms >> of behavior accepted in one subculture that other subcultures find >> objectionable.  I've seen just as much of this type of intolerance >> among blacks against whites as in whites against blacks.  More >> educated whites are better at hiding it, but it is there. >> >> In other words this form of racism or rather intolerance - which is >> think is different from the "traditional' US racism - is ]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:32 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000889.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:38:43 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000888.html [WS:] I think a lot of it has more to do with actual behavior than > prejudice - in which case the more exposure the less tolerance obtains > (contrary to your hypothesis.) It has a lot to do with social norms > of behavior accepted in one subculture that other subcultures find > objectionable. I've seen just as much of this type of intolerance > among blacks against whites as in whites against blacks. More > educated whites are better at hiding it, but it is there. > > In other words this form of racism or rather intolerance - which is > think is different from the "traditional' US racism - is based on > reaction to actual differences in social behavior rather than > prejudice. And of course it is not limited to the US - I've seen that > quite a bit in other countries. People more easily associate with > those of the same cultural/educational background as themselves in, > say, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico, or India than with people]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:43:59 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000887.html Marv: "Neither the Catholic nor Protestant churches have had any > success in sponsoring union federations to rival the vastly larger > ones initiated and controlled by social democrats and Communists in > Western Europe " > > [WS:] I do not think it was their goal. Their goal was to split the > labor movement and weaken it vis a vis the capitalists as well as to > counter socialist organizing. You can see that by comparing countries > with strong organized religion, such as the Netherlands, Germany, > Italy, Spain or Portugal, where socialists had at best a limited > success, and those with weak religion (e.g. Sweden where the Catholic > church was virtually non-existent, and the Lutheran church was subdued > by the crown and incorporated into the state bureaucracy) were > socialists were very successful in labor organizing. I suggest you read up on the history of the trade union and socialist movements in Germany, Italy, and Spain, in p]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:14:05 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000886.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:57:15 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000885.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:23:25 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000884.html Marv: "Second, it is also true that what you call "consumerism and > suburbanization" has played a role in fostering atomization and > breaking down social solidarity. These are actually by-products of the > unanticipated rise in mass living standards throughout most of the > 20th century. Marxists had instead expected there to be increasing > immiseration leading to revolt as a result of capitalism's "inherent > contradictions" playing themselves out." > > [WS:] And this was a MAJOR blunder, a demonstrably false prediction > that normally would falsify a scientific theory. But then, as JK > Galbraith aptly observed, Marx could not have foreseen the development > of the corporation and Keynesianism, which were a real game changers > that undermined the entire classical economic theory (not just > Marxism). I agree, as noted above, that the early Marxists could not have foreseen the resilience and adaptability of capitalism in finding new ]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:16:08 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000883.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:43:11 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000882.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:14:55 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000881.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:51:44 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000880.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:52:06 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000879.html Let me repeat one point from my previous post. > > Theory has no existence outside conscious and self-conscious human minds. > > Some of the comments seem to reify it as something out there. But it is not > a Platonic Form, existing from all eternity. > > So when we talk about the relation of Theory to practice we have to focus on > consciously held abstract principles consciously controlling the practice. On the subject of theory and practice, Charles' posts from varied sources recording first-hand observations about the Occupy movement have been extremely valuable in allowing me, and I'm sure others, to draw informed conclusions, ie. "theorize", about what it represents and where it is going. Thanks, Charles, and keep them coming. On 2012-01-27, at 10:59 AM, c b wrote: > http://www.thenation.com/article/165899/occupying-policy > > Occupying Policy > > Rachel Signer | January 26, 2012 > > Walking by Zuccotti Park, you might think that Occ]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:23:09 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000878.html The reason is likely that directors" have more independence on > choosing their platform. A slew of recent instances (Clorox, GE, > Genentech, Google, etc) of relaxation of IT policy on choking users > with Windows offers different statistics on what workers really > prefer. Independence and authority. The "Consumerization of IT" is the latest fad, with Apple integration for executives leading the trend. Matt -- GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim/google/MSN/yahoo: beyondzero123]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:59:38 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000877.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:59:16 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000876.html On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM, // ravi wrote: > >> At any rate, the reason I don t want to go down this path is that if we truly believe from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs , then it seems a bit misdirected to worry about the missing millions of NBA stars (which is not the same thing as suggesting that they be demonised). > > I think your instincts are right on this - and anyway it's really > problematic to quantify any _individual's_ creation of value, since it > necessarily takes place in a social framework. > Good point. ravi]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:39:55 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000875.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:31:34 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000874.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:30:26 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000873.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:21:22 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000872.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:49:36 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000871.html Marv: "I don't think that disappointment with the historic experiments > in the USSR and China can be the whole answer" > > [WS:] Neither do I but I think it played a major role...Socialism was > perceived as utopia on earth and when it turned out to be just another > dictatorship, many people felt betrayed. > > ...I think that an equally important factor in > the decline of labor movements is the changes in social structure that > occurred in the 20th century. First, peasant collectivism ... was very important in everyday life of the > subordinate classes. However, with further transformation of social structure, especially > in the US, brought by consumerism and suburbanization...The role of the collective > in social life was reduced to religion - hence the importance of > churches, which for the most part put a wet blanket on labor militancy > and organizing (with a few exceptions, of course.) So what we > currently have is basicall]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:08:41 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000870.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:51:20 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000869.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:16:47 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000868.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:13:13 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000867.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:51:52 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000866.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:49:41 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000865.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:34:54 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000864.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:32:24 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000863.html On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 18:25, Carrol Cox wrote: > > > > Anyone who wants to engage in the c oming struggles triggered by > Wisconsin & > > expanded by OWS will have read Ted Morgan's book or he/she is not > serious in > > his/her claimed political intentions. > > > > Any one who refers to 'the '60s' even in casual dinner-table chat without > > having read Ted Morgan's book is proliferating nonsense (often in its most > > vicious form of half-truths). > >I feel a gauntlet has been laid. How long does everyone need to get >this book? Carrol says we must read it to have ANY further >conversation about the 60s. I have been concentrating (when I have >time) on reading about the 70s as that's the decade I was born; but >most all of my ideology is rooted in the supposed dynamics of the >decade before. We are at an impasse and the only solution is a book >club. We can]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:10:47 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000862.html Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:24:55 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000861.html Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] not theory > The Leninist baggage of What is to be Done? I don't know about anyone else, but I have always found quite funny the image of Lenin running into the library to get a copy of Hegel's Logic to read after hearing of Kautsky's betrayal. Lenin seems to have had a really mechanistic and naive view of the relationship between theory and practice. Which is why he didn't amount to a hill of beans? T: Wow, what a stunning illustration of the Sorites paradox. Anyway I just find the idea of "consulting" a theory before you decide what to do next rather ridiculous. From: "Carrol Cox" Subject: [lbo-talk] The '60s I say this partl to explain the sheer assertiveness, without supporting argument or qualification. T: It comes as a relief to know that it wasn't anything to do with your personality. Anyone who wants to engage in the c oming struggles triggered by Wisconsin & expanded by OWS will have read ]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:07:44 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20120123/000860.html >> 1/26/2012 6:35 pm >>> From: "Carrol Cox" Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] not theory T: OK I'll bite on this, see below Tahir Wood: "To say that theory and practice are two different things is not to say that you can have one ENTIRELY without the other." You have to keep your focus in a context. I don't need Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to perform all sorts of tasks. You do not have to 'check' the theory of gravity to conclude that you need to be careful whete you set that piece of rare china. Theory at this level has NO (direct) link to most human practice. T: Who said anything about "direct". That's where you read me wrongly. And I didn't mean that every act makes a quick check of the theory. That would be absurd to suggest. Secondly, you're not understanding my notion of practice, which I tried to explain. Practice (as the word refers in practical philosophy) is about how you go about living your life. And how you go abou]]>