Me at a glance:
|
- articles to which I have made significant contributions:
socialist economics, participatory economics,anarchist economics, Robin Hahnel, Pat Devine, Noam Chomsky, libertarian socialism, capitalism, Maurice Dobb.
Some Representative Contributions edit
1. Anarchist Economics edit
( nb: some of this content originates from a paper I wrote comparing Marginalist and Institutionalist approaches for my political economy class. Parts in brackets represent the contributions of other wikipedians, but are included for the sake of continuity and context.)
Critique of Subjective Theories of Value
(Supporters of capitalism usually agree with what is called the Subjective Theory of Value (STV). The prevalent form of the (STV) which usually appears in economics textbooks is known as the marginal utility theory of value. In academia, this school supercedes the older classical economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.)
As with previous theories based upon a utility theory of value the marginalists maintained that commodities exchanged on the market were sources of utility for consumers. However the defining innovation of the marginalists was a rigorous abstract explanation of how market prices reflecting supply and demand were, in the last analysis, a net aggregrate expression of the economizing behaviour of the independent individuals who populated the market. The theory was anchored by the notion that, since utility satisfaction for a given commodity diminishes with each additional increment consumed, rational individuals balance their consumption choices so as to maximize total marginal utility for their given set of preferences. Market prices were the expression of this marginalizing rationality as it is constrained by the interacting competititve context of the market economy.
Anarchist economists join many other leftist economists, notably Marxists, neo-Ricardians, and critical institutionalists, in dissenting against mainstream economics which "far from being the 'science' it claims to be, instead serves as capitalism's ideology." (Dowd, Understanding Capitalism, 4) They have argued that marginal utility theories of value contain fundamentally incoherent views of human agency, institutions, valuation and allocation. Accordingly, they have argued that marginalism is reductionist in its illegitimate narrowing of economic behaviour to rational self-interest. Social anarchists point to the role of social institutions, including that of class and other forms of domination as important factors accounting for human agency. They have also pointed to the irrelevance of theoretical models based upon competitive equilibrium with regard to modern oligopolies that are sustained by a complex fabric of dominance in the form of economic, legal, political and cultural institutions. Additionally they maintain that a marginal utility of value leaves important aspects of economic life that enter into valuation out of the picture, such as the household and production relations, and draw attention to its failure to adequately account for dynamic processes related to long-term economic change. Underlying many of these sharp disagreements are qualitatively different approaches to the methodology of economic enquiry. Social anarchist economists vociferously reject the preliminary intellectual dispositions of marginalists towards economic enquiry including their methodological individualism, emphasis on mathematical and logical formalism, and what they regard as a hollow stance of value neutrality.
Random Brainstorming edit
- Critics have maintained that there is an inherent tendency towards oligolopolistic structures when laissez-faire is combined with capitalist private property. Because of this tendency laissez-faire has drawn fire from critics that believe an essential aspect of economic freedom is the extension of the freedom to have meaningful decision-making control over productive resources to everyone. Economist Branko Horvat explains, "it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."[1]. W.F. Oakshott presents the following empirical evidence for changes in the structure of employment during the laissez-faire phase of capitalist development in England and Wales:
late 17th century: % of employers:14
""" % of employees:34
% of independents:52
1921: % of employers: 4
% of employees: 90
% of independents: 6[2]
Elsewhere in the world the results were the same but with slightly different time lag. Edwards, Reich and Weisskopf had very similar findings for U.S. development.[3]
Gilbert Achhar on Jewish refugees fleeing Naziism edit
"There is a famous allegory used by Isaac Deutscher about a house that is on fire and a person jumps from the window and falls by accident on a passerby, meaning the Jewish refugees fleeing Naziism were tragically and accidentally landing in Palestinian territory. But the analogy is not completely accurate, because it wasn't just an unfortunate coincidence; European Jews were channelled toward Israel despite the will of their overwhelming majority. The majority did not want to go to a land they imagined to be like a desert with camels; the promised land of their dreams was not Palestine. It was North America. The same goes for the recent wave of Russian immigration to Israel; the Begin government arranged with Moscow that Jewish emigrants would be given only one choice of destination- that is, Israel through Austria." (185, Perilous Power, The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy, Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Acchar, interviewed by Stephen Shalom)
Gilbert Acchar is Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Paris.BernardL 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet more morally depraved and slanderous accusations of anti-semitism by reactionaries edit
In criticism of Noam Chomsky someone dropped in the following slur which has subsequently been protected by reactionaries who display no knowledge of the text to which it refers. Keep in mind that charges of anti-semitism are exceptional charges and that therefore they require exceptional support as per WP: BP. Here is the charge:
- Critic Werner Cohn states that Chomsky's book The Fateful Triangle "...contains twelve references to Hitler. In each case some Jewish action is said to be like Hitler's or some attribute of the state of Israel or the Zionist movement reminds Chomsky of Hitler."'
- response-
When one looks at "each case" there is no hint of anti-semitism in any one case let alone all twelve.
A review of each of the references reveals that in 6 cases Chomsky is not himself originating the references to Hitler, rather the theme is introduced by other parties (other academics, media, statesmen, organizations,etc). Of those 6 references, in 4 cases the Hitler theme was introduced by pro-Israeli sources. In the other 2 cases the source of the Hitler theme are anti-war jews in Israel (p.396), and Lebanese journalists (p.443), respectively.
In 5 cases Chomsky is himself making a comparison to Hitler. But it is worth noting that not one of these comparisons contains even a hint of disparagement against Jews because of their ethnicity. These comparisons raise themes that are based on either the cynical geopolitical maneouvering or the apologistic propaganda of Hitler's regime, in each case the comparison to Israeli policy or a moral doctrine espoused by an apologist for Israeli policy is substantiated by the accompanying text.
In 1 case a reference is a mere description in which Chomsky is actually expressing sympathy for jewish survivors of the holocaust while emphasizing the insensitivity of the elites who were leading Zionism towards jews displaced in the holocaust. This last example is worth quoting in full to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the charge that writing such as this can be considered anti-semitic: (p. 92, Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle)
"As for the wretched survivors of Hitler's Holocaust themselves, it is likely that many- perhaps most- would have chosen to come to the United States had this opportunity been offered, but the Zionist movement, including American Zionists, preferred that they settle in a Jewish state, a story being relived today with Jewish emigrants from the USSR."
note- the broader discussion of which this is a part concerns the predictable consequences of imposing the state of Israel on top of land already occupied by 700,000 palestinians, without due consultation with the palestinians and jews who were already living there.
later on the same page, another mention of Nazis occurs as Chomsky describes the insensitivity with which Jews displaced by the Holocaust were treated by US policies, and the support of US Zionists for those policies!
"After the war, tens of thousands of Jewish displaced persons died in camps from miserable conditions and lack of care, as congressional Displaced Persons (DP) gave priority not to the Jews but to refugees from the Russian-occupied Baltic states, many of them Nazi sympathizers, including even SS troopers. There was little American Zionist support for legislation intended to bring DP's to the U.S. in contrast to massive support for resolutions calling for the establishment of a Jewish state."
So there you have it- the above is what is described by reactionaries -typically apologists of Israeli state terrorism, or neo-con or libertarian war mongers- as evidence of expression of "anti-semitism" by Noam Chomsky! We really are in Orwell territory. BernardL 15:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)