From hennessy@cnsvax.albany.edu Sun Mar 1 15:27:15 1998 Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 17:26:15 -0500 (EST) From: hennessy@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: Re: Anybody home? In-reply-to: <199802221203.OAA09900@shani.net> To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM Dear all, This list has its ebbs and flows of activity but is still an important space to keep available. Do post your article, Nancy! Best, Rosemary Hennessy From md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Sun Mar 1 17:02:47 1998 Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 19:01:16 -0500 (EST) From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: regarding the essay! To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu hi nancy, thanks for posting your article! it really provides insightfull information on the labor theory of value.however, my major objection is,marx's account of labor does not necassarily exclude the role women and nature played in the creation of material walth, as suggested by some feminists and enviromentalists. Since i am running out of time now, i am giving a quick reply. i will post my objections in pieces as i go along the pages.. fraternally, mine aysen doyran phd candidate dept of pol scie Suny/Albayn New York. md71482cnsvax.albany.edu From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Sun Mar 1 20:46:27 1998 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:35:28 -0800 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: regarding the essay! Mine wrote: >hi nancy, >thanks for posting your article! it really provides insightfull >information on the labor theory of value.however, my major objection >is,marx's account of labor does not necassarily exclude the role women and >nature played in the creation of material walth, as suggested by some >feminists and enviromentalists. > >Since i am running out of time now, i am giving a quick reply. i will post >my objections in pieces as i go along the pages.. > Mine, thank you for your kind response. Of course, I believe that as Marx intended it, his labor theory of value does exclude the contributions of women and nature to social wealth -- that's why I wrote the essay. You'll see my arguement as you go along. Thanks again! Nancy From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Mon Mar 2 09:59:31 1998 id JAA08055; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:58:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:58:57 -0700 (MST) From: Martha Gimenez To: matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU, marxism-feminism@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: ON LINE SEMINAR ON THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (FWD) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 98 09:08:00 From: Manjur Karim To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Subject: virtual seminar: communist manifesto Please distribute to the relevant lists and individuals. Comrades and Friends: Progressive Sociologists' Network is happy to announce the beginning of a virtual seminar to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The "Manifesto", the most widely read and defining single text in the history of modern socialism, was first published in February, 1848. "League of the Just" was a secret political organization formed in 1836 by the radical German artisans and workers living in Paris. At its London Congress in 1847,the organization changed its name to "Communist League." The "Manifesto" was the political document of the newly renamed organization. While the names of both Marx and Engels appeared as co-authors, the primary authorship of the Manifesto should be attributed to Marx. In Engels' own phrase, "the fundamental proposition which forms its nucleus belongs to Marx." But then again, the concept of authorship itself needs to be problematized. Like any other text, the Manifesto makes sense within the context of a historically embedded intertexuality. As Robert Beamish, one of the authors participating in our virtual seminar has pointed out "The manifesto was ultimately a collective effort of people who were trying to understand the prevailing social conditions so they could change them... while the document was drafted in its final form by Karl Marx, and the final credit for its organization and rhetorical style is due to him, the content and message of the Manifesto were really the product of an extended, intense, but open debate among committed communist-internationalists as they sought to define their programme nad understand the world they wanted to change." The purpose of the virtual seminar is to stimulate dialogues on the contemporary theoretical and practical relevance of the Manifesto. We encourages commentaries on the papers included in the seminar, as well as other related issues from a multiplicity of vantage points within the general terrain of progressive scholarship and activism. We have three papers so far: Rob Beamish, The Making of the Manifesto* A. Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age Charles Ostenle, Manifesto for Praxis Societies and for a Global Democratic and Socialist Political Economy Date: Marc 4 - March 12 Format: To participate in the conference send mail to LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu in the message proper write sub psn-seminars firstname lastname Location: You can find the conference papers at http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/seminars or you can send mail to LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu and in the message proper write: get psn-seminars beamish get psn-seminars ostenle get psn-seminars gunderfrank From md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Mon Mar 2 22:45:20 1998 Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 00:43:33 -0500 (EST) From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: GlobalNet 104 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 10:47:29 -0600 From: "D. Stienstra" Reply-To: femisa@csf.colorado.edu To: FEMINIST THEORY & GENDER STUDIES Subject: GlobalNet 104 (fwd) > >IWTC GLOBALNET #104 > > > >Women's Initiatives and Activities Worldwide > >by Anne S. Walker > > > >International Women's Tribune Centre, > >777 United Nations Plaza, > >New York, NY 10017, > >Tel: (1-212) 687-8633. > >Fax: (1-212) 661-2704. > >e-mail: iwtc@igc.apc.org > > > >February 20, 1998 > > > >INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY, WOMEN'S PEACE PETITION, > >AND A SPECIAL ONE-DAY CONFERENCE ON VIOLENCE > >AGAINST WOMEN AT CSW > > > >International Women's Day, March 8: Commemorated by women and > >women's groups around the world, this date is designated as a > >national holiday in an increasing number of countries. The idea of > >an International Women's Day has multiple roots in events that > >took place at the turn of the century, including: 1909-In accordance > >with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National > >Woman's Day was observed across the USA on 28 February. > >1910-The Socialist International meeting in Copenhagen, > >Denmark, established a Women's Day, international in character, > >to honour the movement for women's rights and to assist in > >achieving universal suffrage for women. 1911-As a result of the > >decision taken at Copenhagen, International Women's Day was > >marked for the first time on 19 March in Austria, Denmark, > >Germany and Switzerland. Less than a week later, on 25 March, > >the tragic Triangle Fire in New York City took the lives > >of more than 140 women garment workers, most of them Italian and Jewish > >immigrants. This event had a significant impact on labour > >legislation in the US, and the working conditions leading up to the > >disaster were invoked during subsequent observances of IWD. > >1913-1914-Russian women observed their first International > >Women's Day on the last Sunday in February, as part of the peace > >movement brewing on the eve of World War 1. Elsewhere in > >Europe, on or around 8 March, 1914, women held rallies to protest > >the war and express solidarity with their sisters. 1917-With two > >million Russian soldiers dead in the war, Russian women led a > >strike for "bread and peace" on the last Sunday in February. Four > >days later, the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional > >Government granted women the right to vote. That historic Sunday > >fell on 23 February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia, > >but on 8 March on the Gregorian calendar in use elsewhere. In > >recent years, the growing international women's movement, > >strengthened by four global United Nations women's conferences > >and parallel NGO forums, has helped make IWD a rallying point > >for coordinated efforts to demand women's rights and participation > >in the political and economic process. > >Adapted from an information sheet produced by Development and > >Human Rights Section, UN Department of Public Information, > >Fax: (1-212) 963-1186. E-mail: vasic@un.org>. > > > >International Women's Day 1998: An appeal on behalf of > >women in Afghanistan living under the rule of the Taliban has > >been suggested as a focus for IWD 1998 by Emma Bonino of the > >European Union. Others have suggested expanding the focus to > >include all women living in situations of armed conflict. Among > >demands being put forward are a call for recognition of rape as a > >war crime, an improvement in the status of women refugees, and > >human rights training with a gender perspective for all government > >personnel. > > > >Petition from Women of the World to Governments of the World: In > >1997, the Women's Peace Petition was launched on International > >Women's Day, with a demand that annually, for the next 5 years, at > >least five per cent of national military expenditures be redirected to > >health, education and employment programmes. This petition has > >close to 150,000 signatures to date, and will again be "launched" > >on IWD 1998. The number of co-sponsors has grown to around > >150 organizations from every world region. Copies of the petition > >are available via e-mail, fax, mail or World Wide Web. Contact: > >Coalition for the Women's Peace Petition, Room 10-D, 777 United > >Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA. Fax: (1-212) 867-7462. > >E-mail: . World Wide Web: > > > >Special EWL One-Day Violence Against Women Conference at > >the CSW, Friday 6 March, 1998: The European Women's Lobby > >(EWL), the largest coalition of women's NGOs in the European > >Union (EU) is organizing this conference on "Women's Rights are > >Human Rights-Proposals to Combat Male Violence Against > >Women in the European Union and Beyond" in Conference Room > >6 at the United Nations. Key policy-makers from the EU will > >discuss issues relating to violence against women and women's > >human rights in general and how the EU should be responding to > >these issues. The EWL will present its European Policy Action > >Centre on Violence Against Women, the first ever such centre > >initiated by a major NGO in the EU. CSW participants are all > >welcome. For further information, contact: European Women's Lobby. > >Tel: (32-2) 217-9020. Fax: (32-2) 219-8451. E-mail: > > or . > > > -- Deborah Stienstra Associate Professor Department of Political Science University of Winnipeg From md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Mon Mar 2 22:47:29 1998 Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 00:46:42 -0500 (EST) From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: [B95: ] WorldWID recruitment notice To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 18:35:21 -0700 (MST) From: joan r saks berman Reply-To: femisa@csf.colorado.edu To: FEMINIST THEORY & GENDER STUDIES Subject: [B95: ] WorldWID recruitment notice (fwd) Joan R. Saks Berman, Ph.D. jberman@unm.edu Albuquerque, NM office: (505) 243-6261 www.photosource.com/psb/psb_6275.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:41:32 -0500 From: Catherine Briggs <100022.2126@compuserve.com> Reply-To: beijing95-l@netcom.com To: Beijing95-L Subject: [B95: ] WorldWID recruitment notice SPECIAL RECRUITMENT NOTICE: WorldWID Announces Special Recruitment for Fellowship Opportunity in Democracy and Governance The WorldWID Fellows Program is recruiting a specialist in Democracy and Governance to work with the Office of Women in Development, Global Bureau, United States Agency for International Development (USAID/G/WID). This WorldWID Fellow will work under the guidance of USAID/G/WID in Washington, D.C. and will have temporary duty assignments working with USAID Missions abroad. The successful applicant for this position will have an interest in the field of women in development (WID) / gender and development (GAD) and expertise in a field applicable to USAID/G/WID's Strategic Support Objective 3: To improve women's legal and property rights and increase women's participation in governance and civil society in all regions, with an emphasis on legal rights in Eastern Europe and the New Independent States, and civil society in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Fellow will participate in our gender and development training and orientation program from March 22 to May 1, 1998, and then be assigned to USAID/G/WID in Washington, D.C. for a period of approximately 10 months. Applicants should meet the following qualifications: · Masters or Doctorate in a social science or related field to areas defined in Strategic Support Objective 3 above, or Law degree; · Demonstrated expertise and technical knowledge of issues related to women's increased participation in governance and civil society and access to legal and property rights; · Ability to work in a team; to take leadership when necessary, and ability to deal with competing priorities; · Excellent English writing skills; speaking knowledge of Spanish and/or Russian highly desired; · Experience working in a developing country, preferably the NIS and/or Latin America; · United States citizenship; · Knowledge and/or experience in the field of WID or GAD; · Ability to begin this assignment in March 1998. We will accept applications until the position if filled. If you are interested in applying for this WorldWID Fellowship, please contact: Ms. Katie Lynch, Recruitment Coordinator WorldWID Fellows Program University of Florida, Office of International Studies and Programs 123 Tigert Hall, Box 113225 Gainesville, FL 32611-3225 Phone 352/392-7074; Fax 352/392-8379: E-mail: wid2@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu All communications about this placement should be with the WorldWID Fellows Program. Applicants should NOT contact USAID overseas Missions or offices in Washington, D.C. From md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Tue Mar 3 23:51:04 1998 Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 01:49:33 -0500 (EST) From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: Globalisation and Its Discontents - To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu hi colleagues, this message was passed along to me. it is about the final call for papers on "globalization and its discontents". seems canadians are more concerned with this issue than their "fellow americans" are... hope that puts things in perspective, best regards, mine ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 19:44:15 -0800 From: Michael Howlett Reply-To: ipe@csf.colorado.edu To: INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY Subject: Globalisation and Its Discontents - Final Call For Papers Final Notice and Call for Papers Globalisation and Its Discontents 23, 24 July 1998, Harbour Centre Campus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC. An international conference, including presentation and comparison of Australian and Canadian perspectives on globalisation, hosted by the Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University in cooperation with the Department of Social Science and Social Work, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia. Major themes in the conference, which will be organised around both plenary sessions and workshops, include the clarification and reconceptualisation of the concept of globalisation; the consequences of globalisation for society (labour, business, NGOs, indigenous peoples, social movements and gender) and the state at all levels - international, national, and sub-national; and the challenges posed to institutions (including governments and the third sector) and social groups as they respond to globalisation. Proposals for papers, which should include a one page abstract, should be submitted by 15 March 1998 to: globe-98@sfu.ca A refereed publication of selected papers is expected to result from the conference. Subject to funding some travel subsidies may be available. Regularly updated information about the conference will be posted on the conference web page: http://www.sfu.ca/politics/globe98.html Stephen McBride Tel: 604-291-3729 Professor and Chair Fax: 604-291-4786 Department of Political Science e-mail: stephen_mcbride@sfu.ca Simon Fraser University Burnaby British Columbia Canada V5A 1S6 From md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Wed Mar 4 01:48:59 1998 Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 03:47:39 -0500 (EST) From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: reply to Labor/Nature/Value Part 1 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu mine writes: nancy wrote: _______________________________________________________________ Labor, Nature, and Value Theory by Nancy Brumback >Marx's labor theory of value is part of an interlocking set of concepts >which make up his materialist perspective on human history. Since the >advent >of the environmental movement and the women's movement, the theory of >value >has been criticized by both feminists and environmentalists for failing >to >adequately represent the contributions to the material wealth of society >made both by women in the family, and by nature. i see the point raised by some enviromentalists and feminists. to a certain extent, they are right that marx did not adequately capture the the process of material contribution made by women and nature. however, what i see, in terms of the role played by nature for instance, we can not concieve the relation betweeen capitalism and "nature" in oppositional terms. in other words, nature does not exist as an essential entity prior to capitalism. capitalism, one form of material organization of our lives like the others that have historically preceded it, already generates that sort of nature as part of its material activity. nature in so far as is not a distinct entity as suggested by social contract theorists (state of nature versus civil society)can not exist as an autonomus sphere which capitalism suddenly finds to satisfy its explotative purposes (just like the same for workers. capitalism did not suddenly discover the laborer in the commodity market. a long process of material transformation and social relations corresponding to it prompted this process) as long as humans gather to organize their material lives under all conditions they create "nature" as already a materially constructed category. it does not matter, i think, at this point, whether the nature is transformed by capitalism per se. any mode of production, becasue of its very material nature, does that to a certain extent. so, at the level of perception, the question is not capitalism versus nature but material activity of human beings including that of nature. >In what may appear to be a >self-contraction, however, Marx also shows that he appreciates both the >worth of the labor of women in the family, and the worth of nature. >But the theory of value was never intended to account for "worth." As >economist Joan Robinson comments, >One of the great metaphysical ideas in economics is expressed by the word >"value" . . . It does not mean market prices, which vary from time to >time >under the influence of casual accidents; nor is it just an historical >average of prices. Indeed, it is not simply a price; it is something that >will explain how prices come to be what they are. What is it? Where shall >we >find it? Like all metaphysical concepts, when you try to pin it down it >turns out to be just a word.( Joan Robinson, An Essay on Marxian >Economics, >2nd Ed., New York, St. Martin's Press, 1977, 20, quoted in Marilyn >Waring, >Counting for Nothing.) >In this essay, I hope to demonstrate that value is indeed, just a word. >But >I also hope to show that this word, "value," is exactly that word which >describes the contents of the bank accounts of economists, politicians >and >businessmen all over the world. As such, it has meaning above and beyond >the >metaphysical. also remember the fact that marx, especially in his early writings, was refering to labor as an end in itself--as a metephysical concept having an intrinsic value. (refer to alianeted labour) >The first part of the essay reviews the labor theory of value and the >ideas >related to it. Through this review, I hope to establish a baseline for >the >second part of the essay, which discusses how (and why) value theory >fails >to account for the wealth produced by women, by other unpaid and >underpaid >laborers, and by nature. Finally, the third part of the essay suggests a >definition of value which shows that such wealth is the exactly the >wealth >which accrues every day in the bank accounts of international capital. i am not sure if i could understand the premise from which you are starting. is it the nature of capitalism itself (as a historically contingent and unique form of material activity) or social relations emerging out of the process of expropriation of human labour by other human beings-that you are trying to demonstrate? if you start from the premise that labor, like nature, has an "intrinsic value" which is purchased by somebody else in the commodity market (or in the family), you automatically assume a "virgin" labor power of an idealistic kind. this, again, might be related to thinking "labor" and "capitalism" or any material activity in mutually exclusive terms. the "process" of labor-not the labor itself-creates value. so it is not the labor that is "located" in the bank accounts of international capital (since labor does nowhere exist as a subtantive formation where material activity is carried on. also we are not living on Robinson Cruso's island where state of nature is depicted as a metaphor)but the very process of material production (trasformation) of our lives that create "value". sorry for the early questions. i will clarify my position as i go along.. cheers, mine aysen doyran From dasiar@brigadoon.com Wed Mar 4 08:47:20 1998 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 07:45:51 -0800 (PST) To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu From: dasiar@brigadoon.com (David Siar) Subject: new journal Dear MatFem, Gregory Meyerson and I edit CULTURAL LOGIC, a new, biannual on-line journal devoted to Marxist theory and practice. Our first issue is now up and running on Carnegie Mellon U.'s English Server (http://eserver.org/clogic), and contains articles by a number of well-known writers, including Neil Larsen, Teresa Ebert, Carol Stabile, and MatFem's own Martha Gimenez. I want to take this opportunity to encourage MatFem members to submit essays and reviews to the journal, which is interdisciplinary and which offers a forum for a wide range of positions within the materialist spectrum. Our second issue has a special topic--"Post-Marxist Aporias"--and will feature articles by Barbara Foley, Warren Montag, Kenneth Surin, and, we hope, a review with Ted Allen. We are still accepting articles for this issue, and the deadline for submissions is April 15. (Reviews need not relate to the topic.) At this time, no special topic is slated for the Fall '98 issue, so all subjects are welcome. Submissions may be sent as attached files to: clogic@eserver.org or they may be sent on disk (Mac or Pc) to: David Siar 7607 Magill Wichita, KS 67206 Thanks for your attention, and best wishes to all. Sincerely, David Siar From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Wed Mar 4 11:33:07 1998 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:22:51 -0800 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: reply to Labor/Nature/Value Part 1 Mine wrote: Nancy writes: >i see the point raised by some enviromentalists and feminists. to a >certain extent, they are right that marx did not adequately capture the >the process of material contribution made by women and nature. however, >what i see, in terms of the role played by nature for instance, we can not >concieve the relation betweeen capitalism and "nature" in oppositional >terms. in other words, nature does not exist as an essential entity prior >to capitalism. capitalism, one form of material organization of our lives >like the others that have historically preceded it, already generates that >sort of nature as part of its material activity. nature in so far as is >not a distinct entity as suggested by social contract theorists (state >of nature versus civil society)can not exist as an autonomus sphere which >capitalism suddenly finds to satisfy its explotative purposes (just like >the same for workers. capitalism did not suddenly discover the laborer in >the commodity market. a long process of material transformation and social >relations corresponding to it prompted this process) as long as >humans gather to organize their material lives under all conditions they >create "nature" as already a materially constructed category. it >does not matter, i think, at this point, whether the nature is transformed >by capitalism per se. any mode of production, becasue of its very material >nature, does that to a certain extent. so, at the level of perception, the >question is not capitalism versus nature but material activity of human >beings including that of nature. True, all modes of production transform nature. Indeed, as you may know, some theorists of social evolution believe it was resource depletion in conjunction with population pressure to which the first horticulturalists and then, agriculturalists were responding. Two main differences that I see between capitalist and pre-capitalist resource depletion are that the expansion of capitalism is (1) dependent upon a global network of interrelated nation states which control the conditions of production; (2) based necessarily -- not optionally -- on making not only profits, but larger and larger profits. >i am not sure if i could understand the premise from which you are >starting. is it the nature of capitalism itself (as a historically >contingent and unique form of material activity) or social relations >emerging out of the process of expropriation of human labour by other >human beings-that you are trying to demonstrate? if you start from the >premise that labor, like nature, has an "intrinsic value" which is >purchased by somebody else in the commodity market (or in the family), you >automatically assume a "virgin" labor power of an idealistic >kind. this, again, might be related to thinking "labor" and "capitalism" >or any material activity in mutually exclusive terms. the "process" >of labor-not the labor itself-creates value. so it is not the labor that >is "located" in the bank accounts of international capital (since labor >does nowhere exist as a subtantive formation where material >activity is carried on. also we are not living on Robinson Cruso's island >where state of nature is depicted as a metaphor)but the very process of >material production (trasformation) of our lives that create "value". I am exploring the "nature of capitalism itself, as a historically contingent and unique form of material activity." "Value" is intrinsic to neither labor nor nature; "value" is defined by the dynamic of the capitalist marketplace. As Marx said, "value" is an "objective social property" which appears only under capitalism. >sorry for the early questions. i will clarify my position as i go along.. > >cheers, >mine aysen doyran Never apologize for such thoughtful and challenging feedback! Anticipating more with pleasure and gratitude, Nancy From md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Sun Mar 8 03:41:13 1998 Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 05:39:48 -0500 (EST) From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: theory of labor value/reply II To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu mine writes: nancy wrote: >1. A Review of Marx's Labor Theory of Value >Society and Nature. The basis of Marx's perspective on the history and >development of human society is his view of the dialectic between human >beings and non-human nature. To Marx, human beings are a part of nature >and >connected to it in many ways: >Nature is man's inorganic body -- nature, that is, insofar as it is not >the >human body. Man lives from nature -- meaning that nature is his body, >with >which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That >man's physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that >nature is linked to itself, for man is part of nature. (Economic and >Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844; Collected Works, Vol. 3:276, London: >Lawrence & Wishart, 1975.) exactly!! >Inextricably so linked in physical reality, nature and humanity can be >separated only by abstraction (Jarvikoski, Timo. 1996. "The Relation of >Nature and Society in Marx and Durkheim." Acta Sociologica, Vol. 39, No. >1, >pp. 73-86); it is only in the process of thought that any distinction at >all >can be made between the two. The conceptual distinctions Marx made >between >nature and humans incorporate his speculation on the differences between >animals and humans: whereas animals behave instinctively, humans act with >self-awareness: >The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It is not distinct >from that activity; it is that activity. Man makes his life activity >itself >an object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity. >It >is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life >activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity (Economic & >Phil ms, part 1, p. 18). is this only a conceptual distinction between humans and animals? or the remnants of Feaurbachian materialist idealism on Marx's thinking, as Althusser argues for instance (just for the purpose of clarifying the point you raise) >(Note: As regards the anthropocentric bias of >Marx's views on the relations between animals and humans, I will only >observe here that it does exist. Even though an exploration of the import >of >this bias on Marx's work would be very interesting, it would take us too >far >afield of the present topic. you are right, yet still needs exploration.. >According to Marx, this life activity of humans is labor. Marx defined >labor >as the process by which humans transform natural materials into things to >meet human needs. And because labor is a human process, it is a conscious >process -- willful and purposeful. To illustrate this point, Marx writes >about how the "best" of spiders does not have the finished project in >mind >when she begins her work, whereas the "worst" of architects does >(Capital, >Vol. I, Ch. 7, Sec. 1). >But consciousness is only one characteristic of labor according to Marx; >another characteristic is that beyond the "embryonic animal stage," labor >occurs only "within the framework of a definite social form." (Schmidt >1971:176). In a familiar passage from The German Ideology (Moscow: >Progress >Publishers, l976, p. 49), Marx contrasts natural phenomena and social >phenomena, characterizing social phenomena as something that (1) involves >the cooperation of several human beings, and (2) corresponds to a >particular >mode of production: >The production of life, both of one's own in labour and of fresh life in >procreation, now appears as a two-fold relation: on the one hand as a >natural, on the other as a social relation -- social in the sense that it >denotes the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what >conditions, in what manner, and to what end. It follows from this that a >certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with >a >certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of >co-operation >is itself a "productive force." >The development of the mode of production is the basis of the evolution >of >human society -- the famous Marxian "flywheel" of history. When the mode >of >production changes, so does the mode of co-operation -- the social >relations. Within these social relations, humans act upon nature and >change >their environment; in this way, human society changes itself. this also denotes the trasformative nature of human cooperation under particular mode of production that humans themselves, as socially constructed beings,create... >Human labor presupposes not only consciousness, therefore; it presupposes >as >well the evolution of human society. Burkett, 1996, writes that insofar >as >the ability to labor has "evolved to a greater extent for humans than for >other species, this has occurred in and through a process of social >evolution and class struggles" (cf. Engles, 1964, Dialectics of Nature, >Moscow: Progress Publishers; Marx, 1967 (1977 printing), Capital, Vol. I, >New York: International Publishers, 372, fn. 3). It is the peculiar >socioevolutionary character of labor which defines it as human (Capital, >1967, International Publishers, I, 71, 80, 104). >Capitalism. however, i argue, this socio-evolutionary nature of humans should be problematized. to what extent, for instance, in marx's own conception of materialism, do the productive forces play a role over the the consciously constituted labor?(or vice versa) >The mode of production under which we in the modern world >live >today is the capitalist system of the production and exchange of >commodities, first established in Western Europe in the 16th century. >Capitalism is also the mode of production studied and analyzed most >deeply >by Marx. >The establishment of capitalism was a historic event, according to Marx, >the >result of "many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series >of >older forms of social production" (I, Ch. 6, p. 2). The mode of >production >which most directly preceded capitalism in Western Europe was the manor >system of feudalism. Under feudalism, social relations of personal >dependence characterized production as well as the entire ground-work of >society.(I, 1, p. 26) The production of all the necessities of life for >all >of society was carried out by a class of serfs who were "bound to the >land" >by the feudal relations, as enforced by military power, civil law, and/or >the requirements of the Church. This class of serfs was passed down >through >the generations of their masters, the landed nobility, along with the >land >upon which they lived and worked. >Under the manor system, labor and its products took the form of services >in >kind and payments in kind. The serfs were required to provide their >masters >with so much corn, beef, mutton, yarn, linen, and clothing, etc. In >return, >they were given the right to plant certain areas for their own use, to >gather firewood and hunt pigs and rabbits in the forest, to take fish, >birds, and herbs from the marshes, and to graze their animals on the >village >commons, etc. According to Marx, the different kinds of labor they >performed -- >farming, husbandry, spinning, weaving, and sewing -- were in >themselves ">direct social functions" based upon the division of labor in the family >according to differences in age, sex, etc. (I, 1, p. 26) >This class of producers, the serfs of the Middle Ages, was gradually >replaced in Western Europe as the manor system was replaced by the >capitalist mode of production. In a slow and wrenching (for the poor) >process lasting hundreds of years, the traditional socio-economic ties >between the serfs and their masters were broken. also an important reminder that in the "primitive accumulation chapter" of Capital, marx describes what he means by the concept primitive. this is an accumulation prior to capitalist accumulation without which capitalism was impossible.generally undermined by orthodox marxists, marx here decribes how the "state" agencies in England expropriated the agricultural laborer from the land by force and bloody legislation, and turned them into rightless and free proleteriats you mention below. state force, instead of natural laws of capitalism, initially created this typology. >The serfs became a working class of "free" men and women: no longer were >they obliged to provide for the feudal masters. But at the same time, >neither were they entitled to produce their own means of subsistence on >the >traditional feudal lands. Now, instead of working to fulfill their >obligations to the masters, they would sell their labor for a wage if >they >wanted to survive, since they had no other choice. Their masters were no >longer the feudal masters, empowered through the feudal bonds of >reciprocal >dependence, but the capitalist masters, empowered through their ownership >of >land, tools, and money with which to purchase the labor-power of the >workers. >This "separation of a considerable number of laborers from all property >by >means of which they can produce anything for themselves" was the starting >point of the process of the development of capitalism, according to Marx. >It >was the Marxian period of "primitive accumulation": "nothing else than >the >historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of >production." >(Ibid) Such a period of "primitive accumulation" was necessary because it >made possible the fundamental productive dynamic of capitalism, i.e., >that >situation which arises when two very different classes of people come >face >to face and into contact, on the one hand, the owners of money, means of >production, means of subsistence, who are eager to increase the sum of >values they posses, by buying other people's labor-power; on the other >hand, >free laborers, the sellers of their own labor-power, and therefore the >sellers of labor (Capital I, Ch. 26). however,as you might well remember, what makes the primitive accumulation "primitive" is its "political" (as well as economic) charecter, i mean the role of the state, as an ideological enforcement mechanism, to meet the rising expectations of the middle classes at the expense of the agricultural laborers. thanks again for giving me the opportunity to expand. i can not reply in one mail, it is a little bit overwhelming task.. cheers, mine aysen doyran phd candidate dept of pol scie Suny/albany NY/albany From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Tue Mar 10 02:02:54 1998 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:54:03 -0800 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: theory of labor value/reply II > Nancy wrote, Mine wrote, and Nancy writes again: >>1. A Review of Marx's Labor Theory of Value >>Society and Nature. The basis of Marx's perspective on the history and >>development of human society is his view of the dialectic between human >>beings and non-human nature. To Marx, human beings are a part of nature >>and >>connected to it in many ways: >>Nature is man's inorganic body -- nature, that is, insofar as it is not >>the >>human body. Man lives from nature -- meaning that nature is his body, >>with >>which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That >>man's physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that >>nature is linked to itself, for man is part of nature. (Economic and >>Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844; Collected Works, Vol. 3:276, London: >>Lawrence & Wishart, 1975.) > >exactly!! > >>Inextricably so linked in physical reality, nature and humanity can be >>separated only by abstraction (Jarvikoski, Timo. 1996. "The Relation of >>Nature and Society in Marx and Durkheim." Acta Sociologica, Vol. 39, No. >>1, >>pp. 73-86); it is only in the process of thought that any distinction at >>all >>can be made between the two. The conceptual distinctions Marx made >>between >>nature and humans incorporate his speculation on the differences between >>animals and humans: whereas animals behave instinctively, humans act with >>self-awareness: >>The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It is not distinct >>from that activity; it is that activity. Man makes his life activity >>itself >>an object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity. >>It >>is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life >>activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity (Economic & >>Phil ms, part 1, p. 18). > >is this only a conceptual distinction between humans and animals? or the >remnants of Feaurbachian materialist idealism on Marx's thinking, as >Althusser argues for instance (just for the purpose of clarifying the >point you raise) Good question! I don't know Althusser's argument, but I personally think that the distinction Marx made between animals and humans is not correct. Seems to me that a really materialist perspective would see consciousness as based upon the brain of the living organism, and therefore as evolving along with the organism. From an evolutionary perspective, humans are not "higher" than the animals, although they are different, as each species is different from the other. Evolution is about adaptation to an environment; not movement toward perfection. >>(Note: As regards the anthropocentric bias of >>Marx's views on the relations between animals and humans, I will only >>observe here that it does exist. Even though an exploration of the import >>of >>this bias on Marx's work would be very interesting, it would take us too >>far >>afield of the present topic. > >you are right, yet still needs exploration.. > >>According to Marx, this life activity of humans is labor. Marx defined >>labor >>as the process by which humans transform natural materials into things to >>meet human needs. And because labor is a human process, it is a conscious >>process -- willful and purposeful. To illustrate this point, Marx writes >>about how the "best" of spiders does not have the finished project in >>mind >>when she begins her work, whereas the "worst" of architects does >>(Capital, >>Vol. I, Ch. 7, Sec. 1). >>But consciousness is only one characteristic of labor according to Marx; >>another characteristic is that beyond the "embryonic animal stage," labor >>occurs only "within the framework of a definite social form." (Schmidt >>1971:176). In a familiar passage from The German Ideology (Moscow: >>Progress >>Publishers, l976, p. 49), Marx contrasts natural phenomena and social >>phenomena, characterizing social phenomena as something that (1) involves >>the cooperation of several human beings, and (2) corresponds to a >>particular >>mode of production: >>The production of life, both of one's own in labour and of fresh life in >>procreation, now appears as a two-fold relation: on the one hand as a >>natural, on the other as a social relation -- social in the sense that it >>denotes the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what >>conditions, in what manner, and to what end. It follows from this that a >>certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with >>a >>certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of >>co-operation >>is itself a "productive force." >>The development of the mode of production is the basis of the evolution >>of >>human society -- the famous Marxian "flywheel" of history. When the mode >>of >>production changes, so does the mode of co-operation -- the social >>relations. Within these social relations, humans act upon nature and >>change >>their environment; in this way, human society changes itself. > >this also denotes the trasformative nature of human cooperation under >particular mode of production that humans themselves, as socially >constructed beings,create... Quite so. >>Human labor presupposes not only consciousness, therefore; it presupposes >>as >>well the evolution of human society. Burkett, 1996, writes that insofar >>as >>the ability to labor has "evolved to a greater extent for humans than for >>other species, this has occurred in and through a process of social >>evolution and class struggles" (cf. Engles, 1964, Dialectics of Nature, >>Moscow: Progress Publishers; Marx, 1967 (1977 printing), Capital, Vol. I, >>New York: International Publishers, 372, fn. 3). It is the peculiar >>socioevolutionary character of labor which defines it as human (Capital, >>1967, International Publishers, I, 71, 80, 104). >>Capitalism. > >however, i argue, this socio-evolutionary nature of humans should be >problematized. to what extent, for instance, in marx's own conception of >materialism, do the productive forces play a role over the >the consciously constituted labor?(or vice versa) I agree with you that it should be problematized. Although I have not thoroughly researched the topic, I believe that Marx generally saw the productive forces as prime mover. Certainly many of today's Marxists have so interpreted him -- e.g., the "workerist" strains. >>The mode of production under which we in the modern world >>live >>today is the capitalist system of the production and exchange of >>commodities, first established in Western Europe in the 16th century. >>Capitalism is also the mode of production studied and analyzed most >>deeply >>by Marx. >>The establishment of capitalism was a historic event, according to Marx, >>the >>result of "many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series >>of >>older forms of social production" (I, Ch. 6, p. 2). The mode of >>production >>which most directly preceded capitalism in Western Europe was the manor >>system of feudalism. Under feudalism, social relations of personal >>dependence characterized production as well as the entire ground-work of >>society.(I, 1, p. 26) The production of all the necessities of life for >>all >>of society was carried out by a class of serfs who were "bound to the >>land" >>by the feudal relations, as enforced by military power, civil law, and/or >>the requirements of the Church. This class of serfs was passed down >>through >>the generations of their masters, the landed nobility, along with the >>land >>upon which they lived and worked. >>Under the manor system, labor and its products took the form of services >>in >>kind and payments in kind. The serfs were required to provide their >>masters >>with so much corn, beef, mutton, yarn, linen, and clothing, etc. In >>return, >>they were given the right to plant certain areas for their own use, to >>gather firewood and hunt pigs and rabbits in the forest, to take fish, >>birds, and herbs from the marshes, and to graze their animals on the >>village >>commons, etc. According to Marx, the different kinds of labor they >>performed >-- >farming, husbandry, spinning, weaving, and sewing -- were in >>themselves >">direct social functions" based upon the division of labor in the family >>according to differences in age, sex, etc. (I, 1, p. 26) >>This class of producers, the serfs of the Middle Ages, was gradually >>replaced in Western Europe as the manor system was replaced by the >>capitalist mode of production. In a slow and wrenching (for the poor) >>process lasting hundreds of years, the traditional socio-economic ties >>between the serfs and their masters were broken. > >also an important reminder that in the "primitive accumulation chapter" >of Capital, marx describes what he means by the concept primitive. >this is an accumulation prior to capitalist accumulation without which >capitalism was impossible.generally undermined by orthodox marxists, marx >here decribes how the "state" agencies in England expropriated the >agricultural laborer from the land by force and bloody legislation, and >turned them into rightless and free proleteriats you mention below. state >force, instead of natural laws of capitalism, initially created this >typology. Right. I didn't include this in my discussion here, however, because it is only the economic aspect which I mostly discuss in the essay. > >>The serfs became a working class of "free" men and women: no longer were >>they obliged to provide for the feudal masters. But at the same time, >>neither were they entitled to produce their own means of subsistence on >>the >>traditional feudal lands. Now, instead of working to fulfill their >>obligations to the masters, they would sell their labor for a wage if >>they >>wanted to survive, since they had no other choice. Their masters were no >>longer the feudal masters, empowered through the feudal bonds of >>reciprocal >>dependence, but the capitalist masters, empowered through their ownership >>of >>land, tools, and money with which to purchase the labor-power of the >>workers. >>This "separation of a considerable number of laborers from all property >>by >>means of which they can produce anything for themselves" was the starting >>point of the process of the development of capitalism, according to Marx. >>It >>was the Marxian period of "primitive accumulation": "nothing else than >>the >>historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of >>production." >>(Ibid) Such a period of "primitive accumulation" was necessary because it >>made possible the fundamental productive dynamic of capitalism, i.e., >>that >>situation which arises when two very different classes of people come >>face >>to face and into contact, on the one hand, the owners of money, means of >>production, means of subsistence, who are eager to increase the sum of >>values they posses, by buying other people's labor-power; on the other >>hand, >>free laborers, the sellers of their own labor-power, and therefore the >>sellers of labor (Capital I, Ch. 26). > >however,as you might well remember, what makes the primitive accumulation >"primitive" is its "political" (as well as economic) charecter, i mean the >role of the state, as an ideological enforcement mechanism, to meet the >rising expectations of the middle classes at the expense of the >agricultural laborers. Right. > >thanks again for giving me the opportunity to expand. i can not reply in >one mail, it is a little bit overwhelming task.. > >cheers, >mine aysen doyran >phd candidate >dept of pol scie >Suny/albany >NY/albany > I am blessed by your willingness to spend time with this material! Obviously you are a very precise and patient thinker, not a common combination of traits! Thanks again, Nancy From mikerav@ix.netcom.com Mon Mar 30 23:49:12 1998 by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma024276; Tue Mar 31 00:48:46 1998 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:58:29 +0000 From: Michael Ravnitzky Reply-To: mikerav@ix.netcom.com To: MATFEM@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Subject: OBTAIN LIST OF MILITARY REPORTS ON WOMEN Obtain a list of military reports on Women and Gender At a government agency called DTIC: Defense Technical Information Center, there are a large number of government technical reports on almost any subject under the sun. You'll have to select your own keywords for the exact subjects you’re interested in. I suggest you select no more than ten keywords or less for each letter. Please select your keyword[s] carefully and include plural[s] like I just did. Put an *OR* between each keyword or subject term. The fee is likely to be free or only a few bucks. You probably want to include a statement in the letter such as *I agree to pay reasonable fees associated with this request. Please notify me if the cost will exceed $25.*, so that they won't delay the processing of the request. Remember, they will try to dissuade you from asking for such a list. If they send you a letter, and you don’t respond, they will withdraw your request and you won’t get your information. To get your bibliography [list of technical reports], send a letter of request as follows: To: Defense Technical Information Center Attn: DTIC-RSM [Kelly D. Akers, FOIA Manager] 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6128 USA Phone: 703-767-9194 Dear Ms. Akers: I request the following records under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act: A computer generated technical report bibliography [for all computerized index years] of reports on the subject[s]/keyword[s] of: WOMEN OR GENDER OR FEMALES This is a request for DTIC records, please don't forward my request to NTIS. Please include both classified and unclassified records in your search. If any of the records are classified, please review them for release, or the release of nonsensitive portions. I am an individual, noncommercial requester and this request is not being made for commercial purposes. [OR YOU MIGHT INSTEAD INDICATE IF YOU ARE A COMMERCIAL REQUESTER, OR AN EDUCATIONAL OR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION, OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MEDIA] I also agree to pay up to $25 for reasonable fees associated with this request. Sincerely, ______________