----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave@eco.utexas.edu> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [OPE-L:7031] Re: a boring question (for John H and others) > PS: I used to have this same argument with my old thesis advisor, John > Gurley at Stanford thirty years ago. Because I started economics focusing > on development economics where they "strategic" element is usually quite > explicit I was only briefly bamboozled by the "ideological" element. It > took John a while longer to see how even his abstract financial theory > stuff was part of the larger strategic picture. > > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: > <snip> > > > I think that economists, especially economists working in academia, have > > a > > > very poor and incomplete grasp of the the 'plans' of capital and the > > > state. > > I think this is a poor general statement because it ignores the structure > of policy making and the varied role of economists, both those in the > academy and others, in relationship to that making. Some of what is said > below is true, some of the time, and quite false some of the time. > > > > Nor do most mainstream (bourgeois) economists -- either > > > consciously or unconsciously -- help to develop capitalist strategy and > > the > > > tactics to be used against the rest of us. > > If "most" economists are low level teaching hacks, then this statement is > undoubtedly true. I don't know what the statistics are, but obviously the > ill-paid teacher plugging away trying to earn a wage in a jr college is > not the kind of economist who "helps develop capitalist strategy". There > is a whole structure, however, involving thousands of those who do that > includes people in the academy, think tanks, the state and private > sector. > > > This is the case for a number > > of > > > reasons: > > > > > > l) as products of academia, they often work in isolation from > > capitalists > > > and state representatives who are the ones who develop those strategies > > > and tactics. > > Given the division of labor it is not necessary for many who contribute to > policy making to have direct contact with "policy makers" at the top, > whether they be economists, corporate reps or gov bureaucrats. Much of the > work of policy making is gathering data, working on the technical details > of processing data and models for handling it etc that doesn't require > intimate knowledge of the uses to which all this will be put (as we > discovered vis a vis counterinsurgency research in the 1960s and 1970s). > All it requires is that the work be done within a spectrum defined by > those above. > > > From that perspective, if you want to find out capitalist > > > plans, then you would be better advised to read IMF documents, state > > > publications on the economy, and corporate "think tank" analysis, > > > although these sources as well have severe limitations since: > > Who do you think writes these reports? Both content and text are crafted > by economists (and editors etc). Summers? Stigletz? and these sorts of > economists oversee the work of their subordinate economists and pull the > results together into the reports that are vetted by policy-makers at > higher levels, both economists and non-economists.Reading IMF reports is > reading economists for the most part, economists working within a > framework defined by both them and non-economists above them. > > > > > > > a) one would have to separate the real plans from the propaganda [which is > > > frequently not something that can be done just through an examination of > > > the propaganda itself], and; > > Of course, but this is true anytime you are trying to understand enemy > plans. > > > > > > > b) the economists who are actually the policy advisors might have a very > > > incomplete grasp -- indeed, they might purposely be kept in the dark -- > > > about the real plans. > > This sounds very conspiratorial in the worst sense. For the most part > the immediate goals are quite obvious and not misleading: such as > strategies to increase the supply of savings to facilitate > expanded investment --for us this means greater capitalist capability to > exploit, to them it just means more growth. Moreover, economists "at the > top" who articulate policy are often quite explicit about the political > framework. E.g., Walt Rostow whose "anti-communist" manifesto laid it all > out with enough clarity there (and elsewhere) to land him a job as > national security advisor and architect of the Vietnam war. All this is > quite clear in the history of development economics and only somewhat less > clear in the history of economics more generally. Malthus was just as > explicit about he uses of his population theories in holding down wages > and attacking welfare. > > > > 2) ideology can overpower all else such that particular economic theories > > > should _just_ be interpreted as ideological rather than as an expression > > > of capitalist plans and strategies (Walrasian theory comes to mind); > > I agree with this only for individuals and their motivations. Even general > equilibrium theory has been put to use designing strategic models. I can > think of no area of economics that is purely ideological. > > > > 3) economists are often paid for their output regardless of whether it > > has > > > "use-value" for capital and the state. Thus, the "publish or perish" > > > imperative tends to lead very frequently to the creation of documents > > > which have no usefulness to the ruling class -- nor were they designed to > > > be useful. They were designed _only_ to be published and to serve a > > role > > > in enhancing the status of academics such that their employment can be > > > perpetuated and perhaps so that they can be promoted to a higher rank > > > within the university academic hierarchy. > > I think you are confusing the attitudes of those doing the publishing and > those deciding what research to fund and which articles to publish. > Certainly publish and perish leads many to publish any thing they can. On > the other hand only publishing in "refereed journals" works, and the > referees are supposed to act as Maxwell's daemons sorting the useful from > the useless. Others, those directing the flow of research funds, certainly > direct them to economists working on topics and using methods that are > more likely to contribute to capitalist strategy. I know of no > counter-examples of money being throw away on useless work (except by > mistake --funding research is often like other investment: open to > failure). > > > > > > > I never suggested, btw, that the output of mainstream economists shouldn't > > > be examined and subjected to critique. Rather, I was putting forward an > > > assessment of those theories -- in other words, a conclusion of critique. > > If the *only* conclusion is they are boring, then there > is but little point in examining and critiquing them. > > > > > It is, of course, the case that hard data and information on the plans > > of > > > the class enemy are useful in the class war, but they are pretty hard to > > > come by. > > I disagree most profoundly. Read the IMF, its like Mein Kampf, they tell > you exactly what they are doing and why. Information on "the plans of the > class enemy" abound, comes in piles and piles of documents and now by > megabytes. All it requires is decoding and being related to other > dimensions of capitalist strategy. > > > > Capitalists, state representatives, *and* economists don't > > > always tell us what their real plans are even when they know what they > > > are (surprise.) > > Malthus did. Keynes did. Friedman has. A bevy of World Bank economists and > Rand Corporation economists have. Etc etc. They may not have had the whole > story but they have told us exactly what they were trying to do. > > > > Nor can we assume that economists speak in a kind of > > > "code" which can be de-ciphered by revolutionaries to reveal the hidden > > > meaning embedded between the lines. Economists tend to be neither that > > > smart nor that stupid. > > The "code" is not hidden, it is quite open. "Decoding" means giving it a > class reading and translating it into our language that better critiques > what capital is all about. "Investment" = putting more people to work, > exploitation, increased alienation, restructuring and class decomposition > etc depending on the context, etc. > > > > If what you want are enemy plans, then you can try to get a job *for* > > > capital or the state. Even here there are problems of: > > > > > > a) access to the plans (e.g. if you get a job crunching numbers for the > > > BLS, I doubt that you would thereby have access to information that > > > revealed the "enemy plans"), and; > > It would be great to have more moles inside the institutions leaking > "hidden" materials, e.g., IMF confidential reports on countries applying > for loans, but that is but a tiny part of "plans" and while revealing, not > necessary to understand the strategies, only the particulars. > > > > > > > b) it could very well be that it is the revolutionary who is subverted by > > > the job rather than the revolutionary subverting the institution. In > > most > > > cases of 'radicals' that I know who work for corporations or the state, > > > the latter has been the case -- and indeed, we would expect this result > > > more often than not from a materialist perspective (especially in a period > > > where there isn't a mass redicalization.) > > Hey, it pays to sell your soul. Always has. > > > > c) real espionage by revolutionaries is, of course, possible (Alfred > > > Sohn-Rethel's job as a research assistant for Mitteleuropaischer > > > Wirtschaftstag, comes to mind) but it is: > > > > > > i) a risky business that could endanger the well-being and life of the > > > revolutionary spy, and; > > Most espionage, as Allan Dullas once truthfully said, involves the > examination and interpretation of publically available information. > That's what most CIA operatives are doing. Covert research, of course, can > be dangerous. I had a student who did that in the border > plants in Juarez, Mexico. Fortunately, he only got jailed. You can read > the results in the book "Terror of the Machine". > > > > ii) if discovered, even if i) doesn't result, the revolutionary could be > > fed > > > dis-information or ounter-spied upon such that the well-being of other > > > revolutionaries are endangered, and; > > Those are the risks. But then we are fed constant "dis-information" in the > form of interpretations of capitalist strategies and tactics designed to > get people to think they are in their own interest. Separating > dis-information from information is part of what espionage is all about. > > > > iii) also often precludes open and overt revolutionary political > > activism > > > since one's "cover" would thereby be blown. Thus, even when successful > > > there is a trade-off. > > Yep. Which is one reason why I resisted that route, long ago. But some > have a taste for it, perhaps, for a year or so. Like I said, a few more > moles in the IMF or WTO would be nice. Any volunteers? :-) > > Harry > > > > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > ............................................................................ > Snail-mail: > Harry Cleaver > Department of Economics > University of Texas at Austin > Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA > > Phone Numbers: > (hm) (512) 442-5036 > (off) (512) 475-8535 > Fax:(512) 471-3510 > > E-mail: > hmcleave@eco.utexas.edu > PGP Public Key: http://certserver.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=hmcleave > > Cleaver homepage: > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html > > Chiapas95 homepage: > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html > > Accion Zapatista homepage: > http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ > ............................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT