From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Sep 23 2004 - 14:37:43 EDT
again briefly. Alejandro, if you want this discussion to stop, please say so. I was trying to respect the seminar format. At 10:34 AM +0100 9/23/04, Paul Bullock wrote: >Rakesh, > >you certainly did insist that the bosses lock out was a 'strike', I did? And if so a strike by whom? >and accused >Chavez of being just another populist So I didn't say it was a popular strike? >... and ran him down.. On what grounds? That he was a populist or that he wasn't a populist? > >Michaels points are something completely different. Petras's articles are >usually quite on the mark...a recent one exposing the history of Carters >Peace organisation / circus is really excellent.. But I do find that he >doesn't dig deep enough at times and this can be misleading. this is not very helpful as a reply to what he did write, is it? >Thus on >Argentina he correctly pointed to the sectarianism that characterised the >'piqueteros', but without demonstrating why it arose, the social basis for >its existence, the role of the police, the government etc... which then >leaves an incomplete picture behind. Didn't read his analysis of Argentina. Or don't remember it now. > In this sense, with another example, >Michael is making a similar point. Nor is a criticism of his Cuba analysis very helpful in understanding the limitations of his Venezuela analysis. > Nevertheless, I would rather we had many >hundreds more of people like Petras, than those who pointlessly malign >those like Chavez. So his criticisms of Chavez are on point? R. > >Paul Bullock. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> >To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> >Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:47 AM >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Economist slips up over Venezuela > > >> At 17:34 22/09/2004, Rakesh wrote: >> >> >>but ...thats the problem with happily quoting the millionaires >> >>editorials so uncritically. >> > >> > >> >I don't think I did. I did send an analysis by James Petras to which >> >Michael L replied by pointing to Petras' criticisms of Cuba's recent >> >economic policies. ? I don't think you had anything to say about it. ? >> >> Just for the record--- the 'Rectification' period began in 1986 and marked >> a rejection of the exclusive emphasis on material incentives >characteristic >> of the Soviet economic model that had been installed and instead a focus >on >> a return to Che's ideas. Among other things, it involved the resurrection >> of microbrigades, which had been discontinued as 'inefficient', and the >> encouragement of voluntary labour. Petras' idiosyncratic analysis was that >> the discouragement of work that was yielding bonuses but no use-values >> (such a familiar characteristic of Soviet bonus structures) and the stress >> on moral incentives was speed-up, wage-cutting and neoliberalism meant to >> prepare Cuba to compete in the world market. My point was that I give his >> interpretation of what is happening in Venezuela the weight it deserves. >> michael >> PS. the Rectification period unfortunately was supplanted by 'the special >> period' once Cuba lost 80% of its trade. >> --------------------- >> Michael A. Lebowitz >> Professor Emeritus >> Economics Department >> Simon Fraser University >> Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 >> Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 >> Home: Phone (604) 689-9510 >> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 24 2004 - 00:00:04 EDT