European Unions

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>  > Can you point out "jargon" in any of my posts?
>>
>>  Yoshie
>
>Well, since I don't save your posts, I'll have to rely on the only one I
>have.
>
>"We have seen that the capitalistic mode of production thrust
>its way into a society of commodity-producers, of individual
>producers, whose social bond was the exchange of their products.  But
>every society based upon the production of commodities has this
>peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own
>social inter-relations."
>
>Say this out loud to a guy sweeping floors or to a woman washing dishes. Or,
>for that matter, to a person toiling at a computer for a large company. What
>do you suppose they'd say in response? Might the word "Huh?" be muttered?
>
>Many of your posts contain the type of jargon quoted above (either written
>by you or by someone else). You obviously exist in an orbit where it is
>understood. And, as kelley reminded me, this is such a place. My only
>question is, Does this jargon relate to the everyday lives of average
>people? Or is LBO Talk simply an intellectual circle jerk?
>
>DP

First of all, why do you consider Engels' simple words to be 
objectionable "jargon," while remaining unoffended by exchanges such 
as the following?

At 2:41 PM -0400 4/6/01, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:41:09 -0400
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Subject: Re: Adios to the T-Bill?
>
>Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>
>>In particular, I am confused as to how post keynesian theorists 
>>insist on both the endogeneity of the money supply (that is, the 
>>Fed is obliged to supply the quantity of money that is demanded by 
>>economic agents) while elevating the Fed to the key, autonomous 
>>institution in the determination of the performance of the 
>>macroeconomy.
>
>There's more than one kind of endogenist. Quoting myself from Wall Street:
>
>>Robert Pollin (1991; 1993) usefully divided the two major schools 
>>of post-Keynesian endogenists into the accommodative and the 
>>structural. Accommodative endogeneity holds that the central bank 
>>has no choice but to validate private credit demand by providing 
>>whatever reserves the banking system needs to accommodate the loans 
>>that it has already made; that means there is no effective 
>>constraint on credit. Leading proponents of this school include 
>>Nicholas Kaldor and Basil Moore. Structural endogeneity - the 
>>branch that appeals to both Pollin and me - holds that central bank 
>>attempts to constrain the growth of credit are frequently evaded 
>>through creative finance.

Your response cannot but originate in your prejudice against Marxism, 
since you don't find non-Marxist "jargon" objectionable.

Secondly, a washing-woman and a data-entry worker, provided only that 
they are literate, can learn to make sense of Engels's words.  Those 
who are illiterate, as many workers & peasants in poor nations are, 
can still make sense of Marx & Engels, if the main arguments of their 
works are clearly communicated to them orally.

Yoshie