Gene
On Dec 7, 2013, at 6:49 PM, lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org wrote:
> Send lbo-talk mailing list submissions to
> lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lbo-talk-owner at lbo-talk.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of lbo-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Fwd: Special Page at Monthly Review (My reply to Heinrich)
> Part II (Shane Mage)
> 2. Fwd: Special Page at Monthly Review (My reply to Heinrich)
> Part III (Shane Mage)
> 3. with a whimper, not a bang (John Gulick)
> 4. Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth (Sean Andrews)
> 5. Re: with a whimper, not a bang (Doug Henwood)
> 6. Re: Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth (Doug Henwood)
> 7. Re: Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth
> (Carl G. Estabrook)
> 8. Re: Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth (Doug Henwood)
> 9. Those were the days (Jim Farmelant)
> 10. Re: Those were the days (c b)
> 11. Re: with a whimper, not a bang (martin schiller)
> 12. with a whimper, not a bang (John Gulick)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:32:17 -0500
> From: Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Fwd: Special Page at Monthly Review (My reply to
> Heinrich) Part II
> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> <marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <AFD62AF9-6CAB-40CB-9ED2-FE64F1C4AD3F at pipeline.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
>>
>> ...Heinrich claims to substantiate his claim that the "Law" is
>> theoretically invalid, because it cannot be logically developed from
>> the basic categories and conceptions of the Marxian theoretical
>> system, with an argument based on a formula that he mistakenly calls
>> "value composition." [cf. footnote two] In this, as in many of
>> Marx's illustrative examples in vol.1, it is assumed that the entire
>> social capital is consumed and reproduced in the course of a single
>> year--ie., that there exists no fixed capital. Thus he propounds as
>> Marx's "not explicit" expression for the rate of profit the formula
>> "p=s/(c+v)," equivalent to "(s/v)/[(c/v)+1]." From this he argues
>> that his "c" increases "precisely in the course of the production of
>> relative surplus-value, which leads to an increasing rate of surplus-
>> value...when Marx claims a fall in the rate of profit, then he must
>> demonstrate that in the long term the denominator grows faster than
>> the numerator. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever for such a
>> comparison in the speed of growth."
>>
>> Heinrich is not wrong about the relation of the stock-of-constant-
>> capital/labor-value-flow ratio (the Organic Composition) to the
>> production of relative surplus-value. Increase of Q, for Marx,
>> expresses "the progressive development of the social productive
>> power of labor," and increased productivity produces relative
>> surplus-value by decreasing the labor-cost of production of labor
>> power (the value of the real wage) and thus the paid portion of the
>> given working day. Where Heinrich goes wrong is in his assertion
>> that there is no reason for the rate of increase in the denominator
>> (capital stock) to exceed the rate of increase in the numerator
>> (surplus value). From examination of the correct formula for the
>> Marxian rate of profit, p'=s'/Q(1+s'), it is clear that the rate of
>> surplus value, s', appears with a positive sign in both the
>> numerator and the denominator but that the capital stock, C, appears
>> only in the denominator. Evidently, in the course of the long-run
>> evolution of capitalism the rate of increase of organic composition
>> must tend to exceed the rate of increase in surplus-value resulting
>> from it. (A more rigorous demonstration of this relationship is to
>> be found on pages 147-151 of my 1963 dissertation, "The 'Law of the
>> Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit': Its Place in the Marxian
>> Theoretical System and Relevance to the US Economy, 1900-1960,"
>> available online from http://archive.org/details/MagesDissertation)
>>
>> Heinrich's second charge against the logical derivation of the "Law"
>> is that there is no systemic reason for organic composition to
>> increase: "we do not know whether the denominator increases."
>> Suppose that labor productivity were to increase more rapidly in the
>> "capital goods" industries than in those producing articles of
>> working-class consumption. Then the organic composition could
>> decrease (less value embodied in constant capital relative to the
>> living productive labor set in motion by it) with the result of a
>> rising rate of profit unless the overall technical composition would
>> have increased more rapidly than the productivity of capital-goods-
>> producing labor. [footnote three]
>>
>> For anyone with eyes open to look around him it is impossible to
>> take this argument seriously--every great city is dominated by
>> commercial structures employing no productive labor at all; every
>> manufacturing industry is constantly displacing workers and
>> replacing them with automated machinery; energy--which once employed
>> millions of miners--is ever more entirely being provided by a
>> relative handful of workers operating enormously capital-intensive
>> nuclear power plants, hydrocarbon wells and pipelines, offshore oil
>> platforms, wind-turbines, solar panels, etc. And all this is
>> clearly but the latest stage of a process that has built steadily
>> over some two centuries of capitalist economic development and is,
>> if anything, accelerating. But, Heinrich might argue, this is
>> merely "empirical reality," and the place of technology in the
>> materialist conception of history [footnote four] is merely
>> "philosophy." He would demand a "theoretical" demonstration that
>> this unquestionably real capitalist development is a necessary
>> consequence of Marx's model of capitalism.
>>
>> The reply might start with the point that a very large portion of
>> the inputs to capital-goods industries (raw materials, labor-power,
>> electricity, fuel, etc.) are identically inputs to consumer-goods
>> industries. In particular, they account for virtually the entire
>> cost of construction. Any hypothetical decrease in the value of
>> these inputs would have the same effect in increasing productivity
>> (decreasing unit value) in both types of production. So if capital-
>> goods' productivity were to increase faster than consumer-goods'
>> productivity, that increase would have to come entirely from their
>> machine-building component. But surely the same applies to the
>> inputs (except machines) for that machine-building component. And so
>> forth ad infinitum. In the face of an infinite regress the
>> hypothesis of rising relative productivity in the industries
>> supplying capital goods simply collapses. Different individual
>> branches of industry may develop labor productivity at different
>> rates and at different periods of time, but over the historical
>> course of capitalist development the average productivity of social
>> labor in those two gross categories, capital goods and consumer
>> goods industries, cannot be distinguished.
>>
>> This is not, however, a theoretical demonstration that the Organic
>> Composition must tend to increase. What is needed is to show how
>> such a tendency follows from the necessary course of capital
>> investment over the course of what, in Marxian terms, constitutes an
>> "ideally average" economic cycle (an "ideal" cycle presupposes a
>> closed--ie., abstracting from exchange with other economies--model).
>> This schema involves three definite Marxian theories: that the
>> industrial reserve army is the regulator of the supply and demand
>> for labor power; that expected profitability is the decisive factor
>> in capitalist decision making; and that the supply of credit is
>> endogenous to the system (ie., the quantity of credit is determined
>> by the monetary quantity of transactions to be financed, not the
>> reverse as in the "quantity theory of money" where the aggregate
>> value of transactions depends on an exogenously determined "money
>> supply").
>>
>> The cycle can be taken as starting with the low point ("trough") of
>> its preceding cycle. The industrial reserve army (which Marx
>> defines as the "pivot," the regulator, of the supply and demand for
>> labor power, ie., wages) has been replenished and production is at
>> its nadir (unemployment is high and capacity-utilization low).
>> Interest rates have fallen as a result of lowered demand for credit
>> to finance inventories and capital investment. Replacement of worn-
>> out capital equipment, deferred during the bottom phase of the
>> former cycle, is needed by many businesses. Thus the upswing
>> involves increasing output without increasing unit costs, raising
>> profits. As it proceeds profits, capital utilization, prices,
>> employment, real wages, interest rates, and new investment all
>> increase until the cycle approaches its peak.
>>
>> The renewed investment at the start of the upswing was mainly in
>> inventories and replacement equipment. Output could increase
>> without much need for expanded capacity, and employment-increasing
>> (ie., capital-broadening, as against capital-deepening) investment
>> was at its most profitable in comparison to labor-saving
>> innovation. But then output-increasing investment starts to become
>> ever more needed, older equipment becomes more costly to operate as
>> it is worked more intensely, and labor-power becomes more costly as
>> the reserve army is depleted. As new investment increases, the
>> rising tendency of wages makes it become ever more biased toward
>> labor-saving innovation--the higher the wage the more relative
>> surplus-value is produced by every hour less labor time required to
>> produce a given output. The peak of the cycle is characterized by a
>> high level of capital-intensive investment, spurred on by the
>> expectation of high profitability from maintenance of or increases
>> in prices and demand. As the interest rate required to finance new
>> investment increases (and, conversely, the "payout period" a firm
>> requires to justify new investment shortens) the large investment
>> projects previously begun start to come on line, putting intense
>> competitive pressure on prices and so on less-productive older
>> capitals. Realized profits fall short of what had been expected,
>> inter-business debt payments are delayed for longer times, business
>> failures with associated loan losses to the credit system increase
>> and credit tightens, workers are laid off thus decreasing effective
>> demand, and new investment, no longer seen as adequately profitable,
>> falls off. The cycle thus has gone into reverse until, at its
>> trough, a new cycle gets underway.
>>
>> This abstract model, which tells us almost nothing at all about the
>> concrete determinations--of timing, expectations, foreign trade and
>> foreign exchange, natural-resource costs and rents, market
>> structure, speculation, politics, and class struggle--that shape
>> every actual economic cycle and notably every crisis--nevertheless
>> establishes the vital point at issue: capital accumulation (new
>> investment) takes place predominantly at the height of the cycle
>> when the cost of labor power is high and rising. It is therefore
>> highly biased toward labor-saving technological change and this
>> makes a cycle-to-cycle increase in the Organic Composition of
>> Capital a necessary and fundamental component in Marx's model of the
>> "economic law of motion of modern society."
>>
>> Because every cycle thus involves an increase in the organic
>> composition of the social capital, and because increase in organic
>> composition involves decrease in the rate of profit, Marx's abstract
>> model of the cycle (his "crisis theory") necessarily involves an
>> effect of that decrease in the peak phase of the cycle. Marx
>> explains it thus: "The rate of profit, ie., the relative increment
>> of capital, is above all important for all new offshoots of capital
>> seeking an independent location...[it is] the fundamental premise
>> and driving force of accumulation." (v.3, p. 304) This is not at all
>> to assert that new investment necessarily becomes less profitable in
>> operation than the previously-accumulated capital. The fall in
>> profitability manifests as a decreasing "marginal efficiency of
>> investment" for the social capital as a whole. The decline is
>> principally felt by "older" capital, as commodities from newer more
>> productive capital come onto the market, in the form of
>> overproduction relative to demand at the existing price level. That
>> overproduction, however, is crucial. The depressed market means that
>> the return on new capital, and therefore the expected return on new
>> investment, has fallen below the level on which the original
>> investment decision was based. The realized payback period has
>> lengthened beyond what had been projected and new projects are
>> postponed. Thus the Law acts as a powerful constricting influence in
>> every crisis, at the peak and recession phase of every cycle. It
>> is, over the historical course of the capitalist mode of production,
>> a "barrier," a force repeatedly depressing the profitability of
>> investment to ever lower levels. Marx, an ardent Balzacian, might
>> well approve were we to call his Law capitalism's Peau de Chagrin...
>
>> Shane Mage
>>
>> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>> kindling in measures and going out in measures.
>>
>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:33:44 -0500
> From: Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Fwd: Special Page at Monthly Review (My reply to
> Heinrich) Part III
> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> <marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <4A913464-9668-439C-BB1F-FD6BCE3BBB2C at pipeline.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
>>
>> ...Defeating the Law. Faced with this historical tendency toward
>> ever falling profitability of the social capital, painfully manifest
>> in every period of crisis, each capitalist ruling class attempts to
>> reverse it in various ways. These ways go outside the bounds of the
>> closed-system model used to derive the Law. Marx outlines five such
>> "counteracting causes": raising the intensity of exploitation;
>> cheapening the elements of constant capital; depressing wages below
>> their value; relative overpopulation; foreign trade. Since the
>> tendency to be counteracted expresses at any time given rates of
>> exploitation and organic composition, the counteracting causes
>> (which are not independent of each other) must take effect through
>> raising the former or diminishing the latter.
>>
>> --raising the intensity of exploitation. This is conceptually
>> distinct from the systemic economic tendency for increasing organic
>> composition to produce relative surplus-value. Exploitation is also
>> increased by extraction of absolute surplus-value, through
>> intensification of the labor-process itself by forcing laborers to
>> work harder and faster for the same wage. The intensity of work,
>> which the working class always tries to minimize and the capitalist
>> class to maximize, is itself on average the resultant of the balance
>> of class forces. To raise it, thus, requires capital to win a
>> battle in the class struggle. For that advantage to be durable, not
>> to be reversed by the working class when the next prosperity-phase
>> restores its bargaining power, means that a new social norm of
>> intensified work would have been established. Thus even were the
>> total amount of surplus-value, and hence the rate of profit, to be
>> durably increased, that would constitute only a one-time gain.
>> Starting with the next cyclical upswing all the forces tending to
>> reduce profitability would return to full operation.
>>
>> --cheapening the elements of constant capital. As shown above, this
>> cannot by itself have any tendential effect on organic composition.
>> What is involved is circulating, rather than fixed, capital. Such
>> cheapening works to reduce the value of the inventory component of
>> the capital stock, and to that extent it lowers organic composition
>> and raises profitability. But unless they express increasing average
>> productivity of labor (in which case it would, as has been shown,
>> merely reflect increasing organic composition) such instances of
>> cheapening are merely one-off gains that do not effect the long-run
>> tendency of profitability to fall.
>>
>> --depressing wages below their value. The value of the real wage
>> signifies the cost of reproduction of labor-power. This value
>> declines tendentially with growth in labor productivity, even though
>> real wages have tended to increase over the long course of
>> capitalist development (a tendency that Lenin called a "law of
>> increasing requirements"). To depress wages below their value, at
>> any given time, means to depress the real wage below its historic
>> social norm--to depress the standard of life of the working class.
>> Economically, the only barrier to this is the level at which
>> immiseration directly impacts labor productivity, and presently in
>> advanced countries there seems to remain a considerable margin
>> before that point is reached. The real obstacle is always the power
>> of the working class to resist immiseration, for popular unrest is
>> always at its most explosive when living standards are under
>> attack. It is this point which gives Marx's Law its most pointed
>> political relevance, especially in the present context of systematic
>> attack on popular living standards throughout the Western capitalist
>> systems.
>>
>> --relative overpopulation. Long-term increase in the industrial
>> reserve army, through recruitment of workers from low-productivity
>> or noncapitalist lines of production (like subsistence farming),
>> both depresses real wages and provides labor-power for lines of
>> production with low organic composition. This is perhaps the most
>> visible of all the counteracting factors, in the form of mass
>> immigration from colonial or semi-colonial societies (Latin America,
>> Africa, Eastern Europe) into the advanced Western economies or, in
>> China, India, Brazil, etc., from an impoverished peasant hinterland
>> into mushrooming industrial cities. Though this process can persist
>> long-term there also are definite limits: demographic (decrease of
>> potential recruits), economic (local industrialization), and social
>> (popular resistance to the disruptive effects of large-scale
>> migration). Moreover, as migrants assimilate they become a full part
>> of the working class and so disappear as an independent
>> counteracting factor.
>>
>> --foreign trade. This sustains profitability in two ways: the
>> Ricardian mechanism of specialization in high relative productivity
>> industries; and the availability of cheap consumer goods and raw
>> materials. These are basically instances of raising relative
>> surplus value, either by raising average physical productivity or
>> through lowering the value of the real wage and of material
>> inventories. But they are short-term factors. Trade among
>> capitalist systems can never negate the long-term tendencies at work
>> in every one of those systems. Even a totally globalized, frontier-
>> free, capitalist system would merely combine each system's own law
>> of the falling tendency of the rate of profit into a law of the
>> whole world system.
>>
>> Aggravating factors. Over the century-and-a-half since Marx
>> formulated his Law, three tendencies far more important than all the
>> counteracting causes put together have manifested to intensify the
>> consequences of the Law. They are the ecological crisis of the
>> planet (especially global warming), the depletion of essential
>> natural resources (fisheries, land, fresh water, and minerals), and
>> the bureaucratization and financialization of the capitalist
>> economy. This is not the place to detail their vast scope. Suffice
>> it to state that they impose enormous and unaccounted costs from
>> natural disasters and cleaning up (or, worse, not cleaning up)
>> pollution; multiply natural-resource rents to parasites like the
>> Russian ex-nomenklatura, the Gulf monarchs, or the Koch brothers;
>> and divert resources on the largest scale to unproductive activities
>> and unproductive capital. As surplus-value is swept into rents and
>> interest and executive loot the amount left for profit-of-
>> enterprise, the source and motive of new productive investment, is
>> constantly diminished while the real (environmental) cost of
>> production is forced ever higher. Even as technology increases the
>> gross productivity of labor, its net productivity comes under
>> always-increasing pressure. The peau de chagrin continues ever to
>> tighten.
>>
>>
>> [footnote one]
>>
>> Heinrich is very insistent, and rightly so, that Marx's abstract
>> model presents capitalism in its "ideal average."
>>
>>
>> [footnote two]
>>
>> In vol. 1 Marx says that "The organic composition of capital is the
>> value composition of capital insofar as it reflects the technical
>> composition of capital." The value composition is defined as the
>> ratio C/v. It is the technical, not the value, composition that
>> determines the development of the Organic Composition. Over
>> historical time all these compositions necessarily increase. The
>> "value composition," C/v, ceases to reflect organic/technical
>> composition because v represents only the paid portion of the
>> performed productive-labor-hours, and it is fundamental for Marx
>> that the continual creation of "relative surplus value" tends over
>> time to reduce the paid portion of working time. Accordingly, "V,"
>> the stock of circulating capital represented by the portion of
>> consumer-goods inventories destined for productive workers,
>> constitutes a constantly diminishing portion of the social capital
>> stock. This justifies our simplifying the definition of the overall
>> rate of profit as (s'v)/C rather than as s'v/(C+V). The only
>> distortion involved in abstracting from V would be a very slight
>> underestimate of the actual decline in the rate of profit.
>>
>> [footnote three]
>>
>> It should be noted that, insofar as a piece of capital equipment is
>> significantly innovative and therefore unique, the very concept of
>> "labor productivity" in its manufacture is problematic. What sense
>> does it make to say that the labor involved in manufacture of a
>> Boeing Dreamliner is more or less productive than that in a Boeing
>> 727? At any rate, market price cannot be used as an indicator of
>> "real" output because that can be done only for commodities of
>> comparable use-value to the various purchasers. Capital equipment
>> is purchased only for its utility as a means of producing surplus-
>> value in the specific economic context of another producer, not for
>> its utility to a final consumer. The US central bank, correctly,
>> does not use capital-goods prices in its estimates of inflation but
>> relies only on the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) deflator.
>>
>>
>> [footnote four]
>>
>> The perpetually rising tendency of the technical composition of
>> capital is central to the materialist conception of history, which
>> underlies everything in Marx's thought. In Capital Marx cites the
>> phrase of Benjamin Franklin: "man is the tool-making animal." But
>> historical materialism goes much deeper (other animals have been
>> shown to make tools): man is not only a tool-making animal; man is a
>> *tool-made* animal! Man's "tools," his material means of
>> production, are his material technology, the objectification of his
>> ideas (compare Hegel: "reasonableness manifests as such" in the fact
>> that "the plow is more honorable than the immediate enjoyments that
>> are procured through it and serve as ends. The instrument is
>> preserved, while the immediate enjoyments pass away and are
>> forgotten. In his tools man possesses power over external nature,
>> although as regards his ends he frequently is subjected to it.")
>> Because of their persistence, those external
>> idea-embodying material forms, the means of social production, are
>> the basis for continual and reciprocal improvement of both ideas and
>> tools (intellectual and material technology), and hence the basis of
>> human social evolution and corresponding material evolution (the
>> Darwinian mechanisms, natural and sexual selection, giving
>> reproductive advantage to types of human beings better fitted to
>> function as productive members of the given human social group--an
>> advantage that becomes cumulative through selection among groups).
>>
>>
>> Shane Mage
>>
>>
>> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>> kindling in measures and going out in measures.
>>
>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 05:11:03 -0800
> From: John Gulick <john_gulick at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] with a whimper, not a bang
> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID: <COL130-W661C447E80105A7E8EE1CB8CD10 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> apparently...
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:41:25 -0600
> From: Sean Andrews <cultstud76 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID:
> <CAANq81Ak=p1WrcLqXNrN_xnY31Re5ULyEkacVejkJRw-1m-x0A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Which is of greater world historical significance? As Enlai said, it is too
> early to know. But in any case, I hope you have a good one, comrade.
>
> Best,
> Sean
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:34:07 -0500
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] with a whimper, not a bang
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <1C6AE657-8418-40EC-B590-605FAA9DA5FD at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:11 AM, John Gulick <john_gulick at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> apparently...
>
> Would you prefer a bang? Or maybe a page lifted from the life of Lazarus?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:37:48 -0500
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <C5F46069-9E53-4935-892E-2D7EB047A6F2 at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Thanks. Also the birth of Noam Chomsky, Ellen Burstyn, Willa Cather, and Tom Waits!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:12:13 -0600
> From: "Carl G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth
> To: "<lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID: <281194EF-56AA-47FB-8446-B9434A113BB3 at illinois.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Alex Cockburn used to say that the two greatest disasters that befell U.S. power in the twentieth century were the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Chomsky's birthday, both on December 7. Didn't he know about your birthday, Doug?
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Also the birth of Noam Chomsky, Ellen Burstyn, Willa Cather, and Tom Waits!
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 14:35:29 -0500
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Pearl Harbor attack vs. Doug Henwood's birth
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <7A9D0C20-D76D-48E5-AC37-00EEDE186435 at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>> Alex Cockburn used to say that the two greatest disasters that befell U.S. power in the twentieth century were the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Chomsky's birthday, both on December 7. Didn't he know about your birthday, Doug?
>
> Evidently not. But both those events greatly outclass me.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 21:47:24 GMT
> From: "Jim Farmelant" <farmelantj at juno.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Those were the days
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <20131207.164724.9338.0 at webmail04.vgs.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
>> From 2005:
> ---------------
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> 5 posts so far today, following 11 yesterday. The limit is 3.
>
> Doug
> ---------------
>
> Boy those were the days, weren't they?
>
>
> Jim Farmelant
> http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant
> http://www.foxymath.com
> Learn or Review Basic Math
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
> http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:00:25 -0500
> From: c b <cb31450 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Those were the days
> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAF490LZMhc37UcRrT1xRu4a2sYaGdv7yiii9kgeKTEJJATDyug at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From 2005:
>> ---------------
>> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>> 5 posts so far today, following 11 yesterday. The limit is 3.
>>
>> Doug
>> ---------------
>>
>> Boy those were the days, weren't they?
>>
>
>> Jim Farmelant
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> CB : Uhhuh
>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
>> http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:10:36 -0800
> From: martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] with a whimper, not a bang
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <10B33D6E-5E3B-45CA-86F2-558C9C7C52B2 at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:11 AM, John Gulick <john_gulick at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> apparently...
>>
>> Would you prefer a bang? Or maybe a page lifted from the life of Lazarus?
>
> Prefer a bong. But it might be interesting to see some analysis of the transitioning process. Migration?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:48:49 -0800
> From: John Gulick <john_gulick at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] with a whimper, not a bang
> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Cc: John Gulick <john_gulick at hotmail.com>
> Message-ID: <COL130-W875667815BE0C1E873F8B98CD00 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Not interested in analysis at this point, but I thought it somehow fitting that Doug interviewed Mark Fisher and George Scialabba very recently...
>
>> Prefer a bong. But it might be interesting to see some analysis of the transitioning process. Migration?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> lbo-talk mailing list
> lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> End of lbo-talk Digest, Vol 2290, Issue 1
> *****************************************