Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes IV - Revision history

Santiago Pinault: End

2019-12-08T10:22:19Z

End

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 8 December 2019
Line 485:		Line 485:
	The point where we transcend Marx is where Marx thought that the value of commodities is real - a real reflection of labor and usefulness. It is real like mirroring an object is real, and set it is not the object but the mirroring. There is a reality to that price.		The point where we transcend Marx is where Marx thought that the value of commodities is real - a real reflection of labor and usefulness. It is real like mirroring an object is real, and set it is not the object but the mirroring. There is a reality to that price.

	{{Page \|n°=54}} We say no: all ~~… […]~~		{{Page \|n°=54}} We say no: all that happens is that people buy and sell at that prices. It has no value and this is a pure figment of the imagination. Marx said value has a kind of reality. We don't ever take these imagined phenomenon for real. All you find is price which is not an objective characteristic reflecting value but a behaviour theorem, e.g. people sell it for "7". In this way the labor theory of value has a physical existence(?).

	Marx believes in values. We don't. There is no value there at all. Modern economic theory doesn't operate with value.		Marx believes in values. We don't. There is no value there at all. Modern economic theory doesn't operate with value.
Line 493:		Line 493:
	Power comes into being as a mirroring of one's fear. He who assumes power can say that X wants to be protected, so X agrees and the power he assumes is X's agreement. Humes was right about opinion.		Power comes into being as a mirroring of one's fear. He who assumes power can say that X wants to be protected, so X agrees and the power he assumes is X's agreement. Humes was right about opinion.

	The same is true with value. Take it as price and drop value. ~~[…]~~		The same is true with value. Take it as price and drop value. e.g. "These gentlemen have queued up, so raise the price". This also happens if he knows they are going to queue up. We are locating the phenomenon then, not in the object but in the behaviour of the consumer or producer. Marx said it was the reflection of the persons involved. P. accepts the subjective theory of value. They used to discuss, when P. was young, tieing subjective value to the price of iron. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]
	~~[…]~~ [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== World Trade ==		== World Trade ==
	{{Page \|n°=55}} Jacoby's book "Agrarian Unrest in Southeast Asia" - 1949, introduction by J.B. Conliffe - says that the new nationalism should be regarded as caused by a far reaching dislocation, the dislocation of the market and trade system of World War I e.g. Korea, Indo-china, Egypt, North Africa.		{{Page \|n°=55}} Jacoby's book "Agrarian Unrest in Southeast Asia" - 1949, introduction by J.B. Conliffe - says that the new nationalism should be regarded as caused by a far reaching dislocation, the dislocation of the market and trade system of World War I e.g. Korea, Indo-china, Egypt, North Africa.

	Our original trade organization is irretrievably damaged and a dislocation is taking place. ~~[…]~~ [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		Our original trade organization is irretrievably damaged and a dislocation is taking place. J.B.C. now at Berkeley in International Trade wrote a book 3 years ago - "The Trade (or Commerce) of the Nations"(?) which explains trade in the 19th century very well. It quotes the G.T. in a positive way and uses the concept of "social dislocation". The deepest root of the problem is the gold standard working through the trade system. What started nationalism was the social dislocation caused by a world trading system. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Joan Robinson - ''The Accumulation of Capital'' ==		== Joan Robinson - ''The Accumulation of Capital'' ==
	{{Page \|n°=56}} In his review of the "The Great Accumulation of a Capital" T. Balogh said that the great ~~… […]~~		{{Page \|n°=56}} In his review of the "The Great Accumulation of a Capital" T. Balogh said that the great question was to develop a policy to meet the practical requirements of the competitive co-existence period. Old neo-classical terms have failed entirely and now Keynes is partly replaced. Now we must build up our accumulation of capital and foreign trade and Joan Robinson says this is only possible as a historical event and in a historical process and these are not economic. Balogh says that out of these elements the most urgent things will be developed: the policy principles to meet competitive co-existence and different economic system.

	We meet to a point but she does it in terms of economic theory and we have done institutional analysis to describe ~~… […]~~		We meet to a point but she does it in terms of economic theory and we have done institutional analysis to describe the process of change. We have found the key in the institutional separateness of trade and money problems and there is no unity of these three problems. The basic vision must be that trade, money and market are not all market problems.

	For a brief time trade and money were market functions but this has ceased to be so.		For a brief time trade and money were market functions but this has ceased to be so.
Line 513:		Line 512:

	== Anthropology Fieldbook ==		== Anthropology Fieldbook ==
	{{Page \|n°=58}} P. has dropped the idea of the ~~field -book~~.		{{Page \|n°=58}} P. has dropped the idea of the fieldbook.

	It would ~~… […]~~		It would allow the social scientists to use our material for the economy. It is really pointing out the questions which arise if the place of the economy in society is to be understood as a central question of all sciences. It adds all the factual material right away e.g. port of trade, equivalencies etc.

	The whole book could be written disregarding the distinction of anthropology and economic history. But the social scientists don't want economic history, not even peripherically.		The whole book could be written disregarding the distinction of anthropology and economic history. But the social scientists don't want economic history, not even peripherically.
Line 548:		Line 547:

	== Art (2) ==		== Art (2) ==
	{{Page \|n°=61}} ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=61}} (P. looking out or a car window:)

	~~{{Page \|n°=62}}~~		The steel pylon against the background of the landscape gives us a new beauty. Nature is redeemed from the blight of the distant towns.

	~~{{Page \|n°=63}}~~		Twenty years ago P. didn't see the beauty of this contrast. There existed than the school of the Constructivists, one of the expressionist schools of painting. It was not abstract, every Constructivist had a material. There were paintings of lumber, steel and earth, reminiscent of Braque and presented in true character. P.'s first reaction was that it contained no colour.

	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		This was explained in '34-'35 when he was invited for a fortnight or 3 weeks to an unemployed Walsh miners hostel called Grenfell (brother of the M.P.) The idea was to bring intellectual food from Swansea. But there was no audience - why should these miners come? Perhaps 2 or 3 radical workers could be expected. P. lived there and gave quite good lectures. One art professor, Tague, showed reproductions of paintings and explained this to Polanyi. This kind of Constructivist paintings and explained this to Polanyi. This kind of Constructivist painting showed steel and timber, wire and broken stone. The character of the material was brought out in the painting. The technical showed up the contrast, and ever since, 22 years ago, P. changed his vision. P.'s apartment in New York overlooks flat roofs and sees black tar, water and electricity supplies and appliances. It takes up part of the glacis and the contrast is of the construction and all the rest. In P.'s lifetime the painters taught us to see. The point is the contrast - like somebody who was dumb speaking in an utterly different way.

			{{Page \|n°=62}} The painters in the '20's were a presage of Communism and Fascism. The painters were the first to see many things: the poor symbolist sentimental representation for painting could not continue because of the enormous moral problems of society hidden by it.

			It began with the Futurists, and Italian group of madmen, regarded as crazy. This issued a manifesto: painting, music and art are at an end because it is the age of the airplane, and because of the airplane, and because of fast movement it's silly to have art.

			There were also the Dadaists - poetry with just meaningless words - and the fetishes: the negro sculptured piece of horror in wood. Thus primitive art was discovered.

			All this happened at about the same time: the same period as the great new painters, Gauguin, Cezanne (in the '80's and '90's), Van Gogh, and a little later, Matisse. At that time it was not understood to be paintings. There was a Jew, a Hungarian boy who was a painter - hereover painted anything and was terribly ugly - who bought these fetishes from the sailors in Marseilles and was he first man to understand that they were works of art. He only had certain theories of art (Brugel or Bruckner was his name) and that was the beginning of native art, which by now has done its work and has transformed our relation to art.

			Also the Germans had a leader - Kandinsky - and the 'Blaureite' in Vienna preceded the movement in Central Europe. The "secession" (?) {{Page \|n°=63}} tried to be wild and untraditional, but they had no talent, and weren't untraditional, just bad. Their gallery is still there. These people preceded the great changes.

			In Vienna, the first ones were of a false originality, but some of the new architecture conquered the world. But there was also the influence of Berlin, Holland, and Sweden and we can't that Vienna was the leading form of the design, i.e. there are cases where heretic pioneers are not best.

			Great new paintings and masters emerged from Paris. The general public saw these with a traditional eye, regarded them with utter horror and banned the painters.

			In the 1830's and '40's there were two schools, the Romantics and the Classicists, but the new painters were banned by both. The French were 'on plein air' and the great Dutchean painted in ateliers.

			The Anarchists in 1917, in a Rebellion against the Communists sprayed the trees black as in a novel by Alexei Tolstoy. They wanted Moscow to have black trees. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Remarks ==		== Remarks ==
Line 565:		Line 582:

	=== Gardening ===		=== Gardening ===
	Gardening here (in Canada) doesn"t make sense. There is lots of land about, the climate is no good and it doesn't pay. There is no moisture for things to grow luxuriantly and most of the earth is bad, clay. Very few people are gardening. People work at their cars, or fishing. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		Gardening here (in Canada) doesn't make sense. There is lots of land about, the climate is no good and it doesn't pay. There is no moisture for things to grow luxuriantly and most of the earth is bad, clay. Very few people are gardening. People work at their cars, or fishing. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Editors Notes ==		== Editors Notes ==

Santiago Pinault at 00:22, 8 December 2019

2019-12-08T00:22:37Z

Show changes

Santiago Pinault at 21:30, 7 December 2019

2019-12-07T21:30:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 7 December 2019
Line 107:		Line 107:
	A title “freedom and planning” would be out of date and no one would read it. Also the theme of Hayek is so much read and so little serfdom.		A title “freedom and planning” would be out of date and no one would read it. Also the theme of Hayek is so much read and so little serfdom.

	The same realm of concern does come up and should raise the question of atom power and nuclear energy. The danger is utterly beyond words and tomorrow we may get news that the Belgians or the ~~Viet Namese~~ have produced a bomb. Then hell is loose. The problems arising from this on every hand would arouse a cry for world dictatorship tomorrow. We are afraid that the bomb wouldn't require one billion dollars but possible only twenty thousand dollars.		The same realm of concern does come up and should raise the question of atom power and nuclear energy. The danger is utterly beyond words and tomorrow we may get news that the Belgians or the Vietnamese have produced a bomb. Then hell is loose. The problems arising from this on every hand would arouse a cry for world dictatorship tomorrow. We are afraid that the bomb wouldn't require one billion dollars but possible only twenty thousand dollars.

	Then there is the question of technology. The bomb is merely a conformation of civilization being destroyed by its technological character. This remains pinned on us through the bomb.		Then there is the question of technology. The bomb is merely a conformation of civilization being destroyed by its technological character. This remains pinned on us through the bomb.
Line 119:		Line 119:
	P. thinks that behind our whole setup there is both a trend to increase the unlimited power for the governement and pressure for more freedom expressed in the depressed feelings of people to things as they are. P. is very much for a libertarian outlook, based, however, on the recognition of the reality of society which is the metaphysical explanation of a complex technological civilization.		P. thinks that behind our whole setup there is both a trend to increase the unlimited power for the governement and pressure for more freedom expressed in the depressed feelings of people to things as they are. P. is very much for a libertarian outlook, based, however, on the recognition of the reality of society which is the metaphysical explanation of a complex technological civilization.

	How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? ~~[…] {{English~~ to ~~type}}~~		How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? Public opinion is for conformity e.g. the mother-of-the-week. There is an accepted value and a high price attached to being as similar to your neighbour as you can.

	They have an effective non-conformity ~~… […]~~ {{Page \|n°=14}} ~~[…]~~		They have an effective non-conformity of character in England. They are supposed to have a different opinion from the next fellow. This is highly prized and is the convention. everybody is a character, although this is only a covention. The rugged and unyielding character is being conventionally prized, and everybody loves it. We could prove that England is conforming more than any other country in the world and the result is you get the most surprising answers. Canadians are different from Americans with respect to conformity which goes beyond the social fact of conforming to the basic assumptions in the community. In England the safeguards of freedom go very far and we can be certain not to be asked our opinion, because everybody is free {{Page \|n°=14}} not to answer and therefore you are protected from public opinion if you can't put a question.

	In America we have bot the Gallup polls. ~~[…]~~		In America we have bot the Gallup polls. It would be a brilliant idea for Russia to introduce pols on everything all the time and ask the people who had voted this way, and ask them again later. This is a vast elaborate method for a response of the community to everything the government does and would be the highest democracy. The government might publish a volume of these polls every 3 months.

	Now with the two-party system we assume democracy. Rousseau and the Constitution-makers in America thought that the two-party ~~… […]~~		Now with the two-party system we assume democracy. Rousseau and the Constitution-makers in America thought that the two-party system was the end of everything, reducing the individual and making it all collective. The Constitution knows no parties and this is avoided because it is democratic. The first parties were created by an aristocratic faction. Parties are a disease of the polity(?) In America two big coalitions work for smoothing out the inevitable tensions. The American party system works very well. P. greatly admires the English party system.

	P. is for individual civic liberties, e.g. habeas corpus. ~~[…] {{Page \|n°=15}}~~		P. is for individual civic liberties, e.g. habeas corpus. That should be extended to industry and trade unions. Canada is in a very favorable position with regard to civic liberties. There is much English tradition particularly in the rural areas. A reactionary government looks out for the villages.

	~~You may get~~ a ~~prize for conformism … […]~~		P. sharply distinguishes between conforming (i.e. society) and the problem of individualism vs conformism. P. regards freedom {{Page \|n°=15}} as a culture tray. We are attached to it and the individual values his integrity highly and demonstrates it.

	In a ~~complex society nameless~~ fear ~~… […]~~		You may get a prize for conformism (as a culture tray) but non-conformism may be in that position too. P. would rather get rid of conformity. The American degree of conformism is a very much milder form of totalitarianism than Fascism or Stalinism. Conformism is a world problem and this brings us to the precarious condition where fear dominates. It is psychological fear of the unknown. It is the same as creating power. It is the generating of an attitude which demands and cries power to protect it - totalitarianism.

	In ~~Russia~~ the ~~5 years plans originate fear because everything … […] {{Page \|n°=16}}~~		In a complex society nameless fear generates power whether invested in someone or not. This makes no difference in terms of it being a compelling force. There is a readiness to invest anyone with limitless power on account of the great danger.

	~~England~~ and the U.S. ~~have shown that you can have this even~~ with ~~live … […]~~		In Russia the 5 years plans originate fear because everything is invested in a plan, which, if disturbed, is destroyed and everything is lost. Why has planning anything to do with power? Is not the power of the planning government the threat? But the problem is the necessity of power and the danger which is involved. That is why the attacks on Stalin are misleading. (P. is tolerant of Russia). There would be a need for absolute power to obviate the threat of annihilation. While Stalin was one of the blackest criminals in history, P. doesn't charge him with dictatorship. an assurance was needed of there being no uncertainty or dissociation at the center like {{Page \|n°=16}} the vacillation of the two-party system. Even a wrong decision is better. It is the same as the army in the field.

	(See P.’s Minnesota paper). In a society where ~~… […]~~		England and the U.S. have shown that you can have this even with live democracy e.g. Pearl Harbour and the Battle of Britain. The Romans gad it as institutions e.g. when one of the COnsuls was made dictator there was a 6 months limit. They never changed that or broke these rules. (Abused only once).

			(See P.’s Minnesota paper). In a society where conformism is prized so highly there is no freedom. It is a debility of freedom when the diversity of shapes is lacking.

	Can we explain anything using only the last 30 years? (my question)		Can we explain anything using only the last 30 years? (my question)

	If you take the last 30 years of American existence how far is it necessary to historicize? ~~[…]~~ {{Page \|n°=17}}		If you take the last 30 years of American existence how far is it necessary to historicize? If we don't have a separation of economy and politics then what? Such a book would not be as history of the social and economic development of America, like the G.T. of Europe. It would be a history of present-day America. The definition of the transformation in the world would be taken from the old book as a world change. If you say "and America", what happened in the transformation of the past 30 years and where is she today? P. wouldn't regard this as bound to the European phases. What is relevant is the collapse of the world, of the capital market, the currency, and the commodity market as a consequence of the gold standard being dissolved and the balance of power. Because a gold standard is not there, the G.T. position can be upheld. You speak {{Page \|n°=17}} about America in the light of her position in this process. It doesn't involve the 19th century story of America and doesn't say that the same story as the 19th century happened here.

			If you take … […]

			We assume this and do not agree the assumptions. We … […]

			P. thinks the book is less bound to the G.T. than we thought, i.e.that the market theorem applied to the U.S. as is, and the American social scene was market-bound. These market-free territories exist and in this regard we apply the market theorem. The social configuration is the trade union, the government and the corporation. (Drucker said that the trade union power is tribunetian - the power of veto.)

			We have no reason not to take the approach of the G.T. in the self-protection of society.

	{{Page \|n°=18}} and Japanese fleet ~~… […]~~		The balance of power is returning and the old balance of power has gone by the disappearance of the British Navy, the German {{Page \|n°=18}} and Japanese fleet and the disappearance of Germany and Japan as powers. (Great Britain has not disappeared). P. suggests we accept the vacuum theory of the world situation. The trouble was that the vacuum was created by the disappearance of Japan and Germany as powers, and only two powers remained, and unless new powers emerged it was only by a miracle that war was avoided.

	Before writing the G.T., P. reduced his assumptions to minimum. P. outlines he assumptions here, but never lays these down.		Before writing the G.T., P. reduced his assumptions to minimum. P. outlines he assumptions here, but never lays these down.

	P. would ride to gold standard and balance of power to the end. ~~[…]~~		P. would ride to gold standard and balance of power to the end. The balance of power possibility is restored but instead of the gold standard there is a new organization of world economy, and the liberal economy was never restored except where America restored it, e.g. Belgium. Nobody dreams that it is really free, they only call it free.

	To what extent should a conformism and civic liberties look be utterly on the left and not in an illusionist way?		To what extent should a conformism and civic liberties look be utterly on the left and not in an illusionist way?
Line 161:		Line 171:
	(2) It is a changing world.		(2) It is a changing world.

	The G.T. is behind us. We must regard the period of change as closed. The period which is closed is the last ten years '45-'55. Now the new period begins and it is much easier to speak if we are in a resting place. […]		The G.T. is behind us. We must regard the period of change as closed. The period which is closed is the last ten years '45-'55. Now the new period begins and it is much easier to speak if we are in a resting place. The postwar period is closed and instead of the cold war … […]

	Lippmann wrote that both conventions, i.e. both the New Deal and the post-war period, are closed. The G.T. was like the trumpets of judgment day, but instead of collapse we start from the dust-clearing.		Lippmann wrote that both conventions, i.e. both the New Deal and the post-war period, are closed. The G.T. was like the trumpets of judgment day, but instead of collapse we start from the dust-clearing.
Line 167:		Line 177:
	We are sure of further transformations, but nothing as dramatic.		We are sure of further transformations, but nothing as dramatic.

	What does America look like after the earthquake? I is not an idyllic picture but there is no ~~ressemblance~~ to the scene before the first World War. Take as a fact that the world has completely changed, then what has happened to America as the country left out?		What does America look like after the earthquake? I is not an idyllic picture but there is no resemblance to the scene before the first World War. Take as a fact that the world has completely changed, then what has happened to America as the country left out?

	The point is not that it has changed. Someone can say that nothing has changed: there are just bigger trade unions, corporations etc. It is easier to take the G.T. in the world as a fact, but it doesn't assume America had a g.t.		The point is not that it has changed. Someone can say that nothing has changed: there are just bigger trade unions, corporations etc. It is easier to take the G.T. in the world as a fact, but it doesn't assume America had a g.t.

	{{Page \|n°=20}} you don't start from the striking change, … […]		{{Page \|n°=20}} you don't start from the striking change, … […] {{English to type}}

	Get rid of hampering assumptions but use the G.T. assumptions for the world as heuristic principles.		Get rid of hampering assumptions but use the G.T. assumptions for the world as heuristic principles.

Santiago Pinault at 14:16, 7 December 2019

2019-12-07T14:16:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 7 December 2019
Line 119:		Line 119:
	P. thinks that behind our whole setup there is both a trend to increase the unlimited power for the governement and pressure for more freedom expressed in the depressed feelings of people to things as they are. P. is very much for a libertarian outlook, based, however, on the recognition of the reality of society which is the metaphysical explanation of a complex technological civilization.		P. thinks that behind our whole setup there is both a trend to increase the unlimited power for the governement and pressure for more freedom expressed in the depressed feelings of people to things as they are. P. is very much for a libertarian outlook, based, however, on the recognition of the reality of society which is the metaphysical explanation of a complex technological civilization.

	How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? […]		How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? […] {{English to type}}

	They have an effective non-conformity […] {{Page \|n°=14}} […]		They have an effective non-conformity … […] {{Page \|n°=14}} […]

	In America we have bot the Gallup polls. […]		In America we have bot the Gallup polls. […]

	Now with the two-party system we assume democracy. Rousseau and the Constitution-makers in America thought that the two-party […]		Now with the two-party system we assume democracy. Rousseau and the Constitution-makers in America thought that the two-party … […]

	P. is for individual civic liberties, e.g. habeas corpus. […] {{Page \|n°=15}}		P. is for individual civic liberties, e.g. habeas corpus. […] {{Page \|n°=15}}

	You may get a prize for conformism […]		You may get a prize for conformism … […]

	In a complex society nameless fear […]		In a complex society nameless fear … […]

	In Russia the 5 years plans originate fear because everything […] {{Page \|n°=16}}		In Russia the 5 years plans originate fear because everything … […] {{Page \|n°=16}}

	England and the U.S. have shown that you can have this even with live […]		England and the U.S. have shown that you can have this even with live … […]

	(See P.’s Minnesota paper). In a society where […]		(See P.’s Minnesota paper). In a society where … […]

	Can we explain anything using only the last 30 years? (my question)		Can we explain anything using only the last 30 years? (my question)
Line 165:		Line 165:
	Lippmann wrote that both conventions, i.e. both the New Deal and the post-war period, are closed. The G.T. was like the trumpets of judgment day, but instead of collapse we start from the dust-clearing.		Lippmann wrote that both conventions, i.e. both the New Deal and the post-war period, are closed. The G.T. was like the trumpets of judgment day, but instead of collapse we start from the dust-clearing.

	We are ~~sur~~ of further transformations, but nothing as dramatic.		We are sure of further transformations, but nothing as dramatic.

	What does America look like after the earthquake? I is not an idyllic picture but there is no ressemblance to the scene before the first World War. Take as a fact that the world has completely changed, then what has happened to America as the country left out?		What does America look like after the earthquake? I is not an idyllic picture but there is no ressemblance to the scene before the first World War. Take as a fact that the world has completely changed, then what has happened to America as the country left out?
Line 171:		Line 171:
	The point is not that it has changed. Someone can say that nothing has changed: there are just bigger trade unions, corporations etc. It is easier to take the G.T. in the world as a fact, but it doesn't assume America had a g.t.		The point is not that it has changed. Someone can say that nothing has changed: there are just bigger trade unions, corporations etc. It is easier to take the G.T. in the world as a fact, but it doesn't assume America had a g.t.

	{{Page \|n°=20}} you don't start from the striking change, […]		{{Page \|n°=20}} you don't start from the striking change, … […]

	Get rid of hampering assumptions but use the G.T. assumptions for the world as heuristic principles.		Get rid of hampering assumptions but use the G.T. assumptions for the world as heuristic principles.
Line 209:		Line 209:
	== Technology and Utopia ==		== Technology and Utopia ==

	{{Page \|n°=23}} In Michael Polanyi's review of Fromm (The Sane Society) he claims that Utopian ideas are reconstituted. ~~Nighbur~~ and Barth raised this question, judging any idea of theological interpretation as being demonology.		{{Page \|n°=23}} In Michael Polanyi's review of Fromm (The Sane Society) he claims that Utopian ideas are reconstituted. Niehbur and Barth raised this question, judging any idea of theological interpretation as being demonology.

	There is much justification in the charge against the 19th century utopians. The reality of society is to be understood as a charge against the utopians.		There is much justification in the charge against the 19th century utopians. The reality of society is to be understood as a charge against the utopians.
Line 235:		Line 235:
	P. doesn't think that knowledge is an unconditional good. What kind of peculiar idea is this? There is dangerous knowledge, i.e. safeguards must be created - not that we are not permitted to know.		P. doesn't think that knowledge is an unconditional good. What kind of peculiar idea is this? There is dangerous knowledge, i.e. safeguards must be created - not that we are not permitted to know.

	This isn't a subject we can or should deal with lightly. P. has had these thoughts for a long time. Even 15 years ago P. was working out the problem of why Psychology programs were being broadcast without safeguards. There is now a greater immediate interest.		This isn't a subject we can or should deal with lightly. P. has had these thoughts for a long time. Even 15 years ago P. was working out the problem of why Psychology programs were being broadcast without safeguards. There is now a greater immediate interest. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== The 1957 Book and Beyond ==		== The 1957 Book and Beyond ==
Line 424:		Line 423:

	== Modern Politics (2) ==		== Modern Politics (2) ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Marx ==		== Marx ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== World Trade ==		== World Trade ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Joan Robinson - ''The Accumulation of Capital'' ==		== Joan Robinson - ''The Accumulation of Capital'' ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Anthropology Fieldbook ==		== Anthropology Fieldbook ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== The Mind ==		== The Mind ==

Line 461:		Line 462:

	== Art (2) ==		== Art (2) ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Remarks ==		== Remarks ==

	=== Borkenau ===		=== Borkenau ===
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	=== C.S. Louis ===		=== C.S. Louis ===
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	=== Gardening ===		=== Gardening ===
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[…] [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Editors Notes ==		== Editors Notes ==

Santiago Pinault at 14:11, 7 December 2019

2019-12-07T14:11:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 7 December 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes\| Weekend Notes (Overview)]]		[[Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes\| Weekend Notes (Overview)]]
	~~{{English to type}}~~

	== G[eorge] B[ernard] Shaw ==		== G[eorge] B[ernard] Shaw ==
Line 75:		Line 74:
	P. would not argue that ideologies are a Shawian idea, but the rest could be quoted if one reads the preface and has the meaning of them and the plan of logic.		P. would not argue that ideologies are a Shawian idea, but the rest could be quoted if one reads the preface and has the meaning of them and the plan of logic.

	{{Page \|n°=8}} ~~Shaw never indulged in paradoxes for their own sake~~. ~~Who~~ would ~~care to follow~~ the ~~paradox unless it was really relevant? […]~~		{{Page \|n°=8}} P. would not argue that ideologies are a Shavian idea, but the rest could be quoted if one reads the preface and has the meaning of them and the plan and logic.

	~~The greatest scenes~~ in ~~“Joan” move from~~ the levels ~~of spiritual existence to nature~~. ~~Joan can’t stand the separation from nature~~ and ~~recants~~. ~~[…]~~		Shaw never indulged in paradoxes for their own sake. Who would care to follow the paradox unless it was really relevant? It is very clear in Candida how the three levels operate. It is always amusing; and refreshing because it moves among three levels.

	The most ~~poetic plays are not mentioned: […]~~		The greatest scenes in “Joan” move from the levels of spiritual existence to nature. Joan can’t stand the separation from nature and recants. ("I will not hear any more, birds in the morning………" etc.) Her recantation monologues on the love of life is one of the most beautiful passages in English literature.

	Oscar Wilde is amusing and empty. P. would be bored to death by three Wilde plays, but not by Shaw. ~~[…]~~		The most poetic plays are not mentioned: The simpleton of the Unexpected Isles (?) or the village wooing, or even a play like the Millionaires. Altogether the late plays have the stuff of the The Tempest. It is peculiar that it is made of the same stuff and one never hears this said. People think the most of Joan, Heartbreak House, Candida, Caesar and Cleopatra. They don't mention Androcles and the Lion, Major Barbara, and You Never Can Tell.

			Oscar Wilde is amusing and empty. P. would be bored to death by three Wilde plays, but not by Shaw. What a lovely play Pygmalion is. It is surprising to suddenly find the critics saying there is no substance in Shaw in the recent celebration.

	It is surprising when P. thinks back over the last 30 – 40 years, he can’t remember a page on which “Shakespeare” didn’t occur. Primarily {{Page \|n°=9}} Shaw was mentioning him all the time. Now in the New Statesman issue on Shaw, “Shakespeare” doesn’t occur. Suddenly there is the question: What on earth has Shakespeare to do with? – as if it were in bad taste.		It is surprising when P. thinks back over the last 30 – 40 years, he can’t remember a page on which “Shakespeare” didn’t occur. Primarily {{Page \|n°=9}} Shaw was mentioning him all the time. Now in the New Statesman issue on Shaw, “Shakespeare” doesn’t occur. Suddenly there is the question: What on earth has Shakespeare to do with? – as if it were in bad taste.
Line 90:		Line 91:

	== ''The Great Transformation and America'' ==		== ''The Great Transformation and America'' ==
	There is no American economic history. P. started out ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=10}} There is no American economic history. P. started out on theories crucial to his position. We will keep to the last thirty years and not undertake a theorem which underlies this development since this requires several years of study.

			This raises several problems:
			(1) Our knowledge of the last thirty years. Goodrich has done work on State intervention 100 years ago. <br />
			(2) How it is possible to start with a position hen the background doesn't take you back 200 years? We are concerned with America since 1918. How far back do you need to go for the present situation? P. doesn't know. We should be on sure ground without going back 300 years. We started from "communis opinio" - no one doubts the condition of predepression America.

	To describe America ~~[…]~~		To describe America in a thorough fashion is to make up one's mind in terms of the place of the economy. How do we place the trade union development? We will try America of the great depression. The question of the relevance of 18th and 19th century America is doubtful. The industrial revolution in the U.S. is very late.

	P. has no preconceived opinions. ~~[…]~~		P. has no preconceived opinions. P. did originally have a view. The G.T. has a starting point that America was founded as a society and not a state. But this is restricted in reference to the States. They had a vital role in the development of the economy.

	{{Page \|n°=11}} One part of the G.T. ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=11}} One part of the G.T. is definitely not applicable to present America. That is the separation of politics and economics. There was a short period when the idea was prevalent that the U.S. tradition was separation. However, investigation showed that there was no separation. The States helped business, and laissez-faire was not an American creed. (Two Harvard people showed this separately). Laissez-faire was never an American creed.

	We will try to plan a book ~~[…]~~		We will try to plan a book with an outline, in the sense of having a title and a certain number of parts and what the parts would be about so that the logic would be clear. It would be an outlook book with policy as a possibility. P. is not an economic policy man, especially with his having a world-situational background.

	A title “freedom and planning” would be out of date and no one would read it. ~~[…]~~		A title “freedom and planning” would be out of date and no one would read it. Also the theme of Hayek is so much read and so little serfdom.

	The same realm of concern ~~[…]~~		The same realm of concern does come up and should raise the question of atom power and nuclear energy. The danger is utterly beyond words and tomorrow we may get news that the Belgians or the Viet Namese have produced a bomb. Then hell is loose. The problems arising from this on every hand would arouse a cry for world dictatorship tomorrow. We are afraid that the bomb wouldn't require one billion dollars but possible only twenty thousand dollars.

	Then there is the question of technology. ~~[…]~~		Then there is the question of technology. The bomb is merely a conformation of civilization being destroyed by its technological character. This remains pinned on us through the bomb.

	{{Page \|n°=12}} The technology is not understand ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=12}} The technology is not understand and the bomb is dramatized. There is a totalitarian trend because of the increasingly sharp fear and the precariousness of the situation. The preconditions of elementary existence such as food, warmth and safety are all hanging on gadgets which are unpredectable, and you have public opinion ready to give power to the authorities to protect you. This has endless totalitarian possibilities which are only counteracted through the passionate will for freedom. If the technological character is the root of the present condition then there isn't anything important that is not complicated by it. Concrete relations are deeply influenced. The social transformations of our time relate to the solution of the questions of humane and human life under conditions which are technologically organized.

	This is not obvious if one takes, for example, only the totalitarian countries. Even in England and Sweden this isn’t ~~[…]~~		This is not obvious if one takes, for example, only the totalitarian countries. Even in England and Sweden this isn’t popular. Halasz was in Sweden. There is an enormously high standard of life, fantastic security and yet there is a kind of dissatisfaction. This is also true in England all the time and in the Iron Curtain countries there is almost a general dissatisfaction. It doesn't mean that they want the old regime back. They want the regime but say that the government isn't good. Halasz says that the problems of bureaucracy are not solved. People dont like "slow but sure" methods. what P. hear about Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia amounts to dissatisfaction wit the government and if one goes into it, it is difficult to locate. The government is abused as inefficient, incompetent and is unpopular. However, the would not have another regime.

	Insofar as it would mean growing powers and pressure to conformity ~~[…]~~ {{Page \|n°=13}}		Insofar as it would mean growing powers and pressure to conformity, backed by the technological requirements, whether it is {{Page \|n°=13}} the power of the police or the American situation or bureaucracy, it would be oppressive, anti-libertarian and gives a bad feeling.

	P. thinks that behind our whole ~~[…]~~		P. thinks that behind our whole setup there is both a trend to increase the unlimited power for the governement and pressure for more freedom expressed in the depressed feelings of people to things as they are. P. is very much for a libertarian outlook, based, however, on the recognition of the reality of society which is the metaphysical explanation of a complex technological civilization.

	How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? […]		How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? […]

Santiago Pinault: /* The Revelations */

2019-09-01T05:17:43Z

The Revelations

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 1 September 2019
Line 333:		Line 333:
	1) Live as well as you can. This consists of doing works. "Allons labourer notre jardin" (Voltaire). There is no metaphysics. The garden serves the day.<br />		1) Live as well as you can. This consists of doing works. "Allons labourer notre jardin" (Voltaire). There is no metaphysics. The garden serves the day.<br />
	2) Let us forget about ourselves − Jesus. This is excellent advice, for anybody who can, feels safe. Jesus also said don't accept the temptations: miracle, power and magic (the three temptations in the desert, bread from a stone, a jump from the roof of the temple. It offered power over all the realms of the world.)<br />		2) Let us forget about ourselves − Jesus. This is excellent advice, for anybody who can, feels safe. Jesus also said don't accept the temptations: miracle, power and magic (the three temptations in the desert, bread from a stone, a jump from the roof of the temple. It offered power over all the realms of the world.)<br />
	P. thinks Jesus is justified in thinking he might have been Roman Emperor − the speech he wrote for Pilate and never delivered (P. saw it in bas-relief in the Roman catacombe).{{Question}}		P. thinks Jesus is justified in thinking he might have been Roman Emperor − the speech he wrote for Pilate and never delivered (P. saw it in bas-relief in the Roman catacombe).<ref>See also [[Notebook_XIII#p25\|Notebook XIII, 25]]</ref>
			{{Question}}
	3) Our answer is to accept the reality of society and make our society as just, equal and free as possible. There must be power and compulsion. That is P.'s answer.		3) Our answer is to accept the reality of society and make our society as just, equal and free as possible. There must be power and compulsion. That is P.'s answer.

Santiago Pinault: /* Freedom */

2019-09-01T04:57:12Z

Freedom

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 1 September 2019
Line 395:		Line 395:
	That is theology. P. is not interested and is satisfied in knowing the basic situation. There is here a force that commits you and gives you strength. The individual demands those freedoms. They are not {{Page \|n°=47}} fairy tales and that is the way things happen.		That is theology. P. is not interested and is satisfied in knowing the basic situation. There is here a force that commits you and gives you strength. The individual demands those freedoms. They are not {{Page \|n°=47}} fairy tales and that is the way things happen.

	Christianity was against slavery. P. didn't think there was any connection here. The freeman didn't have more rights than the slave. To change institutions wasn't the task of the Christians, although they did object to existing institutions, e.g. the Roman empire. At a point they claimed their ~~freedom. They didn't accept the idea of the emperor as God. What we call~~ freedom. They didn't accept the idea of the emperor as God. What we call freedoms derives from it. Only Locke started in this way(?) [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		Christianity was against slavery. P. didn't think there was any connection here. The freeman didn't have more rights than the slave. To change institutions wasn't the task of the Christians, although they did object to existing institutions, e.g. the Roman empire. At a point they claimed their freedom. They didn't accept the idea of the emperor as God. What we call freedoms derives from it. Only Locke started in this way(?) [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Archaeology ==		== Archaeology ==

Santiago Pinault: /* The Great Transformation and America */

2019-08-30T17:03:40Z

The Great Transformation and America

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 30 August 2019
Line 89:		Line 89:
	Shaw contributed money to the Webbs for the New Statesman. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		Shaw contributed money to the Webbs for the New Statesman. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== ''The Great Transformation'' ~~and America~~ ==		== ''The Great Transformation and America'' ==
	There is no American economic history. P. started out […]		There is no American economic history. P. started out […]

Santiago Pinault: /* The Great Transformation and America */

2019-08-30T17:03:23Z

The Great Transformation and America

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 30 August 2019
Line 96:		Line 96:
	P. has no preconceived opinions. […]		P. has no preconceived opinions. […]

	[11] One part of the G.T. […]		{{Page \|n°=11}} One part of the G.T. […]

	We will try to plan a book […]		We will try to plan a book […]
Line 106:		Line 106:
	Then there is the question of technology. […]		Then there is the question of technology. […]

	[12] The technology is not understand […]		{{Page \|n°=12}} The technology is not understand […]

	This is not obvious if one takes, for example, only the totalitarian countries. Even in England and Sweden this isn’t […]		This is not obvious if one takes, for example, only the totalitarian countries. Even in England and Sweden this isn’t […]

	Insofar as it would mean growing powers and pressure to conformity […] [13]		Insofar as it would mean growing powers and pressure to conformity […] {{Page \|n°=13}}

	P. thinks that behind our whole […]		P. thinks that behind our whole […]
Line 116:		Line 116:
	How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? […]		How strongly does public opinion lean towards conformity? […]

	They have an effective non-conformity […] [14] […]		They have an effective non-conformity […] {{Page \|n°=14}} […]

	In America we have bot the Gallup polls. […]		In America we have bot the Gallup polls. […]
Line 122:		Line 122:
	Now with the two-party system we assume democracy. Rousseau and the Constitution-makers in America thought that the two-party […]		Now with the two-party system we assume democracy. Rousseau and the Constitution-makers in America thought that the two-party […]

	P. is for individual civic liberties, e.g. habeas corpus. […] [15]		P. is for individual civic liberties, e.g. habeas corpus. […] {{Page \|n°=15}}

	You may get a prize for conformism […]		You may get a prize for conformism […]
Line 128:		Line 128:
	In a complex society nameless fear […]		In a complex society nameless fear […]

	In Russia the 5 years plans originate fear because everything […] [16]		In Russia the 5 years plans originate fear because everything […] {{Page \|n°=16}}

	England and the U.S. have shown that you can have this even with live […]		England and the U.S. have shown that you can have this even with live […]
Line 136:		Line 136:
	Can we explain anything using only the last 30 years? (my question)		Can we explain anything using only the last 30 years? (my question)

	If you take the last 30 years of American existence how far is it necessary to historicize? […] [17]		If you take the last 30 years of American existence how far is it necessary to historicize? […] {{Page \|n°=17}}

	[18]		{{Page \|n°=18}} and Japanese fleet … […]

	~~[19]~~		Before writing the G.T., P. reduced his assumptions to minimum. P. outlines he assumptions here, but never lays these down.

	[20]		P. would ride to gold standard and balance of power to the end. […]

	~~[21]~~		To what extent should a conformism and civic liberties look be utterly on the left and not in an illusionist way?

	[22]		The G.T. is the jumping-off ground. The collapse of civilization occurred in the briefest of times.

			Concerning my suggestion on the New Deal as a jumping-off point: we could to it. Communis opinio: the New Deal has stayed and is essentially the New America.

			The G.T. has no reference to America and so you can and might start from the interest in America. What is in the G.T. and what {{Page \|n°=19}} has occurred since has happened to the old and not America. The G.T. is a world event and not an American one.

			The book has two assumptions:<br />
			(1) the interest of the reader in the American scene.<br />
			(2) It is a changing world.

			The G.T. is behind us. We must regard the period of change as closed. The period which is closed is the last ten years '45-'55. Now the new period begins and it is much easier to speak if we are in a resting place. […]

			Lippmann wrote that both conventions, i.e. both the New Deal and the post-war period, are closed. The G.T. was like the trumpets of judgment day, but instead of collapse we start from the dust-clearing.

			We are sur of further transformations, but nothing as dramatic.

			What does America look like after the earthquake? I is not an idyllic picture but there is no ressemblance to the scene before the first World War. Take as a fact that the world has completely changed, then what has happened to America as the country left out?

			The point is not that it has changed. Someone can say that nothing has changed: there are just bigger trade unions, corporations etc. It is easier to take the G.T. in the world as a fact, but it doesn't assume America had a g.t.

			{{Page \|n°=20}} you don't start from the striking change, […]

			Get rid of hampering assumptions but use the G.T. assumptions for the world as heuristic principles.

			What about the market? Accept this feature of the G.T. as known without assuming about America.

			What about the world situation? America was forced to world leadership in a kind of vacuum … […]

			The G.T. and A. is not a book which requires research. P. doesn't think so (In reply to my question).

			World politics places this book in time and history, a 10 year period.

			We will work up to the metaphysics and what America is conceivably contributing to the future. […]

			{{Page \|n°=21}} We are searching for causes and not for reasons. One knows why and doesn't imagine it is because we wanted this or something else. In looking for prediction one would overstate the freedom in policy expression which constant _ _ _ puts on you. e.g. America hooked onto the China coast … […]

			Give the briefest outline and more if possible, that's the urgent thing. It is a book which has something to say.

			The New Deal is something so a solution, and in instituting business, there are no differences in technology between Russia and America. … […]

			The problems of the Industrial Revolution are almost all solved. Two problems have arisen and those re the problems of place and freedom.

			What if we are instituting reaction, are we to accept this? (my question)/ There is a danger of approving that which is, because it is - pathologic (The Leibniz history caricatured by Pangloss. P. invented the meaning of panlogism). P's difficulty is to make room for evil, to place him. All these are embodiments of unresolved tensions.

			{{Page \|n°=22}} It is important to choose our aims … […]

			P. thought we were left to our inner energy

			P. is very impatient with the Western world because it doesn't show any concern to live up to the hour.

			The main work is to make things topical, and there the policy question comes up. Even nearer at heart is the outlook on philosophy and we will need a position which has been tested.

			P.'s work in the meantime is advanced but the [[Trade and Market in the Early Empires\|1957 book]] and after that our position is reasonable.

	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

Santiago Pinault: /* The Great Transformation and America */

2019-04-19T13:22:07Z

The Great Transformation and America

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 == ''The Great Transformation'' and America ==
 [[#mw-page-base|↑]]
 == Technology and Utopia ==