Elsewhere (126)
Christina Hoff Sommers on feminist scholarship:
The problem with a lot of research on women is not so much that the authors make mistakes — we all make mistakes — the problem is that the mistakes are impervious to criticism.
For a flavour of that imperviousness and some feminist reactions to being corrected, see also this.
Glenn Reynolds on unsustainable ideologies:
I’m reminded of what Robert Heinlein said about hippies: “Hippydom is not itself a culture (as the hippies seem to think) as it has no economic foundation; it can exist only as a parasitic excrescence to the ‘square’ culture.” So too with the academic humanities, which have largely squandered the moral and intellectual capital they once possessed by adopting the roles of adversaries to, rather than preservers of, the larger culture. This, too, turns out not to be sustainable.
That adversarial role-play has been discussed here many times, along with its descent into psychodrama.
And Ed Driscoll discovers there are no socialists in divorce court:
Michael Moore, who has spent his entire career attacking capitalism, wealth, and Wall Street, is suddenly very protective concerning the capital, wealth and investments he has amassed over the years. As Christian Toto writes at Big Hollywood, “Far-left filmmaker Michael Moore is divorcing his wife, and the looming court battle looks ugly already.” Christian links to this Smoking Gun report, which notes that “the couple’s combined assets are likely worth tens of millions of dollars,” including “multiple substantial residences and multiple companies.”
But America’s most outspoken socialist, being an outspoken socialist, deserves nine properties, including an agreeable Upper West Side apartment valued at $1.27 million and, naturally, a mansion. This, remember, is a self-described multimillionaire who told the world, quite boldly, “Capitalism did nothing for me.”
As always, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments.
I call Steve2 out: He is Jamie Kilstein and I claim the $50 prize !
In the face of this to claim that socialists are in favour of enrichment is more than just cognitive dissonance, it’s wilful blindness.
Oh no, socialists are very much in favour of enrichment: of themselves. Minnow is no exception in this regard.
http://chronicle.com/article/Domestic-Violence-a/47940/
Above is the exchange between Christina Hoff Sommers and Nancy Lemon. Note how Sommers actually quotes Lemon’s book while Lemon quotes sources without contrasting it to what she had written. It is like writing that world ended in 1997 and when questioned the response is to quote Nike wearing Heaven’s Gate cult members. The citation is there and everyone can look up the quote so how can it be called wrong?
As I recall the Tenured Radical blog at the Chronicle and a disappointing number of commenters objected to Sommers being the wrong kind of person.
I probably don’t need to point out how entertaining feminist scholarship can be. Still, you do have to marvel at Joni Seager’s claim that, in terms of “patriarchal assumptions” and restrictions on women’s lives, the United States is no less grievous than Somalia and Uganda. A claim, incidentally, not in some unread dissertation but in the supposedly respectable Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. Though I suppose even that rather pales compared to Cheryl Ward Smith’s assertion that Romulus of Rome, the wolf-suckled son of Mars, was an actual historical figure.
Steve, mate – your icon turned red!
Yes our feminist friends, impressively devoted to equality as they are, tell us (in their roundabout way) that men can’t take a leading role of any kind in their Very Equal Political Movement. (not for the first time)
I think the most stomach-churning thing is the delicate doublespeak – the evasive talk of needing to “walk a careful line”.
In the snippet Steve quotes, the virtues of listening are recommended. Meaning that the atmosphere of apartheid within feminism is such that not only can men not lead – most of the time they can’t even speak – except to “amplify” what a woman has said.
Strangely, feminists say all this somewhat indirectly. As though they’re just a little bit embarrassed by it…
Steve, mate – your icon turned red!
He’s going critical. Fetch towels.
Steve, mate – your icon turned red!
This blog is like Logan’s Run. When your avatar turns red the sandmen hunt you down.
“I know exactly why: Milton is a Dead White Male with no trace of Marxist thought to be had (except as it’s wrung out via deconstruction and other interpretative violence).”
We are talking about John Milton, the 17th century poet, not Milton Friedman the 20th century economist. You know, the revolutionary and defender of regicide. A Marxist reading of Milton is almost impossible to avoid as you will know if you follow the literature.
“Declaring Milton to be optional for a good education in English Lit is Every So Deliciously Transgressive and therefore de rigeur.”
Milton is optional on every Eng Lit syllabus I have ever seen. I think it must be in the States that he was considered compulsory. The reason isn’t because he was dead, white, or male, it was because, despite his genius, his poetry was influential only insofar as it gave the following generations a model for how not to do it. If I can’t persuade you, maybe Clive James can:
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1410176.ece
You know the old joke about the literary professor and Paradise Lost: I’ve never heard anyoen wish it were longer.
Of course that’s not to say that Milton shouldn’t be studied or there is no value in him, just that there are good reasons for studying other poets of that time instead. It is obvious to me, for example, that Marvell was the better writer. To insist on Milton because he is just, you know, GREAT, is mere ideological grandstanding. You have to say why. Which is a fun argument to have and enlightening, but won’t ever come to a real conclusion.
I will admit that Shakespeare is a harder case.
“Oh no, socialists are very much in favour of enrichment: of themselves. Minnow is no exception in this regard.”
You are right Tim! The only difference between us is that I don’t think it should be at the expense of anyone else. My satisfaction in what I hhave isn’t lessened by knowing other people have it too.
You know Thomas Aquinas thought heaven must have a means of seeing into Hell so that the saved souls could properly enjoy their status by contemplating the suffering of those down below. I think he had Tim and friends in mind.
“in a private company, a screw-up hits the company where it counts: in the bank account, and so they’re less likely to do stupid things.”
The sage, serious, real-world heads in the Goldman Sachs boardroom nod approvingly. Wise words, wise words.
Henry, David & sk60 – sorry chaps, it was such a target-rich environment I got overly excited. This is why I’m no longer welcome at all you can eat Chinese buffets.
Ed Snack – If I was socual justice chortlemeister Jamie Killjoy, could I make funny feminist jokes like this:
Q) Why did the male feminist cross the road?
A) Shut up!
Q) How many cismales does it take to check their privilege?
A) Shut up, you rapist!
Minnow – “My satisfaction in what I hhave isn’t lessened by knowing other people have it too.”
Damn. Maybe it’s just me, but my satisfaction is only increased by knowing I have what others don’t.
Sometimes I sit and eat a big bowl of Sheba while my cat miaows hungrily. Take THAT, loveable fur-angel!
Our baby can’t walk yet so naturally I do the Moonwalk while taunting his lack of bipedal ambulation. Shamone! Classic parenting.
“Damn. Maybe it’s just me, but my satisfaction is only increased by knowing I have what others don’t.”
You are not alone. There is a big literature on positional or Giffen goods.
“I will admit that Shakespeare is a harder case.”
In what sense a “case”? Do you mean that you’d like to dismiss him, as you do Milton, but that you find it harder to do so?
The only difference between us is that I don’t think it should be at the expense of anyone else.
No, you are quite happy for others to suffer whilst you get rich, and indeed their suffering is a necessary condition of your enrichment. The difference between capitalists and you is that at least the capitalists provide something of use in the process of getting rich and trampling on the poor. You think that being merely being virtuous is a substitute for producing something of value.
“In what sense a “case”? Do you mean that you’d like to dismiss him, as you do Milton, but that you find it harder to do so?”
I mean it would be a harder to make a case for leaving him out of an Eng Lit syllabus. I don’t dismiss Milton at all, by the way. As I said, I think he was a genius. But he is hard to read.Even harder than reading and understanding comments on a blog.
The difference between capitalists and you is that at least the capitalists provide something of use in the process of getting rich and trampling on the poor.”
No they don’t. The useful things are made by the poor people, the workers, not the capitalists. The capitalist gets the profit and gets to do the tramping. Sometimes reluctantly (sadly, this is just the natural state of affairs, would that it were different) and sometimes with enthusiasm (Tim).
No they don’t. The useful things are made by the poor people, the workers, not the capitalists.
The capitalists provide capital. This enables the poor people to make useful things, and the capitalists to get rich. In your world, you provide *nothing*, get rich, and the poor die.
Q) How many cismales does it take to check their privilege?
A) Shut up, you rapist!
Buh-ha ha ha oh my God.
This could be a whole new genre of joke. Like the ‘Jamaica?’ ‘No, she wanted to go’ ones …
“The capitalists provide capital. This enables the poor people to make useful things, and the capitalists to get rich. In your world, you provide *nothing*, get rich, and the poor die.”
No, in my world the workers get rich too. But that does mean the capitalist gets slightly less rich, might have to let the yellow Ferrari go, but oh no, will the red one match his shirt!
No, in my world the workers get rich too.
No, sadly they don’t. They die. *You* get rich. Hence this whole moral high ground you claim to occupy is in actual fact a putrid swamp.
“Hence this whole moral high ground you claim to occupy is in actual fact a putrid swamp.”
The Board of Goldman Sachs sagely nod their heads while discreetly folding a cheque for 10bn dollars recently receiived from the (ugh) state. “He’s right you know, very wise.”
The Board of Goldman Sachs sagely nod their heads while discreetly folding a cheque for 10bn dollars recently receiived from the (ugh) state.
Yes, they are as repugnant as you are.
The useful things are made by the poor people, the workers, not the capitalists.
You recently said that you ran a successful business (and that it was not difficult to do) – assuming you weren’t self-employed in this venture, can I ask if you had employees and how that squares with this quite strident statement above?
Similarly, you also earlier in the thread felt you had no problem with Michael Moore becoming a millionaire on the grounds that it was his own creative labour and that he deserved it more than, say, the financiers of the film (the latter is my example, not yours).
As Michael Moore is clearly not poor (at least in his pre-Divorce settlement state), how does that square with the statement above that only poor people make useful things? Are you saying his films are useless?
And moreover, if you are going to widen your definition of ‘poor people’ to include the likes of Michael Moore, does that make supermodel Kate Moss or footballer David Beckham ‘poor’ in the sense of non-Capitalists (i.e. on the grounds that they make their fortune by exploiting their own natural talents as opposed to someone else’s)?
And also, conditions in sweatshops in places like China and, infamously after last year’s accident, Bangladesh are genuinely appalling – but what are the root causes of those awful conditions? What is it about those countries that makes those conditions possible? Is it rampant capitalism that creates such misery or is it from the disastrous consequences of trying to force people to live their lives according to the intellectual abstractions of a profoundly self-centred German egotist from the 19th Century?
On another and entirely different point to the above, I personally agree that there are more benefits to the NHS than disadvantages notwithstanding the many and real problems that it faces and the suffering some people have experienced in its care (in fact, I often feel many of its current problems have resulted from direct government interference, especially but not exclusively, during the Blair years).
However, I find your examples of both the NHS and (from the other day) Finland as shining examples of Socialism in action highly tendentious. What pays for the NHS and the Finnish welfare system? Taxes – where does the revenue come from for those taxes? I’ll leave you to ponder that one.
Minnow – “The useful things are made by the poor people, the workers, not the capitalists.”
Mate – this isn’t intended as an insulting question, but have you spent much time working in a typical British business?
The last thing most people want to do is their jobs. Gossiping, Facebook, fag breaks, Friday/Monday sickies, and sneaking off early take precedence over the actual “working” bit. This is why they have bosses.
Most workers only make the products or services in the same way a robot on an assembly line makes widgets. Not to belittle their labours, but that’s just how it is. It takes an entrepreneur to create their jobs in the first place.
As for actually running a business, your average employee doesn’t have a clue and doesn’t care either. They just want to get paid and go home. Budgeting, forecasting, auditing, shareholder meetings, regulatory compliance and whatnot hold no intetest for them.
The capitalist or entrepreneur gets a bigger slice of the profit – if there is any – because he takes the bigger risks and does what others won’t or can’t. So who really “makes” the end product – the guy who presses a button on the assembly line, or the guy who started the business?
The answer is they both do, but one plays a more important role than the other, because he’s harder to replace.
The history of worker’s collectives tells us that the capitalist model works better for everyone concerned than the alternatives.
“You recently said that you ran a successful business (and that it was not difficult to do) – assuming you weren’t self-employed in this venture, can I ask if you had employees and how that squares with this quite strident statement above?”
I didn’t say ‘successful’, not that I am saying the opposite either. But of course it squares. If you have ever managed a business you will know that, if you are using your labour productively, they are producing all the value. If you have ever answered to a board, you will know that downward pressure on pay and conditions is constant to increase profitability and that successfully paying less to others will often be rewarded in your own share of the profit.
The fact that it is the labour that produces the profit is brought sharply to mind when you have to spend a week without a substantial part of your workforce because of some unforeseen problem. Try it. See how your customers see it.
“Mate – this isn’t intended as an insulting question, but have you spent much time working in a typical British business?The last thing most people want to do is their jobs. Gossiping, Facebook, fag breaks, Friday/Monday sickies, and sneaking off early take precedence over the actual “working” bit. This is why they have bosses.”
Don’t worry, I am not easily insulted. I have spent some time in various working environments and I find most people mostly do a good enough job. I think you would be hard pressed to convince me that the problem with most British business is poor workers rather than poor bosses. But even if it were true, the obvious question is why the bosses don’t skive off to Facebook and let it all slide. What motivates them? Why not offer the same motivation to the workers and let the bosses go?
“The capitalist or entrepreneur gets a bigger slice of the profit – if there is any – because he takes the bigger risks”
Really? If a car factory closes, who faces the biggest losses? The owner/investor, or the 40 year old machinist with a family? So who was really bearing the brunt of the risk?
I didn’t say ‘successful’, not that I am saying the opposite either.
Well, I’m sorry but you did say that running a business was not difficult which can only mean that it is/was successful – if it wasn’t successful then it can’t have been as lacking in difficulty as you suggested the other day.
Either way, I feel as if you are evading my questions, but as human resources (wages, health insurance, training etc.) are almost always the biggest single expense that any company has to lay out is it not to be expected that there will be continual friction/tension between what employees see as their value in comparison to the company owners/directors?
I don’t see that as some super structural conspiracy to oppress the working man or woman but a logical consequence of what running a business actually entails.
As for your other example about someone being absent … honestly, so what? What’s your point? At no time have I ever suggested that what workers do isn’t important – of course it is – they were hired to meet a business need by performing a specific function.
But that has nothing to do with the negotiations over what should be a suitable reward for the employee because those details will depend on a vast range of other factors both inside and outside the organisation.
“Well, I’m sorry but you did say that running a business was not difficult which can only mean that it is/was successful – if it wasn’t successful then it can’t have been as lacking in difficulty as you suggested the other day.”
Businesses can fail for many reasons, sometimes, often, just dumb luck.
“as human resources … the biggest single expense that any company has to lay out is it not to be expected that there will be continual friction/tension between what employees see as their value in comparison to the company owners/directors?”
Yes, that is a good Marxist analysis. Even if everyone is well intentions, the relation of production will drive one class to exploit and impoverish the other as far as it is in their power to do so.
“I don’t see that as some super structural conspiracy to oppress the working man or woman but a logical consequence of what running a business actually entails.”
Marx agrees with you, wit the proviso that this model for running a business is not ‘natural’ or inevitable. Lawyers often work in partnerships, for example, as do graphic designers GPs and others, sharing all the profits among the workers.
“As for your other example about someone being absent … honestly, so what?”
So, it shows where the value of your organisation is coming from. Are your customers satisfied if you tell them that you have an excellent and well-remunerated management structure if they can’t get hold of the product? No.
“they were hired to meet a business need by performing a specific function.”
That is very euphemisitc. They were hired to make the things your organisation sells, so that you can sell them and keep most of the profit. They were hired so that you could exploit their labour.
Nikw211 – I did try searching Amazon for “feminist joke book” to see if there were any I could steal. Nothing came up! I was really surprised, because feminists are funny.
Minnow -“I think you would be hard pressed to convince me that the problem with most British business is poor workers rather than poor bosses. ”
Eh. I’ve seen plenty of both. As a rule of thumb, 80% of anything is crap. That includes job performance.
“the obvious question is why the bosses don’t skive off to Facebook and let it all slide. What motivates them? Why not offer the same motivation to the workers and let the bosses go?”
What motivates them is ambition/fear/money.
Why not offer the same incentives to team members? Sometimes they do offer cash incentives for better performance. Or share schemes. Or training. Depends on the industry and firm. But wages will always tend to follow productivity. If wages rise without a rise in productivity, it soon becomes uneconomic to hire more labour. Then you’d be complaining about unemployment.
“Really? If a car factory closes, who faces the biggest losses? The owner/investor, or the 40 year old machinist with a family? So who was really bearing the brunt of the risk?”
That’s an easy one – the owner. A man who buys a house is not taking any risks for his employer’s business, he’s spending his wages on himself.
An entrepreneur who mortgages his house to start/grow a business, or an owner/investor who sinks millions into starting a new production line is taking a risk for the sake of the business.
Employees get paid either way, as long as the business is a going concern. Owners don’t get to roll in the profits until profits are made. And that is never a sure thing.
Really? If a car factory closes, who faces the biggest losses? The owner/investor, or the 40 year old machinist with a family? So who was really bearing the brunt of the risk?
hmmm, such a difficult question.
do i want my business to go tits-up & into bankruptcy, losing everything…?
or would i rather just have to go on the dole, maybe applying for other similar jobs (at another business where i also don’t have any investment risk)?
Minnow,
“So who was really bearing the brunt of the risk?”
This, like the majority of your assertions, looks reasonable at a glance but is a statement which has no depth whatsoever and willfully ignores the complexities of life, work & people.
It is true that there may be the odd ’40 year old machinist’ who has selflessly dedicated himself to a company, refusing all temptations to jump ship to one of the other successful businesses popping up all around him because, you know, running a business is so bloody easy. In my experience, however, these people are rare and are always treasured by any reasonable business owner. The fact is that most people go to work to get money and would happily walk away from their jobs if a ‘better’ ‘opportunity’ presented itself. This may be true too of some business owners; businesses are sold, merged, closed down all the time, but, again in my experience, the decision to do any of thess things is somewhat more difficult than deciding whether to go work for Boots rather that WH Smith because you get an extra 50p per hour and one extra fag break per month.
My mate who has had the family home in which he, his wife & 6 kids reside, at risk for the past 5 years whilst trying to grow his business would, I’m sure, have a thing or two to say to you about your opinions regarding who takes the most risks for a business.
I’ve been an employee and an employer (and an employee again and then an employer again). But Minnow the Marxist talks about rival ‘classes’.
The fact that it is the labour that produces the profit is brought sharply to mind when you have to spend a week without a substantial part of your workforce because of some unforeseen problem.
The fact that it is the wheels that produce the driving force in your car is brought sharply to mind when you have to do without one of them for a mile or two because of some unforeseen problem.
“Why not offer the same incentives to team members? Sometimes they do offer cash incentives for better performance. Or share schemes. Or training. Depends on the industry and firm. But wages will always tend to follow productivity. ”
But not at the same speed as profits. If a worker can keep the full value of her increase in productivity, that is a real incentive. We don’t offer it because it would not increase profits. But we could and it would work if we believe in incentives.
“My mate who has had the family home in which he, his wife & 6 kids reside, at risk for the past 5 years whilst trying to grow his business would, I’m sure, have a thing or two to say to you about your opinions regarding who takes the most risks for a business.”
But your mate is not a typical case. Most concerns that employ people are larger and liabilities are limited. The owners walk away without a business but with their accumulated private profits and assets intact. The workers are left with nothing and, often, nowhere to go. The owner of a car factory in my example, is not risking anything. While the profits roll, he is getting rich. When they stop, he sells up and stays rich. His workers lose everything.
But even your mate Steve’s case challenges the ‘capitalist is the risk taker’ idea. The people who throw their lot in with him on his extremely risky business are paying opportunity costs that can be very high, especially if they stay for 10 years before the business folds (if it does). But they won’t get a share of the profits if it succeeds, although they will share the losses. Because Steve is risking more initially, it may be fair that he is paid more initially, but that does not mean he is entitled to more when the risk diminishes for him and, proportionally, rises for his workers. Or we could just create some sort of national insurance so that enterpreneurs don’t have to risk their children’s futures. But that’s that socialism again.
Yes, that is a good Marxist analysis. Even if everyone is well intentions, the relation of production will drive one class to exploit and impoverish the other as far as it is in their power to do so.
No, it isn’t. The conclusion – that one class is driven “to exploit and impoverish the other” – is yours, not mine. I said no such thing, nor intended it.
Furthermore, if there is one thing that genuinely infuriates me about Marxist thinking and thinkers more than anything else is the way in which Marx and Marxism is proclaimed or asserted to be the ‘prime mover’ of the modern world; as if, not surprisingly, he was God or even Jesus – where Marx and Marxist theory can be found waiting for you behind every corner, every bush, every turn of the page.
Well, I’m sorry to break this to you but simply because you believe this, do NOT try to impute these ideas onto anyone else and certainly not me – it is profoundly offensive to do so and completely disrespectful.
Marx described Capitalism (from a certain point of view anyway) so it is only to be expected that some of what he wrote bears some resemblance to the workings of a free market economy – however, it is NOT a Marxist analysis to simply observe that there is an element of negotiation in the level of reward an employee receives.
I’m extremely angry at your attempt to co-opt me into your vision of the world as if I’m some poor innocent waiting to discover the light within my soul by the guiding beacon of Marx.
I’ve been an employee and an employer (and an employee again and then an employer again). But Minnow the Marxist talks about rival ‘classes’.
Plus, the same idiot talks as if the employees of a modern factory can be split cleanly between the managers/owners and “workers”. Where a professional engineer, who develops maintenance strategies to increase reliability in the machinery but also manages 3 technicians who actually maintain the equipment, fits into this cretinous picture is anyone’s guess.
“But Minnow the Marxist talks about rival ‘classes’.”
Conflicting classes, yes. When you are in a business as a worker your interests conflict with those in the manager class. You must have noticed this, that the more they make the less there was for you? That what was good for them was often not so great for you? This is so obvious it is amazing that it is still deemed radical to say it, but then we work hard to sentimentalise these relations, to see everyone as ‘pulling together’ in the Ealing Comedy view of economics that saying the obvious can seem rude.
The owner of a car factory in my example, is not risking anything.
That says plenty about your example but not very much about the risk of owning factories.
Minnow.. if these ‘workers’ are worth the full value of their labour, why don’t they skip the middleman capitalist pigdog employer, and just start up their own business, working for themselves, reaping full profits?
“The fact that it is the wheels that produce the driving force in your car is brought sharply to mind when you have to do without one of them for a mile or two because of some unforeseen problem.”
My car will do OK for quite a long time without one of its wheels, but yes, you are right, there are many kinds of productive workers and they are all necessary. What the car can always do without is the owner. As a pair of thieves proved to me a little while ago.
“No, it isn’t. The conclusion – that one class is driven “to exploit and impoverish the other” – is yours, not mine. I said no such thing, nor intended it.”
That is what you said, even if it is not what you intended. You said that it was aa simple fact of business, just how it is, that the managers are motivated to drive down thee amount of profit that goes to thee workers as far as is practicable in order to increase profit for thee owners. I think you would still agree with that (calling it market level of wage or something). Marx agrees, and agrees with you that this is not wickedness or a conspiracy, just how those kinds of economic relations will make things happen. You don’t want to think about these relations as exploitative but they are. You think they are natural, but I don’t.
surely minnow, in your example, the thieves become the new ‘owners’… and if that car is going to go anywhere, it will still need these owners to drive it some place.
What the car can always do without is the owner.
If the car is dependent on the owner for fuel, maintenance, and directions then it will soon be a rather sorry looking car – as can be seen when a car is left abandoned on the side of the road after a mere few weeks. In fact, it will soon start to look like one of your beloved workers’ collectives.
“Minnow.. if these ‘workers’ are worth the full value of their labour, why don’t they skip the middleman capitalist pigdog employer, and just start up their own business, working for themselves, reaping full profits?”
Because they have no capital and lacking capital lack the political power to alter things.
“Where a professional engineer, who develops maintenance strategies to increase reliability in the machinery but also manages 3 technicians who actually maintain the equipment, fits into this cretinous picture is anyone’s guess.”
Its not terribly difficult, she is a worker, even if she identifies strongly with management. There is a biiig literature on this sort of thing.
Because they have no capital…
Ah! One would almost conclude that these capitalists, by providing capital, are serving a useful (perhaps essential) function by enabling the workers to actually work, instead of sitting about with nothing to do!
“If the car is dependent on the owner for fuel, maintenance, and directions”
It’s not. The car really doesn’t care who owns it or if nobody does at all, it will still go.
“Ah! One would almost conclude that these capitalists, by providing capital, are serving a useful (perhaps essential) function by enabling the workers to actually work”
Capital is essential. Not the people who happen to own it. It is true that workers cannot dig for gold if the land happens to be owned by someone with a shotgun,but that person is the obstacle to production not the ‘provider’ of capital in the sense you want to imply.