Academische teksten: een klein aanbod

[Praetorian]

Ik ben begonnen met enkele opmerkelijke teksten te posten op het sovjet-forum, normaal moet je meestal betalen om ze te kunnen downloaden. Vermits ik als communist dit een idiote overtreding van vrijheid van informatie vind, zal ik de links hier dan ook eens doorspelen.

PETER GOWAN - AMERICAN LEBENSRAUM
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=39087

PETER GOWAN - NEOLIBERAL COSMOPOLITANISM
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=39086

M Parenti - Mystery: How Wealth Creates Poverty in the world
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=39131

I. WALLERSTEIN - THE CURVE OF AMERICAN POWER
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=39085

Craig Calhoun - Is It Time to Be Postnational?
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=39088

*Ik update deze thread wel eens geregeld*

[StevenNr1]

Ook Nederlandse teksten ?

[Praetorian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door StevenNr1

Ook Nederlandse teksten ?

Neen, mijn meeste teksten zullen komen van tijdschriften zoals New Left Review en Historical Materialism. Ons taalgebied is iets te klein om dergelijke zaken uit te geven.

[DeRodeBaron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Praetorian

Ik ben begonnen met enkele opmerkelijke teksten te posten op het sovjet-forum, normaal moet je meestal betalen om ze te kunnen downloaden. Vermits ik als communist dit een idiote overtreding van vrijheid van informatie vind, zal ik de links hier dan ook eens doorspelen.

Bedankt, vnl de tekst van Wallerstein interesseert mij

[Praetorian]

Erik Olin Wright - Compass points: Towards a Socialist Alternative
New Left Review 41, September-October 2006
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=39208

[Pelgrim]

iemand er iets op tegen dat ik dat hier sticky zet? Ik stel voor dat anderen ook links zetten als ze die zouden hebben.

edit: niemand heeft er iets tegen want ik ben hier baas

[guerin]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pelgrim

iemand er iets op tegen dat ik dat hier sticky zet? Ik stel voor dat anderen ook links zetten als ze die zouden hebben.

edit: niemand heeft er iets tegen want ik ben hier baas

Zullen we een afzetting proceduur starten?

[Pelgrim]

try me

en we zullen die link hier ook maar bijzetten, voor 't geval ge ooit eens van onderschrift verandert.

http://www.anarchisme.nl/hetonbegrepenanarchisme.html

[guerin]

thanks
http://anarchisme.nl/ThomHolterman.html
http://anarchisme.nl/interviews.html
http://www.groene.nl/1995/06_28/camus.html

[abou Anis]

Teksten in het Nederlands: www.marx.be

[Praetorian]

Reassessment of Stalin

http://www.ucc.ie/en/NewsandEvents/P...,26195,en.html

Voorstelling van een academisch boek die Stalin in een veel objectiever licht stelt. Opnieuw een eerbare poging om de jarenlange antiprop van Conquest & co te doorbreken. Must read.

[Wr Khrp Hmw]

Heel interessant topic

moet ik eens - op een normaler uur - grondig bekijken en aanvullen

[Praetorian]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/sp...ry/famine.htm/

Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard
by Douglas Tottle

Unlike the rest of the books in this on-line library, I do not physically possess this book. I am including it here, however, because of its importance and its rarity. This book is currently out of print and extremely rare. A worldwide library search reveals that this book is only present in 28 libraries, only one of them a public library, the rest being academic libraries. Of the 28 library locations possessing the book 14 are in America.

This book documents how and why fraudulent stories about the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s made the presses worldwide and have become accepted as fact by almost everyone, despite the fact that they are provably false. The stories of millions of deaths caused by famine in Ukraine in 1933 and 1934, supposedly caused by the effects of the Soviet system, were fabricated by Nazi propagandists in their propaganda campaigns against Bolshevism. The spread of these stories to America took route through the presses of William Randolph Hearst, who has also since been proven, as I have documented on this website, to have been working in collaboration with the Nazis and publishing Nazi propaganda in mainstream American publications throughout the later half of the 1930s and into the 1940s.
These fabrications, which are well documented in this book, have become almost completely accepted as facts by Americans, and these fabrications have been repeatedly used, and are still used, by politicians despite the fact that they are provably false and were provably produced by a Nazi conspirator. The fact that William Randolph Hearst was conspiring with the Nazis during the 1930s is proven outside of this book, and is a part of official American government record, yet his fabricated publications about the Ukrainian famine are still referenced as fact today.
This book does not claim that no famine took place in Ukraine, or that there were not hardships related to the collectivization programs of the Soviets. The book is an examination of the stories published about the famine that did take place, and how those stories became politicized.

[abou Anis]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Praetorian

Reassessment of Stalin

http://www.ucc.ie/en/NewsandEvents/P...,26195,en.html

Voorstelling van een academisch boek die Stalin in een veel objectiever licht stelt. Opnieuw een eerbare poging om de jarenlange antiprop van Conquest & co te doorbreken. Must read.

't Zou interessant zijn om de bevindingen in dit boek eens naast die uit Een andere kijk op Stalin te leggen...

[Percalion]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Praetorian

een academisch boek die

psst... het boek dat ...

[Proletariër]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Percalion

psst... het boek dat ...

[Praetorian]

Artikels over de CWI

*Phil Hearse - CWI Militant: What went wrong?: The retreat to sectarian dogmatism
http://www.socialistsolidarity.com/docs_mil_ph.htm
*The sectarian nature of the CWI
On Indymedia Ireland, fierce discussions have been held about the sectarian nature of the CWI:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60567
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60690
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60905
(especially read the comments of Dennis Tourish, an ex-CWI member)

[Proletariër]

oh, het staat op het internet?
dán moet het waar zijn!

[Phrea|K]

't is wel geen academische tekst, maar een eboek: Capitalism 3.0

In tegenstelling tot wat men wellicht denkt bij het zien van de titel, is het geen pro-libertarische propaganda, maar een soort Vivant-achtig pleidooi om het mileu te beschermen via een niew soort eigendomsrechten. Even een korte copy 'n paste van het concept achter de beweging vanop hun website OnTheCommons.org:

Common assets. Those parts of the commons that have a value in the market and which are appropriate to buy and sell (see “inalienability”). Radio airwaves are a common asset, for example, as are timber and minerals on public lands and, increasingly, air and water. By recognizing certain resources as common assets, it is easier to ask: Are the common assets being responsibly managed on behalf of the general public or a distinct community of interest? Is the capital being depleted?


Copyleft. A license that allows free re-use and modification of creative work so long as the derivative work remains available on the same terms. Copyleft — formally known as the “General Public License,” or GPL — was initiated by computer programmer Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. [link] By protecting the creativity and energy of the commons from private appropriation, the GPL has made free software and open source software possible. A related set of licenses for other types of creative works has been devised by the Creative Commons. [link]


Corporation. A self-perpetuating legal entity whose mission is to maximize short-term return to shareholders. In its aggressive pursuit of this mission, the corporation not only produces new innovations and efficiencies, it also displaces costs onto the environment, our communities and our personal lives (see “market externalities”).


Gift economy. A community of shared purpose, such as an academic discipline, whose members give time and creativity to a defined community and reap benefits in return. In gift communities, money is an unacceptable “currency” because relationships are rooted in personal, particular and historical experiences of each individual, and cannot be converted into cash or any other fungible unit.


Enclosure. The conversion of a commons into private property. Enclosure entails not just the privatization of a resource, but the introduction of money and market exchange as the prevailing principles for managing that resource. Enclosure shifts ownership and control from the community at large to private companies. This in turn changes the management and character of the resource because the market has very different standards of accountability and transparency than a commons. (Contrast a public library with a book store, or Main Street with a private shopping mall.) Because of its compulsion to extract maximum short-term rents and externalize costs, market enclosure often results in the “tragedy of the market.”


Externality, or illth. A social or ecological cost that is not paid by its creators. As the scope of market activity expands beyond a certain point, engulfing more of nature and daily life, it yields less and less happiness and well-being even as it generates more and more unintended problems. By the premises of market logic, the expanding output must be regarded as “progress” and “wealth.” In fact, the accelerating pace of the market machine is producing more “illth” — the opposite of wealth. Author Peter Barnes (Who Owns the Sky) has popularized this term, coined by John Ruskin in the 19th century, to describe the unintended but increasing destruction of nature, social disruptions, health problems and other (unacknowledged or disguised) costs of market activity.


Inalienability. The principle that a given resource shall not be freely bought and sold in the marketplace, but shall remain intact, in its natural context. Inalienability derives from a social consensus that certain things and behaviors are so precious and basic to human identity that they are degraded by allowing their purchase. “Goods” that have traditionally been regarded as inalienable include votes, babies, bodily organs, sex, genes, living species and most aspects of nature, but market forces are increasingly challenging long-standing norms of inalienability.


Public goods. Resources that, because of their “public” nature, are difficult or costly to exclude anyone from using. Examples include lighthouses, city parks, broadcast programming and the global atmosphere. In the lingo of economists, these are “nonrival” and “nonexcludable” resources. Government often steps in to pay for public goods because it is difficult to get individual beneficiaries to pay for them. But in the networked environment of the Internet, it is increasingly feasible for self-organizing groups to create and pay for public goods. Open source software is a prime example.


Public trust doctrine. A legal doctrine that says that the state holds certain resources in trust for its citizens which cannot be given away or sold. Public trust doctrine has its origins in Roman law, which recognized that certain resources such as fisheries, air, running water and wild animals belong to all. Under the doctrine of res communes, the king could not grant exclusive rights of access to a common resource. The point is that there is a clear distinction between common property (which belongs to the people) and state property (which can be conttrolled and mismanaged by government).


Trust. A legal institution for protecting the commons and managing any assets that may arise from them. If the corporation is the preeminent institution of the market, the trust is the premier institution of the commons. The managers of a trust, the trustees, have clear legal responsibilities to manage its resources on behalf of the beneficiaries. This includes strict fiduciary responsibilities, transparency and accountability.

Het boek is zeer kritisch op het huidige kapitalisme, maar gelooft wel in marktwerking (al volgen er in het laatste stuk ook een aantal nogal erg linkse ideeën zoals het kapitaal na de dood vd bezitter (indien hoger dan 1 miljoen euro) voor een deel terug moet vloeien naar de maatschappij (niet de overheid echter), vermits dat individu nooit zo rijk had kunnen worden zonder het bestaan van die samenleving (een individu dat alleen op de planeet leeft zal weinig kapitaalaccumulatie kunnen doen). Het geld zou gebruikt worden om een fonds te sponsoren dat de kinderen die de pech hadden om in een arm gezin te zijn geboren een 'startkapitaal' te garanderen dat de competitie binnen de markt wil bevorderen door al te extreme verschillen qua startpositie die nu bestaan omdat geen enkel kind
kan 'kiezen' of hij/zij in een rijk of arm gezin geboren wil worden voorkomen. Men vergelijkt dit met de 'draft' die bestaat in de baseball-competitie waar het eindklassement vd voorbije competitie als lijst gebruikt wordt om de slechtste teams de eerste keus te garanderen op de markt om zo te voorkomen dat de beste teams zo'n voorsprong opbouwen dat de competitie niet langer spannend genoeg is om het publiek te interesseren (waarvan zowel winnende als verliezende ploegen afhankelijk zijn voor hun inkomsten).




Al bij al staan er een aantal originele ideeën in voor de linkse medemens die zowel kritisch staat tov kapitalisme (in huidige vorm) als tegen ideologiëen die teveel vertrouwen hebben in de Overheid. ( ) Verfrissend, maar niet altijd even realistisch (beetje zoals Vivant dus).

[Praetorian]

Gastarbeid en kapitaal, 1983, SP-programma
http://www.devrijegedachte.nl/consta...ier/inhoud.htm