------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1993 20:51:07 PST8PDT
Reply-To:     Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
Sender:       Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
From:         James Michael Craven <CRAVJM@OOI.CLARK.EDU>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Subject:      ADDENDUM ON COMMENTS ON CRITICAL THINKING
X-To:         PEN-L%USCVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
To:           Multiple recipients of list PEN-L <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>

SOME THOUGHTS TO PROVOKE THOUGHT:

"Once the interconnection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the
permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their
collapse in practice. Here, therefore, it is absolutely in the
interest of the ruling classes to perpetuate this senseless
confusion. And for what other purpose are the sycophantic babblers
paid, who have no other scientific trump to play save that in
political economy one should not think at all?"

Karl Marx to L. Kugelmann July 11, 1868

"If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is
not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the
present: I mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists;
the criticism being ruthless in the sense that it fears neither its
own results nor conflict with the powers that be."

Karl Marx

Personally, I differentiate bias and subjectivity although they are
so often used as synonyms. If one defines bias as in the statistical
sense as a pre-disposition, preference, limited view or inclination
based upon limited exposure, limited data, a limited paradigm etc
then the only people who are not biased are those in comas or who are
so brain damaged they do not know what planet they are on. To be
human is to be biased. Subjectivity, on the other hand, has to do
with lack of analytical rigor--contrived syllogisms, cooked data,
lack of appreciation of context, failure to make a good-faith attempt
to use state-of-the art data bases and statistical techniques,
failure to appreciate limitations of the above-mentioned, etc.etc. On
the other hand to be objective is to make a good-faith and
sophisticated attempt to use established and evolving empirical
methods, state-of-the art sources and techniques, awareness of
contending data and paradigms etc.

It is of course understood that data sources, techniques etc are
evolving. But there is such a thing as the "scientific method" and it
is tested everyday e.g. when we fly on an aircraft and we arrive
alive (with or without baggage) or when 1000 people use the same drug
for the same condition and a good percentage of them are helped in
predictable and predicted ways; etc. But of course science and
scientific methods do not evolve over smooth linear paths; we must
deal with powers-that-be who have a vested interest in obfuscation
etc; we must deal with limitations in data gathering, availability
and reporting, we must deal with the garbage in our own heads and
with our own human frailties etc.

I give Marx as an example of a scientist who was highly biased and
whose biases led him to be highly objective. Marx understood that you
can not modify, control, reform or overthrow that which you do not
understand clearly and objectively. Marx made  good-faith, rigorous
and multi-dimensional analyses of various aspects of capitalism and
many other phenomena for the purpose of arming the working class with
the knowledge and scientific methods/approaches necessary for
overthrowing the system Marx understood that it is not enough to be
passionate, biased and even dedicated. One must clearly understand
that which must be changed.

Just some thoughts to provoke thought.

                                   Venceremos,

                                   Jim Craven


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1993 15:40:56 PST8PDT
Reply-To:     Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
Sender:       Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
From:         James Michael Craven <CRAVJM@OOI.CLARK.EDU>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Subject:      CRITICAL THINKING IN THE CLASSROOM AND OTHER SUBVERSIVE ACTS
X-To:         PEN-L%USCVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
To:           Multiple recipients of list PEN-L <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>

Message-ID: <MAILQUEUE-101.930813133302.352@ooi.clark.edu>
To:           PEN-L%USCVM>BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
From:         "James Michael Craven"  <CRAVJM@ooi.clark.edu>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Date:         13 Aug 93 13:33:02 PST8PDT
Subject:      Critical Thinking in the classroom and other subversive


I have a little number that I do in the classroom that I would like
to share.

My syllabus says that I do not grade on the curve. In the middle of
the quarter I walk in and tell the class that since I have a social
responsibility to maintain standards as well as serve each of them
individually, I have decided to grade on the curve. The good news is
if my exams are extremely difficult maybe a 68 will turn out to be an
"A". The bad news is that only 10% of the class will get an A, 15% a
B, 50% a C, 15% a D and 10% of the class are doomed to a F. I tell
them that if I do not get sound counter-arguments I will implement
this system. Usually there is dead silence.

If there is no counter-argument I let it sit for four or five days.
Then I come to class and begin to explore what has transpired.

1) What right did I have to break my word and implement a system
contrary to that promised on the syllabus?

2) On what basis am I assuming that use of a curve system enhances or
is consistent with "standards"?

3) What do I mean by standards and whose definitions am I using and
in whose interests are these so-called "standards".

4) Since now only 10% of the class can get a grade of A, have I not
introduced "scarcity" through course restructuring and the arbitrary
and despotic use of my power? Is scarcity an eternal condition or are
various forms and levels of scarcity created by certain systems,
imperatives of survival, power structures etc?

5) As a result of the fact that only 10% of the class can get a grade
of A have I restructured the system and the context of the course
such that new imperatives of survival and constraints have been
created leading to new forms of human behavior and interaction? For
example, if someone misses class are you now more or less inclined to
share your notes in view of the fact that that person may use your
notes to get one of the scarce A grades perhaps denying you that
grade?

6) Do certain systems possess defining characteristics (institutions,
power structures/relations, categories etc) that shape unique
imperatives of survival that in turn shape various forms and levels
of human behavior? For example, there were some who thought that
certain forms of behaviour were unimaginable       and believed in
the inherent "goodness" of humankind. Some of those people wound up
in places like Auschwitz and what was considered unimaginable became
quite imaginable--change the system and contexts change the
imperatives of survival and growth change the behavior. Conversely,
if you want to change certain forms of behavior you must change the
systems and contexts that reinforce and make imperative, certain
forms of behavior.

7) If a student said he/she was less inclined to be cooperative with
other students or share notes with those who had missed class, was it
because they were BY NATURE egoistic, selfish, rational, marginally-
calculating, competitive, vicious, materialistic, instant-
gratification-oriented individuals (the model of human behavior in
virtually all bourgeois textbooks -- an excellent example of Freudian
projection as those who assert this model are usually describing
themselves) or was it because a new system and context had been
introduced that conditioned and made imperative for survival,
competition and selfishness and made dysfunctional, cooperation and
sharing?

8) If you have a socioeconomic system dominated by groups who central
imperatives are profit maximization and capital accumulation in order
to acquire power and power acquisition in order to facilitate and
protect profit maximization and capital accumulation, what derivative
imperatives (e.g. union busting, divide and rule, cost minimization,
productivity maximization, etc) flow from those core imperatives and
further, what forms of behavior are conditioned and induced from
those core and derivative imperatives?

Just some thoughts to provoke thoughts

                                  Venceremos,

                                  Jim Craven

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:         Mon, 16 Aug 1993 18:32:22 PST8PDT
Reply-To:     Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
Sender:       Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
From:         James Michael Craven <CRAVJM@OOI.CLARK.EDU>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Subject:      SYSTEMIC/CONTEXTUAL IMPERATIVES
X-To:         PEN-L%USCVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
To:           Multiple recipients of list PEN-L <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>

Along the lines of systemic/contextual imperatives, I use a model of
contextual imperatives when discussing issues in political economy of
the news media. Why is it that for any given major news event hundreds
of reporters and media personalities from all over the U.S. who have
never met each other and are not in contact with each other, will ask
the same basic inane and superficial questions while failing to ask
the same fundamental and penetrating questions on a given issue? Is
there some central commissar of the news directing all of them? Is
there some central conspiracy to rig and manage the news?

                    l-----------> Name Recognition----->l
                    l                                   l
                    l                                   l
                    l                                   l
                    l                                   l
                    l                                   l
                 Exposure                               l
                    ^                                Access
                    l                                   l
                    l                                   l
                    l                                   l
                    l                                   l
                   <---------- Big Story <---------------

      These interrelated imperatives lead to the spiral of "suckcess"
in "mainstream" journalism. There are various pathways into the
spiral but once in the spiral continued upward mobility depends upon
continued access.

So many journalists dream of being Woodward and Bernsteins.
Supposedly by accident a couple of cub reporters (check out
Woodward's background in Naval Intelligence and as a briefing officer
for the Pentagon and many questions arise about how he has obtained
and retained preferential access) hit on a big story which was
developed. The big story led to exposure which led to name
recognition which led to access to the powers-that-be which led to
further scoops and big stories ...

Another way into the spiral is through instant exposure usually
through some gimmick, gimmick ---> exposure--->name recognition
--->access---> big story/hit etc---> exposure

Another way into the spiral is through established name recognition.
For example an over the hill but well recognized jock may be put on
as a sports commentator, then presented as a sports journalist then
later as a general journalist--->access--->...

Or there can be instant access granted even to nobodys who agree not
to ask nasty questions and to bring kneepads and chapstick to their
interviews. For example, remember when Dukakis was alleged to be in
deep depression and Reagan was asked what he thought about it and
Reagan answered that he "didn't want to pick on an invalid" which
caused even the whitehouse press corp to boo. That question was asked
by a "reporter" from the "Executive Intelligence Review" which is a
LaRouchite rag. So how did a "reporter" from a neo-fascist rag even
get credentials let alone called on by Reagan to ask a question?;the
question had clearly been set up beforehand. access--->big story...

These journalists clearly know the game, the parameters, the rules,
the power structures, the rewards, the penalties and the imperatives
of survival and fame. There does't have to be any central commissar
or conspiracy. When the context is understoods, when the imperatives
are clearly understood, most will act in concert with little or no
central direction.

How do the journalists know what questions are out of bounds? They
are socialized through the training grounds and through society that
certain questions are only asked by the fringe elements, the
discredited types, the malcontents, the unstable etc. Above all, ask
no question that calls into question the system itself.

Here is a situation: A young child perhaps 13 years old is invited to
a funeral. The deceased was a man who beat and abused his wife, who
was cruel to others, had three mistresses etc. Nobody has to tell the
child that when offering condolences to the widow you don't say
"Aren't you glad the bastard is dead, I hope you made out like a
bandit and got a good inheritance, Gee how did you stick with that
bastard so long? How will you be celebrating his death?" The child
knows well that there are some questions and comments that must never
be asked.

The bourgeois journalists understand the same. They know there are
limits beyond which continued access will be denied and their stories
and effectiveness will dry up. Helen Thomas said exactly this on
Pozner/Donahue recently when she said that the whitehouse lays it out
loud and clear that you journalists are here at our pleasure and we
can cut you off or deny access at any time.

This model above applies to whole media empires as well as to
individual journalists. It also applies in pop music, literature etc.
For example look at the music played by U-2 originally that got them
exposure vs the music played later that got them continued access,
expensive recording studios and marketing campaigns etc.

Just some thoughts to provoke thought.

                                Venceremos,

                                Jim Craven

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:         Tue, 10 Aug 1993 11:52:29 PST8PDT
Reply-To:     Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
Sender:       Progressive Economists Network <PEN-L@VM.USC.EDU>
From:         James Michael Craven <CRAVJM@OOI.CLARK.EDU>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Subject:      CORE AND DERIVATIVE IMPERATIVES OF CAPITALISM
X-To:         PEN-L%USCVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
To:

On another matter, I just returned from the International Conference
on Critical Thinking at Sonoma State University at which Robert
Heilbroner was a keynote speaker. All in all it was very interesting
and useful. One of the questions I posed to Heilbroner went as
follows: As more and more capitalists are seeing the reality of
accelerating change, intensifying complexity and global
interdependence, there is a call by some of them for more critical
thinking in the workplace and to be taught in the schools. Of course
by critical thinking they mean a few formal techniques that enhance
narrow problem-solving abilities yet do not challenge the fundamental
premises and structures of capitalist power and acquisition. But
there is a derivative and more fundamental question: can real
critical thinking survive and grow under capitalism. I then explained
how I explore this question in my classes.

You are a businessperson under a fair amount of competition. You are
governed by the following system/context-determined imperatives: you
MUST attempt to maximize net real after-tax total profits. Why?
Because you MUST have funds to directly facilitate or enhance
creditworthiness necessary for accumulation of capital (which
includes expanded reproduction of the capital-labor social
relationships). You MUST attempt continued accumulation of capital.
Why? because accumulation of capital is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for maximization of productivity (max
output/input or minimum input/output). You MUST attempt to maximize
productivity. Why?; because maximization of productivity is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for effective competition
(expanded market/profit shares, market power, market access, access
to political power etc). You MUST attempt to effectively compete.
Why?; because effective condition is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for maximization of total net real after-tax profits ...

So the core imperatives of capitalism--from which derivative
imperatives follow (e.g. imperative to bust up unions etc) go
something like this:

Effective Competition---> Maximiz of Total Real After-Tax Profits
        ^                                  l
        l                                  l
        l                                  l
        l                                  l
        l                                  V
 Max Productivity <--------------  Accumulation of Capital
output/input Min input/output)

So you are governed by the above imperatives as you have two
customers:

Customer A                                 Customer B

Competitive, fad oriented                  Cooperative, thinking
Must have it all and have it now           defines himself in terms of
Maxed out on credit cards applying         deeply-held values
for more credit                            examines slogans and
defines in terms of what owned             assumptions carefully
impressionistic, malleable highly          used items good enough
influenced by advertising                  Able to delay gratification

Question: which customer would be more in your interest to have?
Which personality characteristics are more consistent with a customer
who will bring larger sales and profits. On the other hand, which
customer possesses characteristics more consistent with or requisite
for critical thinking? Question: can critical thinking survive and
grow under capitalism?

Heilbroner's reply: "That's a telling point."

Whatever the factors isolated as influencing global crises--unequal
distributions of wealth/incomes, over-accumulation, under-
accumulation, short-run myopic calculuses of profitability etc--they
all beg the question of what were the forces, imperatives, contexts
etc that shaped them. Then we get back to the inner and defining
institutions, power relations/structures, imperatives, contexts etc
of capitalism--all of which shape the logic and dynamics of
capitalism.

Just some thoughts to provoke thought.

                                Venceremos,

                                Jim Craven

*---------------------------*----------------------------------------*
*  James Craven             * "When the people of the world all know *
*  Dept of Economics        *  beauty as beauty,
*  Clark College            *  There arises the recognition          *
*  1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *  of ugliness;                          *
*  Vancouver, Wa. 98663     *  when they all know the good as good,  *
*  (206) 699-0283           *  there arises the recognition          *
*  cravjm@ooi.clark.edu     *  of evil.                              *
*                           *  (Lao Tzu  Tao Te Ching)               *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*