Search





CATEGORIES


We found 199 books in our category 'ECONOMICS'

We found 11 news items

We found 199 books




ADDA Jacques
La mondialisation de l'économie. 1. Genèse.
3ième édition, poche, 124 pp. Bibliographie et index.
ADDA Jacques@ wikipedia
€ 10.0
ALDCROFT Derek A.
The European Economy 1914-1980
Pb, in-8, 282 pp., bibliography, index.
ALDCROFT Derek A.@ wikipedia
€ 15.0
Algemene Spaar- en Lijfrentekas
Gedenkboek 1865-1965 van de Algemene Spaar- en Lijfrentekas van België
Hardcover, in-8, 416 pp.


Algemene Spaar- en Lijfrentekas@ wikipedia
€ 15.0
Antwerpsche Hypotheekkas
Waarde der Onroerende Goederen. Evolutie en huidig peil (1910-1960)
Softcover, 61 pp. Tabellen en grafieken. Toegevoegd: Waarde der Onroerende Goederen 1961 (maart 1962), 7 pp.
Antwerpsche Hypotheekkas@ wikipedia
€ 50.0
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof.
Histoire économique de la Belgique 1945-1956
Broché, in-8, 438 pp., index. Dans les annexes on trouve: Les fusions de sociétés cotées en bourse, Principales sociétés disparues (1944-1957), Cout de l'électrification des chemins de fer (non compris la ligne Bruxelles-Anvers qui fut el. en 1934-1935)
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof.@ wikipedia
€ 20.0
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof.
Histoire économique de la Belgique 1957-1968
Broché, 514 pp. Photos en NB. Ouvrage de référence. Ajouté: 2 billets de 1000 francs (spécimens) émis par le PLP/PVV lors des élections en 1965 > "Nationale Ramp van België"/"Crampe Nationale de Belgique": "Ceci signifie que la valeur du billet de 1000 F est tombée à 850 F par rapport à 1961.
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof.@ wikipedia
€ 10.0
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof.
Histoire économique de la Belgique 1945-1956
Relié/bound demi-cuir or. 438 pp., 16 x 25 cm.
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof.@ wikipedia
€ 25.0
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof.
Histoire économique de la Belgique 1914-1939, Tôme 2: Evolution des principaux facteurs
Softcover 16 x 23 cm 493 pp. Index, bibliographie, carte dépliante, tableaux, statistiques.
BAUDHUIN Fernand Prof. @ wikipedia
€ 10.0
Bedrijfsfonds voor de pers
Bedrijfsfonds voor de Pers - Jaarverslag 1993
Pb., 94 pp.
Bedrijfsfonds voor de pers@ wikipedia
€ 10.0
BILLIARD Robert
La collaboration industrielle & ouvrière avec l'occupant
Agraffé, in-8, 64 pp.
BILLIARD Robert @ wikipedia
€ 10.0
BLYTH Conrad
The Use of Economic Statistics
1st ed. Hardcover, in-8, 249 pp.
BLYTH Conrad @ wikipedia
€ 10.0
BOHETS Jan
België en de multinationals
Paperback 80 pp. Citaten: 7: "Tegenover welk een werkloosheidsprobleem zou België zich geplaatst zien als in Eindhoven zou worden beslist dat Philips zijn Belgische bedrijven sluit en de aktiviteit verplaatst naar een land met lage lonen? (...) Hoeveel sektoren van de Belgische ekonomie worden nagenoeg geheel of voor een flink deel vanuit buitenlandse hoofdkwartieren geleid en gekontroleerd?"; blz. 80: "(...) de overheid, de privé-sektor en de vakbonden hadden gemeenschappelijk schuld aan het ekonomisch vacuüm dat in de jaren vijftig is ontstaan en dat door de multinationals is opgevuld." - worldwide 50 biggest, General Motors, Exxon, Ford, Royal Dutch/Shell, Chrysler, General Electric, Texaco, Mobil Oil, Philips, Standard Oil, British Petroleum, Nippon Steel, Western Electric, US Steel, Volkswagen, Hitachi, Westinghouse, Hoechst, Daimler-Benz, Toyota, Siemens, BASF, ICI, Du Pont de Nemours, Mitsubishi, Nestlé, GTE, Shell, Nissan, Goodyear, Renault, Bayer, Montedison, Matsushita, British Steel, ENI, RCA, Thyssen-Hütte, Continental Oil, International Harvester, AEG-Telefunken, LTV, Bethlehem Steel, Fiat, Cie Française des Pétroles.

zie ook de iets oudere studie van Roland Michel: Les investissements américains en Belgique (1971)
BOHETS Jan @ wikipedia
€ 10.0
BOXWELL Robert J. Jr
Benchmarking for competitive advantage
Hardcover, dj, 224 pp. Learn how good your firm performs, inside and outside. Turn your company into a learning institute.
BOXWELL Robert J. Jr@ wikipedia
€ 10.0
BRAUERS W.K. Drs
Economische planning bij regionaal-internationale ordening - Een probleem in de westeuropese economische integratie
Gebrocheerd 88 pp. Met bibliografische noten.
BRAUERS W.K. Drs@ wikipedia
€ 10.0
BROCKMANS Hans (editor)
200 jaar filiaal. De Franse greep op de Vlaamse economie.
Pb 296 pp. Index/register. Een doorlichting van de Vlaamse economische sleutelsectoren: wie bezit de banken, de elektriciteit, de immo, de telecom, de media, ... ? Een actualisering van het boek uit 1993 'Vlaanderen: een Franse kolonie?' Van de achterflap: "Pijnlijk helder blijkt nu opnieuw dat er geen sprake is van 'ziekelijke paranoia'. Integendeel, de situatie verslechtert."
BROCKMANS Hans (editor)@ wikipedia
€ 50.0
BROUWERS L. s.j.
Vijftig jaar christelijke werkgeversbeweging in België. Een bijdrage tot de sociaal-economische geschiedenis 1920-1973, 1925-1973 [2 delen]
Hardcover,gebonden, in-8, 517 + xv + 648pp., illustraties, bibliografische noten, bibliografie, index/register. Met voorwoord van Senaatsvoorzitter Pierre Harmel. Eerste Deel: De Christelijke Werkgeversbeweging voor en tijdens de tweede wereldoorlog 1920 (1925) - 1944; Tweede Deel: De Christelijke Werkgeversbeweging na de oorlog 1945-1972. Noot Lucas Tessens: Wij citeren van p. 225: "Wij hebben hierboven gezien dat van de eerst aangesloten groepering (bij het ACVW, LT) enkel die der Sigarenfabrikanten was overgebleven. Nu zullen er enige nieuwe bijkomen: de afdeling Bouwnijverheid, op 10 februari 1928, vooral bloeiend te Turnhout, met als voorzitter ingenieur Desideer Tessens, en daarnaast, als onderafdeling hiervan, de afdeling Steenbakkerijen, met als secretaris de heer J. Van de Looverbosch (Rijkevorsel)." Het gaat hier om mijn grootvader Désiré (als sociaal bewogen Vlaming zou hij zich als student te Leuven 'Desideer' of 'Dis' laten noemen) Tessens (1884-1935), mijningenieur KU Leuven, en toen werkzaam als arrondissementeel ingenieur te Turnhout; in 1930 zou hij benoemd worden tot Hoofdingenieur van de Provincie Antwerpen. Maar keren wij terug tot het werk: op p. 227 lezen wij "Het lag voor de hand dat vele aannemers van Turnhout niet bereid waren aan dergelijke dwingelandij [het intiatief tot oprichting van de Syndikale Kamer van Bouwnijverheid, een neutrale vereniging van meestal katholieke patroons, die aanleunde bij het Antwerpse Patronaal Verbond, en dat op 4 januari 1927 aan al de niet-aangesloten aannemers van Turnhout volgend bericht had gestuurd: 'Wij hebben de eer u te laten weten dat de leden der Syndikale Kamer wensen dat alle werken in Turnhout uitsluitend onder de leden der Syndikale Kamer zouden uitgegeven worden. De heren architekten worden hierover ingelicht. Het ligt in de bedoeling van de aannemers alle vakgenoten te verenigen, en dus hopen zij dat u, de zaak begrijpend, niet langer buiten de Syndikale Kamer zult blijven, waarvan de werking een groot voordeel voor de aannemers beoogt en bewerkt. Nieuwe inschrijvingen worden tot 10 januari (1927) aanvaard.' en "De reactie van de katholieken bleef niet uit. 'Het is immers op zijn minst al zeer eigenaardig dat zij, die nauwelijks dulden dat hun werklieden gesyndikeerd zijn, en die alles doen om de bestaande syndikaten tegen te werken, nu de werkgevers willen dwingen niet alleen zich te syndikeren, maar nog wel aan te sluiten bij een neutraal organisme, dat tegenstrijdig is met de levensopvatting der christelijke werkgevers en rechtstreeks indruist tegen het woord van paus en bisschop, die de neutraliteit en het laïscisme als de moderne ketterij hebben veroordeeld. Daarbij, sinds wanneer hebben de socialistische praktijken van "Rood of geen brood" nu ook ingang gevonden in de patroonswereld? Alle werken in Turnhout zouden uitgegeven worden uitsluitend onder de leden der Syndikale Kamer, en de anderen zouden gebroodroofd worden!

En de heren architecten worden hierover ingelicht en aangezocht om aan dergelijke inbreuk van werkvrijheid een handje toe te steken!"]
BROUWERS L. s.j.@ wikipedia
€ 50.0
BUCHAN James
Bevroren verlangen. Een zoektocht naar de betekenis van geld. (vertaling van Frozen Desire. An Inquiry into the Meaning of Money).
Hardcover, geïllustreerde stofwikkel, 368 pp, met bibliografische noten en index. JB is voormalig correspondent van de Financial Times. Dit boek werd in 1997 door de New Statesman uitgeroepen tot Book of the Year. Buchan onderzoekt methodisch hoe het zover is kunnen komen dat geld schijnbaar elke andere zingeving in het menselijk bestaan van de troon heeft gestoten en hoe de verhoudingen tussen mensen gaandeweg 'gemonetiseerd' werden. Buchan durft het aan een apocalyps te schetsen, ontstaan de non-acceptatie van geld als ruilmiddel. Doordat alles bezit moet worden via geld, wordt de wereld vernietigd en wordt geld onze ergste vijand. Buchans beschrijving van de betekenis van de assignaten is bijzonder interessant en daarbij verwijst hij herhaaldelijk naar Burke (p. 197 e.v.). Ook vrouwenrechten koppelt hij nadrukkelijk aan geldzaken (p. 204 e.v.). Deze eigenzinnige analyse biedt een waaier van nieuwe en verrassende inzichten.
BUCHAN James@ wikipedia
€ 20.0
BURY J.P.T.
The new Cambridge modern history. Volume X: the zentith of European power
Hardcover, dj, in-8, 765 pp., index.
BURY J.P.T.@ wikipedia
€ 25.0
CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DE BRUXELLES
CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DE BRUXELLES (1959), Annuaire
Hardcover, in-8, 754 pp.
CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DE BRUXELLES @ wikipedia
€ 10.0
CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DE BRUXELLES
CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DE BRUXELLES (1960), Annuaire
Hardcover, 748 pp.
CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DE BRUXELLES @ wikipedia
€ 10.0

We found 11 news items

STATISTA
COVID-19: High Mortality Rates Linked To Care Homes
ID: 202004211440
COVID-19 OUTBREAK
COVID-19: High Mortality Rates Linked To Care Homes
by
Niall McCarthy,

Apr 21, 2020
There is growing evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic is having a deadly impact on elderly residents at care homes around the world and a report released by academics at the London School of Economics claims that 60 percent of all coronavirus deaths in some countries may be linked to those facilities. Elderly residents in care homes are particularly vulnerable to the pandemic as they fall within the highest-risk age category while living in an environment where a virus can spread rapidly due to communal dining halls and shared rooms.

The research notes that international comparisons of COVID-19's impact on care homes are difficult to make, particularly as many countries do not track those specific cases and some of its figures are based on partial data. Nevertheless, the findings are both striking and alarming in the countries where data was available. In Norway, it is estimated that 64 percent of all deaths from COVID-19 are linked to care homes for the elderly. In Canada and Ireland, the share stands at 57 and 55 percent respectively.




Ook in de 14de eeuw tijdens de pestepidemie was dat het geval, zo stelt Barbara Tuchman in 'De waanzinnige 14de eeuw': 'In afgesloten ruimten zoals kloosters en gevangenissen betekende de besmetting van één persoon meestal besmetting van iedereen, zoals gebeurde in de franciscaner kloosters van Carcassonne en Marseille, waar zonder uitzondering iedere inwoner stierf. Van de honderdveertig dominicanen in Montpellier overleefden er slechts zeven. Petrarca's broer Gherardo, lid van een kartuizer kloosterorde, begroef de abt en vierendertig medebroeders één voor één, soms drie per dag, tot hij alleen met zijn hond overbleef.'
NN
Turkey Tourist Arrivals Forecast 2016-2020
ID: 201703261315
Tourist Arrivals in Turkey is expected to be 1630000.00 by the end of this quarter, according to Trading Economics global macro models and analysts expectations. Looking forward, we estimate Tourist Arrivals in Turkey to stand at 1240000.00 in 12 months time. In the long-term, the Turkey Tourist Arrivals is projected to trend around 1220000.00 in 2020, according to our econometric models.


source: tradingeconomics.com
WOLF Martin
On income inequality: One cause of disquiet is the sense that those at the top are corrupt, complacent and incompetent (FT)
ID: 201602020918
Who is Martin Wolf?
Martin Wolf is chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, London. He was awarded the CBE (Commander of the British Empire) in 2000 “for services to financial journalism”. Mr Wolf is an honorary fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford, honorary fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford University, an honorary fellow of the Oxford Institute for Economic Policy (Oxonia) and an honorary professor at the University of Nottingham.

He has been a forum fellow at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos since 1999 and a member of its International Media Council since 2006. He was made a Doctor of Letters, honoris causa, by Nottingham University in July 2006. He was made a Doctor of Science (Economics) of London University, honoris causa, by the London School of Economics in December 2006. He was a member of the UK government's Independent Commission on Banking in 2010-2011. Martin's most recent publications are Why Globalization Works and Fixing Global Finance.
Article 201511231824: Ongelijk maar fair - Itinera gaat de mist in
Marc De Vos, [Frank Vandenbroucke], [Anthony Atkinson]
Ongelijk maar fair - Itinera gaat de mist in
ID: 201511231824
In dit boek zet professor Marc De Vos (directeur van denktank Itinera) vraagtekens bij de stellingen van Piketty. In een interview wordt al gauw duidelijk waar het werkelijk om gaat: de professor wil zichzelf profileren als diegene die 'anders' nadenkt, diegene die wil verhinderen dat de bevindingen van Piketty uitdraaien op een nieuwe ideologie, diegene die Piketty verwijt én economisch historicus, én politiek raadgever te willen zijn. 'Piketty heeft een verborgen agenda en de discussie is een hype', luidt het.
De Vos stelt de beschikbare statistiek in vraag en zou liever naar de evoluties binnen de gelaagdheid gaan kijken, trajecten van mensen binnen de arbeidsmarkt gaan onderzoeken. Enzovoort. In het Frans noemt men die tactiek 'brouiller les pistes'. Er zijn ook passages over genetisch determinisme, versterkt door contextuele variabelen.
Frank Vandenbroucke noemde in een gesprek voor Kanaal Z (20151119) het boek eenzijdig en herhaalt tweemaal 'het mankeert absoluut nuance'. FVDB poneert dat we - willen we armoede en ongelijkheid verminderen - aandacht moeten hebben voor onze kinderen. De Vos kon nauwelijks weerwerk bieden in de discussie, verloor de pedalen in zijn wirwar van nepargumenten en was zichtbaar blij dat de uitzending afliep. Itinera maakte een slechte beurt.
bekijk het gesprek hier
Commentaar LT:
Economen - het zijn ook maar mensen - hebben de neiging mekaar tegen te spreken, al was het maar om te kunnen surfen op de deining die hun succesvolle collega (Piketty) heeft veroorzaakt. We vrezen dat het boek van De Vos met die bedoeling in elkaar is geknutseld.
Het is wellicht waar dat ongelijkheid van alle tijden is. Het is ook waar dat succes mag worden beloond. Het wordt echter een andere zaak als de rijken, de vermogenden, de grootverdieners via allerlei truuks hun bijdragen aan het inkomen van de staat trachten te minimaliseren. We hebben het hier over de belastingconstructies die o.a. LuxLeaks uitbracht. De staat kan dan niet de nodige middelen verzamelen om bijvoorbeeld kinderen via onderwijs uit de kansarmoede te halen. De superrijken kunnen daarentegen via privé en voortgezet onderwijs hun kinderen bijkomende kansen bieden.
Die redenering missen we bij De Vos. Hij mist totaal de trein door niet te willen inzien dat belastingen een directe impact hebben op de uitkering van dividenden. Belastingen noemt hij iets dat komt NA de bruto-inkomensvorming, terwijl de logica zegt dat belastingen inherent geworden zijn aan de strategie van bedrijven, trusts en concerns. De externe fiscale consultants zijn belangrijker geworden dan de financiële directie van een concern. De herverdelende correctiemechanismen die de staat via belastingen wil laten plaatsvinden worden door de 'global players' ontvlucht en dus gesaboteerd. De staat kan op die manier nog slechts de miserie proberen te managen. De vermogensaccumulatie is in die context pure diefstal en een daad van incivisme.

Het werk van Marc De Vos werd verkozen tot LIBERALES BOEK van 2015; dat zegt in dit geval meer over de kwaliteit van de jury dan over die van het boek.


Omdat er belangrijker boeken zijn dan dat van De Vos geven we hier een lijstje met de boeken van Anthony Atkinson:
Atkinson, Anthony B.; Harrison, Allan J. (1978). Distribution of personal wealth in Britain. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521217354.
Atkinson, Anthony B.; Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1980). Lectures on public economics. London New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. ISBN 9780070841055.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (1983). The economics of inequality. Oxford Oxfordshire New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198772088.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (1995). Incomes and the welfare state: essays on Britain and Europe. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521557962.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (1996). Public economics in action: the basic income/flat tax proposal. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198292166.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (1999). The economic consequences of rolling back the welfare state. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262011716.
Atkinson, Anthony B.; Bourguignon, François (2000). Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam New York: Elvesier. ISBN 9780444816313.
Atkinson, Anthony B; Stern, Nicholas H.; Glennerster, Howard (2000). Putting economics to work: volume in honour of Michio Morishima 22. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, and the STICERD – Suntory-Toyota International Centre for Economics and Related Disciplines. ISBN 9780753013991.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (2004). New sources of development finance. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199278558.
Atkinson, Anthony B.; Piketty, Thomas (2007). Top incomes over the Twentieth Century: a contrast between Continental European and English-speaking countries. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199286881.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (2008). The changing distribution of earnings in OECD countries. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199532438.
Atkinson, Anthony B.; Piketty, Thomas (2010). Top incomes: a global perspective. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199286898.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (2014). Public economics in an age of austerity. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781138018150.
Atkinson, Anthony B. (2014). Inequality: What Can Be Done?. Harvard University Press. p. 384. ISBN 9780674504769.
AKERLOF George, SHILLER Robert
Phishing for Phools: the Economics of Manipulation and Deception
ID: 201511230227


Bedrog is eigen aan het kapitalistisch systeem, zo stelt Fisher in een interview met DS 20151121.
Article 201503130901: Britain
Oil Industry News
Britain's North Sea Oil and Gas Firms must Look to Future Abroad: Kemp
ID: 201503130901
Published in on Friday, 13 March 2015

The North Sea has already produced 42 billion barrels of oil and gas, but could have as much as 24 billion barrels left, according to FT columnist Nick Butler (“Don’t abandon the North Sea” Feb 22).

For North Sea operators and their supporters, the remaining reserves provide a compelling economic reason to keep producing to avoid leaving value locked in the ground.

The reserves represent tens of billions of dollars in profits, wages and tax revenues that would be lost if the North Sea fields are abandoned prematurely.

North Sea reserves have a strong political dimension because most operators and service companies are based in Scotland, where separatist sentiment remains strong despite the rejection of independence in last year’s referendum.

The economic reality is more complicated. The notional value of the oil and gas that would remain locked in the ground is not a convincing reason why it should be developed. In a market-based economy, resources are developed only if they can be extracted profitably.

And there are many instances where resources have been left in the ground or abandoned because it was no longer possible to exploit them profitably.

The distinction between exhaustion and profitability was central to the year-long dispute between the National Union Mineworkers (NUM) and the Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher, the defining moment in Britain’s modern economic history.

In the early 1980s, Britain’s state-owned coal company wanted to close mines that were no longer profitable while the NUM resolved “to re-affirm the union’s opposition to all pit closures other than on grounds of exhaustion.”

The NUM demanded that pits remain open as a source of employment and national energy security as long as there was valuable coal underground (“Crisis management in the power industry” 1995).

Ironically, coal’s nemesis came from the giant gas fields found in the North Sea between the 1950s and 1970s, which threatened coal’s dominance in power generation (“Energy, the State and the Market” 2003).

Once the government’s support for coal was removed after the strike was broken, construction of coal-fired power plants ended and power producers raced to build cheaper gas-fired facilities to capitalize on the cheaper fuel.

By the end of the 1990s, nearly all of Britain’s pits had closed, although there were still billions of tonnes of coal left underground. Twenty years later, Britain’s gas supplies are dwindling, and the country increasingly relies on imported gas from overseas, raising concerns about “energy security”.

If energy security had been the clinching argument, the government would have intervened to keep more pits open. Instead, Britain chose a market-based approach. There is no reason why North Sea oil and gas producers should be treated any differently.

UNFAVORABLE CONDITIONS

Britain’s oil and gas producers are among the victims of the North American shale revolution and the price war between OPEC and the U.S. shale industry.

Like Canada’s oil sands industry, which is also suffering, the North Sea is a relatively expensive source of oil and gas. In recent years, its prospects have depended on oil and gas remaining scarce and prices remaining high.

The North Sea must compete for investment with other oil and gas plays around the world. Before the shale revolution North Sea oil and gas appeared marginally profitable. But with oil prices now around $60 per barrel and widely expected to remain well below $100 for the next few years, the North Sea is no longer an attractive investment proposition.

UK operators tend to blame their problems on the tax regime, which they claim is more punitive and complicated than in other parts of the world. While there is some truth in this argument, the tax regime’s complexity is the legacy of government efforts to clamp down on previous tax avoidance.

In any event, the UK North Sea’s problems run much deeper than tax. Offshore platforms in a notoriously stormy area are a more expensive way to produce oil and gas than onshore shale plays in the United States.

The giant oil and gas fields discovered in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could spread the fixed costs of platforms, pipelines and other infrastructure over a large volume of production. Recent field discoveries have been much smaller and have no such economies of scale.

Recent discoveries can only be profitable if they can utilize the existing infrastructure. The problem is that the infrastructure isn’t free and it isn’t public property: it belongs to existing operators, most of them major oil and gas companies, who have a legal obligation to decommission it.

If the infrastructure’s life is to be extended and decommissioning is to be deferred, money will have to be found for routine maintenance as well as capital upgrades.

There is a standoff between the would-be operators of small-scale new fields (who want the infrastructure to be preserved but don’t want to pay high fees) and the bigger legacy operators (who want to get on with decommissioning or charge significant fees to maintain the infrastructure for longer).

The dispute is often caricatured as a disagreement between entrepreneurial operators and stubborn greedy majors. In truth, it is a dispute about the costs of prolonging the life of the infrastructure and who should pay for them.

In a world where oil and gas were thought to be running out and prices were expected to keep on rising, it might have made sense to extend the useful life of the North Sea infrastructure. In a world of $60 oil, the economics are much more challenging.

Over the last 50 years, Britain has developed world-class expertise in offshore oil and gas engineering, which supports thousands of highly skilled jobs, and it would be a shame to lose it. But the industry’s future increasingly lies in selling that expertise abroad, rather than developing the North Sea itself.

Source - www.reuters.com
LT
6 november 1999: Margolies Daniel overleden. R.I.P. Werkte op ambassade in Leopoldstad
ID: 199911065544
Daniel F. Margolies '35 of Denver, Colo., died November 6, 1999. He worked for the Office of Strategic Services in London and Germany during WWII and was a prosecuting attorney at the Nuremberg trials. He began his career as cocounsel for the LaFollette Senate Committee on unfair labor practices and later worked in the Office of Price Administration and the Office of Economic Warfare. After the Nuremberg trials, he worked for the State Department and the Foreign Service, was the economics counsel in the U.S. Embassy in London and in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa), Congo, and was a foreign policy adviser to the Science Advisory Committee under Presidents Nixon and Johnson.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/backissues/sum2000/article11.html (20031018)
Land: COD
LT
opstand en rassenrellen in Los Angeles
ID: 199204291465
Los Angeles Riots 10 Years Later and the Likelyhood of Another Revolt



By Alejandro A. Alonso

Streetgangs.com Magazine



Los Angeles - Historians of the Black Urban experience have concentrated on New York and Chicago, tending to ignore the nation's second largest city, Los Angeles, yet the events in 1965 and 1992, the evolution of gangster rap music, the proliferation of gangs, sensational trials, and the growth of various forms of nationalism suggest that LA is a city worthy of deeper investigation. Gerald Horne was absolutely correct and several of these phenomena continue to shape and define Los Angeles in the 21st Century, such as the Rampart police investigation, the ouster of Chief of Police Bernard Parks, a recent significant increase in violence, and the upcoming trial of Robert Blake that will prove to have many eyes on LA for several weeks, but is the potential for another riot there?



Those of us old enough to remember August 1965, on that hot summer day when Marquette Frye was arrested for driving under the influence know how easy and how quickly a small protest can escalate into a full blown riot. The Watts riot surpassed all the riots of 1964 that occurred in New York City, Rochester, Jersey City, Paterson, Elizabeth, Chicago, and Philadelphia in loss of life, injuries, arrests, and structures damaged. National Guards men were called in, and six days later, on August 16, 1965 the revolt came to an end. It would take two massive strikes by Blacks during 1967 in Newark, and Detroit to overshadow the Watts Riots, but it would still remain a significant episode in the Black Revolution of the 1960s, as it became the focus of several analysis and studies. Also what made the situation in Watts and Los Angeles so perplexing was that Blacks in Los Angeles were ranked first among sixty-eight cities in quality of life. In 1964, an Urban League study analyzing aspects of life among Los Angeles Blacks stated that housing, employment, and income were highly ranked compared to other cities for Blacks.



Twenty-seven years later, civil unrest would revisit Los Angeles, and once again earn its place in history as the worst urban revolt in American history. On April 29, 1992, following the not guilty verdicts of four Los Angeles Police Officers accused of beating motorist Rodney King, violence erupted at the intersection of Florence and Normandie in South Los Angeles. At the same time, individuals at the corner of 67th Street and 11th Avenue were revolting against passer-bys and motorists. Black residents were outraged that four LAPD officers received not guilty verdicts from an all white jury in Simi Valley, despite the videotape evidence of the beating of Rodney King, and the testimonial by veteran police officers on behalf of the prosecution. From April 29, 1992 at approximately 3:30 p.m. until May 1st, the violence raged on. The National Guard were called in to bring calm to the city, and by Friday afternoon the violence and looting were subdued. The most violent urban revolt that the United States had ever experienced in the twentieth century resulted in 52 deaths, 2,499 injuries, 6,559 arrests, 1,120 building damaged, 2,314 stores damaged and close to 1 billion in damages.



The following day on Saturday, May 2, 1992, Pete Ueberroth accepted Mayor Tom Bradley's appointment to head the newly formed non-profit organization dubbed Rebuild L.A to revitalize the ravaged sections of Los Angeles. He vowed to create sustainable jobs in South Los Angeles by getting corporations to make long-term commitments to the damaged areas. This organization was described by the mayor's office as an "extra-governmental task force" to rebuild Los Angeles, and if successful, transform neighborhoods known for providing service sector jobs to areas of industry and manufacturing, utilizing trained workers. Unfortunately RLA fell short many of it goals and Pete Ueberroth, who was magical in producing a major profit from the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles was not able to foster the relationships and convince enough investors into South LA and he soon resigned from his post.



So is Los Angeles a more sustainable place for racial minorities to live today and does the potential for a riot loom in the near future? According to a recent poll, about 50% of those in Los Angeles believe that another riot could occur within several years, and those that claim a riot is inevitable point to the lack of economic stability in South Los Angeles as being the major reason why a riot can occur again. Magic Johnson's investments into Los Angeles are considered great efforts to build the community, especially his theater on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue in South LA, but black activists claim that coffee shops are not enough. If you look around Los Angeles and gage economic transformations in various places it is not difficult to see that South Los Angeles has received little attention from business and investors. In the last 10 years, areas that have seen major transformations in terms of economic development and business investment include Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood Blvd, Universal City and Pasadena.



I believe that investors need to be convincingly sold on the idea of South LA and that there are millions of dollars that can be spent in South LA. Are these attempts being made or are there attempts by so called leaders of the community stagnating and preventing these types of investments to occur? Office Depot, Target, Home Depot, and Starbucks are a few of the new retailers that are present in some of the exact places where the riots damaged property in 1992 and investors such as Magic Johnson definitely help, but the discussion on economics does not address the issue of the potential of another riot occurring in Los Angeles.



If we go back to 1992 and examine the precipitating factor of the riot, economics actually played a small role influencing the revolt. Yes, there was a recession in Los Angeles and around the country, unemployment was at an all time high, high levels of poverty probably exacerbated the riots that took place, but the critical events and underlying factors to the revolt were the beating of Rodney King in 1991, the probation sentence handed down on Sun Ja Doo, a Korean store clerk that shot Latasha Harlins, a 15 year old black girl, in the back of the head after a dispute over orange juice, and the acquittal of the four LAPD officers. In the Sun Ja Doo incident the jury came back with a second-degree murder conviction, but Judge Joyce Karlin, a white woman, did the unheard of when she sentenced Doo to five years probation. This is what I believe paved the way for the worst urban riot in contemporary history and the fact that over 50% of the damaged or destroyed property was Korean owned was no accident, and is the reason why many characterize this event as an uprising or a revolt. Although many of the images captured certainly show those acting as opportunists taking advantage of an unfortuate situation, at the same time there was an organized attack against Korean establishments within South LA and outside of the black community along Vermont and Western Avenues, north of the black community. Relations between blacks and Koreans in Los Angeles have often been full of tension and there is housing evidence that suggests that those tensions are still present in 2002.



The critical factors that influenced the events of April 29, 1992 all took place within the criminal justice sector of society with the police department central to the events. This is were we must look to address the question of a potential third Los Angeles riot. Chief Daryl Gates was held accountable for the type of relationship that was created between the police and minority communities in South LA and his response to the first day of the riot was considered dismal. Also let us not forget history, when in 1965 people took to the streets of Los Angeles in protest the day following alleged police abuses after the arrest of a Marquette Frye on 116th Street and Avalon. Chief William Parker was also highly criticized for the sharp divide that was created between the black community and the militaristic police, and resentment towards the police grew worse every year since Parker took over as Chief in 1950 up until the violence erupted in 1965. One indication of the increasing tension between the police and the community was the number of complaints that blacks filed between 1950 and 1965. Parker claimed no responsibility during a commission and when asked what sparked the riot he replied "someone threw a rock, and like monkeys in a zoo, they all started throwing rocks."



All of the seven race riots of 1964 were also sparked by an incident of police misconduct. The Otto Kerner Commission of 1968 stated that police actions led to outbreaks in half of the cases studied and those that believe that another revolt will take place will need to examine law enforcement and the criminal justice system. If the LAPD of LASD engage in any inappropriate activity such as excessive force or unlawful officer involved shootings, an outbreak of violence is definitely possible. Let us not forget what happened in Cincinnati in April 2001 when the shooting death of Timothy Thomas, 19, whose death touched off three days of riots. Cincinnati police officer Steven Roach was later found not guilty of negligent homicide in the shooting, but these are the types of events that will determine if Los Angeles will see part three. Under Bernard Parks inappropriate activity from the rank and file was highly unlikely with the disciplinary system that he had in place, but the actions of the next police chief may determine if what happened in 1965 and 1992 will occur again.



http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2002/042902tenyearslater.html (20030905)
Land: USA
Robert Gilman
The Idea Of Owning Land An old notion forged by the sword is quietly undergoing a profound transformation
ID: 198412210004
One of the articles in Living With The Land (IC#8)
Originally published in Winter 1984 on page 5
Copyright (c)1985, 1997 by Context Institute
HOWEVER NATURAL “owning” land may seem in our culture, in the long sweep of human existence, it is a fairly recent invention. Where did this notion come from? What does it really mean to “own” land? Why do we, in our culture, allow a person to draw lines in the dirt and then have almost complete control over what goes on inside those boundaries? What are the advantages, the disadvantages, and the alternatives? How might a humane and sustainable culture re-invent the “ownership” connection between people and the land?

These questions are unfamiliar (perhaps even uncomfortable) to much of our society, for our sense of “land ownership” is so deeply embedded in our fundamental cultural assumptions that we never stop to consider its implications or alternatives. Most people are at best only aware of two choices, two patterns, for land ownership – private ownership (which we associate with the industrial West) and state ownership (as in the Communist East).

Both of these patterns are full of problems and paradoxes. Private ownership enhances personal freedom (for those who are owners), but frequently leads to vast concentrations of wealth (even in the U.S., 75% of the privately held land is owned by 5% of the private landholders), and the effective denial of freedom and power to those without great wealth. State ownership muffles differences in wealth and some of the abuses of individualistic ownership, but replaces them with the often worse abuses of bureaucratic control.

Both systems treat the land as an inert resource to be exploited as fully as possible, often with little thought for the future or respect for the needs of non-human life. Both assume that land ownership goes with a kind of exclusive national sovereignty that is intimately connected to the logic of war.

In short, both systems seem to be leading us towards disaster, yet what other options are there?

The answer, fortunately, is that there are a number of promising alternatives. To understand them, however, we will need to begin by diving deeply into what ownership is and where it has come from.

THE HISTORICAL ROOTS

Beginnings Our feelings about ownership have very deep roots. Most animal life has a sense of territory – a place to be at home and to defend. Indeed, this territoriality seems to be associated with the oldest (reptilian) part the brain (see IN CONTEXT, #6) and forms a biological basis for our sense of property. It is closely associated with our sense of security and our instinctual “fight or flight” responses, all of which gives a powerful emotional dimension to our experience of ownership. Yet this biological basis does not determine the form that territoriality takes in different cultures.

Humans, like many of our primate cousins, engage in group (as well as individual) territoriality. Tribal groups saw themselves connected to particular territories – a place that was “theirs.” Yet their attitude towards the land was very different from ours. They frequently spoke of the land as their parent or as a sacred being, on whom they were dependent and to whom they owed loyalty and service. Among the aborigines of Australia, individuals would inherit a special relationship to sacred places, but rather than “ownership,” this relationship was more like being owned by the land. This sense of responsibility extended to ancestors and future generations as well. The Ashanti of Ghana say, “Land belongs to a vast family of whom many are dead, a few are living and a countless host are still unborn.”

For most of these tribal peoples, their sense of “land ownership” involved only the right to use and to exclude people of other tribes (but usually not members of their own). If there were any private rights, these were usually subject to review by the group and would cease if the land was no longer being used. The sale of land was either not even a possibility or not permitted. As for inheritance, every person had use rights simply by membership in the group, so a growing child would not have to wait until some other individual died (or pay a special fee) to gain full access to the land.

Early Agricultural Societies Farming made the human relationship to the land more concentrated. Tilling the land, making permanent settlements, etc., all meant a greater direct investment in a particular place. Yet this did not lead immediately to our present ideas of ownership. As best as is known, early farming communities continued to experience an intimate spiritual connection to the land, and they often held land in common under the control of a village council. This pattern has remained in many peasant communities throughout the world.

It was not so much farming directly, but the larger-than- tribal societies that could be based on farming that led to major changes in attitudes towards the land. Many of the first civilizations were centered around a supposedly godlike king, and it was a natural extension to go from the tribal idea that “the land belongs to the gods” to the idea that all of the kingdom belongs to the god-king. Since the god-king was supposed to personify the whole community, this was still a form of community ownership, but now personalized. Privileges of use and control of various types were distributed to the ruling elite on the basis of custom and politics.

As time went on, land took on a new meaning for these ruling elites. It became an abstraction, a source of power and wealth, a tool for other purposes. The name of the game became conquer, hold, and extract the maximum in tribute. Just as The Parable Of The Tribes (see IN CONTEXT, #7) would suggest, the human-human struggle for power gradually came to be the dominant factor shaping the human relationship to the land. This shift from seeing the land as a sacred mother to merely a commodity required deep changes throughout these cultures such as moving the gods and sacred beings into the sky where they could conveniently be as mobile as the ever changing boundaries of these empires.

The idea of private land ownership developed as a second step – partly in reaction to the power of the sovereign and partly in response to the opportunities of a larger-than- village economy. In the god-king societies, the privileges of the nobility were often easily withdrawn at the whim of the sovereign, and the importance of politics and raw power as the basis of ownership was rarely forgotten. To guard their power, the nobility frequently pushed for greater legal/customary recognition of their land rights. In the less centralized societies and in the occasional democracies and republics of this period, private ownership also developed in response to the breakdown of village cohesiveness. In either case, private property permitted the individual to be a “little king” of his/her own lands, imitating and competing against the claims of the state.

Later Developments By the early days of Greece and Rome, community common land, state or sovereign land, and private land all had strong traditions behind them. Plato and Aristotle both discussed various mixtures of private and state ownership in ideal societies, with Aristotle upholding the value of private ownership as a means of protecting diversity. As history progressed, the “great ownership debate” has continued between the champions of private interests and the champions of the state, with the idea of community common land often praised as an ideal, but in practice being gradually squeezed out of the picture. Feudal Europe was basically a system of sovereign ownership. The rise of commerce and then industrialism shifted power to the private ownership interests of the new middle class (as in the United States). The reaction against the abuses of industrialism during the past 150 years swung some opinion back again, bringing renewed interest in state ownership (as in the Communist countries).

As important as these swings have been historically, they have added essentially nothing to our basic understanding of, or attitudes about, ownership. Throughout the whole history of civilization land has been seen as primarily a source of power, and the whole debate around ownership has been, “To what extent will the state allow the individual to build a personal power base through land ownership rights?”

TAKING A FRESH LOOK

But the human-human power struggle is hardly the only, or even the most important, issue in our relationship to the land. Whatever happened to the tribal concerns about caring for the land and preserving it for future generations? What about issues like justice, human empowerment and economic efficiency? How about the rights of the land itself? If we are to move forward towards a planetary/ecological age, all of these questions and issues are going to need to be integrated into our relationship to the land. To do this we will have to get out beyond the narrow circle of the ideas and arguments of the past.

We have been talking about “ownership” as if it was an obvious, clear-cut concept: either you own (control) something or you don’t. For most people (throughout history) this has been a useful approximation, and it has been the basis of the “great ownership debate.” But if you try to pin it down (as lawyers must), you will soon discover that it is not so simple. As surprising as it may seem, our legal system has developed an understanding of “owning” that is significantly different from our common ideas and has great promise as the basis for a much more appropriate human relationship to the land.

Ownership Is A Bundle Of Rights The first step is to recognize that, rather than being one thing, what we commonly call “ownership” is in fact a whole group of legal rights that can be held by some person with respect to some “property.” In the industrial West, these usually include the right to:

use (or not use);
exclude others from using;
irreversibly change;
sell, give away or bequeath;
rent or lease;
retain all rights not specifically granted to others;
retain these rights without time limit or review.
These rights are usually not absolute, for with them go certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes, being liable for suits brought against the property, and abiding by the laws of the land. If these laws include zoning laws, building codes, and environmental protection laws, you may find that your rights to use and irreversibly change are not as unlimited as you thought. Nevertheless, within a wide range you are the monarch over your property.

No One Owns Land Each of these rights can be modified independent of the others, either by law or by the granting of an easement to some other party, producing a bewildering variety of legal conditions. How much can you modify the above conditions and still call it “ownership”? To understand the answer to this, we are going to have to make a very important distinction. In spite of the way we normally talk, no one ever “owns land”..In our legal system you can only own rights to land, you can’t directly own (that is, have complete claim to) the land itself. You can’t even own all the rights since the state always retains the right of eminent domain. For example, what happens when you sell an easement to the power company so that they can run power lines across you land? They then own the rights granted in that easement, you own most of the other rights, the state owns the right of eminent domain – but no single party owns “the land.” You can carry this as far as you like, dividing the rights up among many “owners,” all of whom will have a claim on some aspect of the land.

The wonderful thing about this distinction is that it shifts the whole debate about land ownership away from the rigid state-vs.-individual, all-or-nothing battle to the much more flexible question of who (including community groups, families, etc. as well as the state and the individual) should have which rights. This shift could be as important as the major improvement in governance that came with the shift from monolithic power (as in a monarchy) to “division of powers” (as exemplified in the U.S. Constitution with its semi-independent legislative, executive and judicial branches).

Legitimate Interests How might the problems associated with exclusive ownership (either private or state) be solved by a “division of rights” approach? To answer this, we need to first consider what are the legitimate interests that need to be included in this new approach. If we are to address all the concerns appropriate for a humane sustainable culture we need to recognize that the immediate user of the land (be that a household or a business), the local community, the planetary community, future generations, and all of life, all have legitimate interests. What are these interests?

The immediate users need the freedom to be personally (or corporately) expressive, creative, and perhaps even eccentric. They need to be able to invest energy and caring into the land with reasonable security that the use of the land will not be arbitrarily taken away and that the full equity value of improvements made to the land will be available to them either through continued use or through resale should they choose to move.
The local community needs optimal use of the land within it, without having land held arbitrarily out of use by absentee landlords. It needs to be able to benefit from the equity increases in the land itself due to the overall development of the community, and it needs security that its character will not be forced to change through inappropriate land use decisions made by those outside the community or those leaving the community.
The planetary community, future generations, and all of life need sustainable use – the assurance that ecosystems and topsoil that have been developed over hundreds of thousands of years will not be casually destroyed; that the opportunities for life will be enhanced; that non-renewal resources will be used efficiently and for long term beneficial purposes. This larger community also needs meaningful recognition that the earth is our common heritage.
Is it possible to blend these various interests in a mutually supportive way, rather than seeing them locked in a power struggle? The answer, fortunately, is yes. Perhaps the best developed alternative legal form that does this is called a land trust.

LAND TRUSTS

A land trust is a non-governmental organization (frequently a non-profit corporation) that divides land rights between immediate users and their community. It is being used in a number of places around the world including India, Israel, Tanzania, and the United States. Of the many types of land trusts, we will focus here on three – conservation trusts, community trusts, and stewardship trusts. These will be discussed in more detail in other articles in this section, but an initial overview now will help to draw together many of the threads we have developed so far.

In a conservation land trust, the purpose is generally to preserve some aspect of the natural environment. A conservation trust may do this by the full ownership of some piece of land that it then holds as wilderness, or it may simply own “development rights” to an undeveloped piece. What are development rights? When the original owner sells or grants development rights to the conservation trust, they put an easement (a legal restriction) on the land that prevents them or any future owners from developing the land without the agreement of the conservation trust. They have let go of the right to “irreversibly change” listed above. The conservation trust then holds these rights with the intention of preventing development. The Trust For Public Land (82 Second St, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415/495-4015) helps community groups establish conservation and agricultural land trusts.

A community land trust (CLT) has as its purpose removing land from the speculative market and making it available to those who will use it for the long term benefit of the community. A CLT generally owns full title to its lands and grants long term (like 99-year) renewable leases to those who will actually use the land. Appropriate uses for the land are determined by the CLT in a process comparable to public planning or zoning. Lease fees vary from one CLT to another, but they are generally more than taxes and insurance, less than typical mortgage payments, and less than full rental cost. The lease holders have many of the use and security rights we normally associate with ownership. They own the buildings on the land and can take full benefit from improvements they make to the land. They can not, however, sell the land nor can they usually rent or lease it without the consent of the trust. The Institute For Community Economics (57 School St. Springfield, MA 01105, 413/746-8660) is one of the major support groups for the creation of community land trusts in both urban and rural settings.

The stewardship trust combines features of both the conservation trust and the CLT, and is being used now primarily by intentional communities and non-profit groups such as schools. The groups using the land (the stewards) generally pay less than in a normal CLT, but there are more definite expectations about the care and use they give to the land.

In each one of these types, the immediate users (nonhuman as well as human) have clear rights which satisfy all of their legitimate use needs. The needs of the local community are met through representation on the board of directors of the trust which can enforce general land use standards. The larger community usually has some representation on the trust’s board as well. Thus by dividing what we normally think of as ownership into “stewardship” (the users) and “trusteeship” (the trust organization), land trusts are pioneering an approach that better meets all the legitimate interests.

The system is, of course, still limited by the integrity and the attitudes of the people involved. Nor are current land trusts necessarily the model for “ownership” in a humane sustainable culture. But they show what can be done and give us a place to build from. I’ll explore more of where we might build to in a later article, but now lets turn to other perspectives and experiences with going beyond ownership.

Bibliography

Chaudhuri, Joyotpaul, Possession, Ownership And Access: A Jeffersonian View (Political Inquiry, Vol 1, No 1, Fall 1973).

Denman, D.R., The Place Of Property (London: Geographical Publications Ltd, 1978).

Institute For Community Economics, The Community Land Trust Handbook (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 1982).

International Independence Institute, The Community Land Trust (Cambridge, MA: Center For Community Economic Development, 1972).

Macpherson, C.B., Property: Mainstream And Critical Positions (Toronto: Univ Of Toronto Press, 1978).

Schlatter, Richard, Private Property: The History Of An Idea (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1951).

Scott, William B., In Pursuit Of Happiness: American Conceptions Of Property (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977).

Tully, James, A Discourse On Property: John Locke And His Adversaries (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 1980).

Land Rights

by John Talbot

IT WAS NOT so long ago in human history that the rights of all humans were not acknowledged, even in the democracies. Slavery was only abolished a few generations ago. In the same way that we have come to see human rights as being inherent, so we are now beginning to recognize land rights, and by land I mean all life that lives and takes its nourishment from it, as well as the soil and earth itself. Once we have understood and accepted that idea, we can truly enter into a cooperative relationship with Nature. I’m not talking about living in fear of disturbing anything or a totally “hands off nature” angry ecologist view, but simply acknowledging the right to be of land and nature, and that when we do “disturb” it we do so with sensitivity and respect, doing our best to be in harmony with what is already there.

Being in harmony, apart from being a very subjective state, may not always be possible: for example in the case of putting a house down where once there wasn’t one. But we as humans have needs too. Nature knows that and is, I believe, quite willing to accommodate us. Our responsibility is, however, to act consciously and with the attitude of respect and desire for cooperation. It is no different from respecting other people’s rights in our interactions, being courteous and sensitive to their needs and feelings. This attitude toward the land is almost universally held by aboriginal and native peoples, from the Bushman to the Native American Indians to the tribes of the South Pacific. Earth Etiquette, you might say.

Following directly from that is the principle that you cannot really buy, sell or own the land. Just as we cannot (or should not) own slaves of our own species, we would not make slaves of animals, plants or the land and nature in general. Sounds easy but I feel this represents a very profound and fundamental change in human attitudes; one that takes thought, effort and time to reprogram in ourselves.
Che Guevara
Che Guevara: laatste speech in Algiers; vermeldt België als neocolonialistisch land; Congo
ID: 196502242001
Spoken: February 24, 1965
First Published:
Source: The Che Reader, Ocean Press, © 2005.
Translated: unknown.
Transcription/Markup: Ocean Press/Brian Baggins

This speech was delivered at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity. The conference, held in Algiers, Algeria, was attended by representatives from 63 African and Asian governments, as well as 19 national liberation movements. The meeting was opened by Algerian President Ahmed Ben Bella. Cuba was invited as an observer to the conference, and Guevara served on its presiding committee.

Cuba is here at this conference to speak on behalf of the peoples of Latin America.[19] As we have emphasized on other occasions, Cuba also speaks as an underdeveloped country as well as one that is building socialism.

It is not by accident that our delegation is permitted to give its opinion here, in the circle of the peoples of Asia and Africa.[20] A common aspiration unites us in our march toward the future: the defeat of imperialism. A common past of struggle against the same enemy has united us along the road.

This is an assembly of peoples in struggle, and the struggle is developing on two equally important fronts that require all our efforts. The struggle against imperialism, for liberation from colonial or neocolonial shackles, which is being carried out by means of political weapons, arms, or a combination of the two, is not separate from the struggle against backwardness and poverty. Both are stages on the same road leading toward the creation of a new society of justice and plenty.

It is imperative to take political power and to get rid of the oppressor classes. But then the second stage of the struggle, which may be even more difficult than the first, must be faced.

Ever since monopoly capital took over the world, it has kept the greater part of humanity in poverty, dividing all the profits among the group of the most powerful countries. The standard of living in those countries is based on the extreme poverty of our countries. To raise the living standards of the underdeveloped nations, therefore, we must fight against imperialism. And each time a country is torn away from the imperialist tree, it is not only a partial battle won against the main enemy but it also contributes to the real weakening of that enemy, and is one more step toward the final victory. There are no borders in this struggle to the death. We cannot be indifferent to what happens anywhere in the world, because a victory by any country over imperialism is our victory, just as any country's defeat is a defeat for all of us. The practice of proletarian internationalism is not only a duty for the peoples struggling for a better future, it is also an inescapable necessity.

If the imperialist enemy, the United States or any other, carries out its attack against the underdeveloped peoples and the socialist countries, elementary logic determines the need for an alliance between the underdeveloped peoples and the socialist countries. If there were no other uniting factor, the common enemy should be enough.[21]

Of course, these alliances cannot be made spontaneously, without discussions, without birth pangs, which sometimes can be painful. We said that each time a country is liberated it is a defeat for the world imperialist system. But we must agree that the break is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. It is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end. Therefore, it is a matter of vital interest to the socialist countries for a real break to take place. And it is our international duty, a duty determined by our guiding ideology, to contribute our efforts to make this liberation as rapid and deep-going as possible.

A conclusion must be drawn from all this: the socialist countries must help pay for the development of countries now starting out on the road to liberation. We state it this way with no intention whatsoever of blackmail or dramatics, nor are we looking for an easy way to get closer to the Afro- Asian peoples; it is our profound conviction. Socialism cannot exist without a change in consciousness resulting in a new fraternal attitude toward humanity, both at an individual level, within the societies where socialism is being built or has been built, and on a world scale, with regard to all peoples suffering from imperialist oppression.

We believe the responsibility of aiding dependent countries must be approached in such a spirit. There should be no more talk about developing mutually beneficial trade based on prices forced on the backward countries by the law of value and the international relations of unequal exchange that result from the law of value.[22]

How can it be “mutually beneficial” to sell at world market prices the raw materials that cost the underdeveloped countries immeasurable sweat and suffering, and to buy at world market prices the machinery produced in today's big automated factories?

If we establish that kind of relation between the two groups of nations, we must agree that the socialist countries are, in a certain way, accomplices of imperialist exploitation. It can be argued that the amount of exchange with the underdeveloped countries is an insignificant part of the foreign trade of the socialist countries. That is very true, but it does not eliminate the immoral character of that exchange.

The socialist countries have the moral duty to put an end to their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the West. The fact that the trade today is small means nothing. In 1959 Cuba only occasionally sold sugar to some socialist bloc countries, usually through English brokers or brokers of other nationalities. Today 80 percent of Cuba's trade is with that area. All its vital supplies come from the socialist camp, and in fact it has joined that camp. We cannot say that this entrance into the socialist camp was brought about merely by the increase in trade. Nor was the increase in trade brought about by the destruction of the old structures and the adoption of the socialist form of development. Both sides of the question intersect and are interrelated.

We did not start out on the road that ends in communism foreseeing all steps as logically predetermined by an ideology advancing toward a fixed goal. The truths of socialism, plus the raw truths of imperialism, forged our people and showed them the path that we have now taken consciously. To advance toward their own complete liberation, the peoples of Asia and Africa must take the same path. They will follow it sooner or later, regardless of what modifying adjective their socialism may take today.

For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of one human being by another. As long as this has not been achieved, if we think we are in the stage of building socialism but instead of ending exploitation the work of suppressing it comes to a halt — or worse, is reversed — then we cannot even speak of building socialism.[23] We have to prepare conditions so that our brothers and sisters can directly and consciously take the path of the complete abolition of exploitation, but we cannot ask them to take that path if we ourselves are accomplices in that exploitation. If we were asked what methods are used to establish fair prices, we could not answer because we do not know the full scope of the practical problems involved. All we know is that, after political discussions, the Soviet Union and Cuba have signed agreements advantageous to us, by means of which we will sell five million tons of sugar at prices set above those of the so-called free world sugar market. The People's Republic of China also pays those prices in buying from us.

This is only a beginning. The real task consists of setting prices that will permit development. A great shift in ideas will be involved in changing the order of international relations. Foreign trade should not determine policy, but should, on the contrary, be subordinated to a fraternal policy toward the peoples.

Let us briefly analyze the problem of long-term credits for developing basic industries. Frequently we find that beneficiary countries attempt to establish an industrial base disproportionate to their present capacity. The products will not be consumed domestically and the country's reserves will be risked in the undertaking.

Our thinking is as follows: The investments of the socialist states in their own territory come directly out of the state budget, and are recovered only by use of the products throughout the entire manufacturing process, down to the finished goods. We propose that some thought be given to the possibility of making these kinds of investments in the underdeveloped countries. In this way we could unleash an immense force, hidden in our continents, which have been exploited miserably but never aided in their development. We could begin a new stage of a real international division of labor, based not on the history of what has been done up to now but rather on the future history of what can be done.

The states in whose territories the new investments are to be made would have all the inherent rights of sovereign property over them with no payment or credit involved. But they would be obligated to supply agreed-upon quantities of products to the investor countries for a certain number of years at set prices.

The method for financing the local portion of expenses incurred by a country receiving investments of this kind also deserves study. The supply of marketable goods on long-term credits to the governments of underdeveloped countries could be one form of aid not requiring the contribution of freely convertible hard currency.

Another difficult problem that must be solved is the mastering of technology. [24] The shortage of technicians in underdeveloped countries is well known to us all. Educational institutions and teachers are lacking. Sometimes we lack a real understanding of our needs and have not made the decision to carry out a top-priority policy of technical, cultural and ideological development.

The socialist countries should supply the aid to organize institutions for technical education. They should insist on the great importance of this and should supply technical cadres to fill the present need. It is necessary to further emphasize this last point. The technicians who come to our countries must be exemplary. They are comrades who will face a strange environment, often one hostile to technology, with a different language and totally different customs. The technicians who take on this difficult task must be, first of all, communists in the most profound and noble sense of the word. With this single quality, plus a modicum of flexibility and organization, wonders can be achieved.

We know this can be done. Fraternal countries have sent us a certain number of technicians who have done more for the development of our country than 10 institutes, and have contributed more to our friendship than 10 ambassadors or 100 diplomatic receptions.

If we could achieve the above-listed points — and if all the technology of the advanced countries could be placed within reach of the underdeveloped countries, unhampered by the present system of patents, which prevents the spread of inventions of different countries — we would progress a great deal in our common task.

Imperialism has been defeated in many partial battles. But it remains a considerable force in the world. We cannot expect its final defeat save through effort and sacrifice on the part of us all.

The proposed set of measures, however, cannot be implemented unilaterally. The socialist countries should help pay for the development of the underdeveloped countries, we agree. But the underdeveloped countries must also steel their forces to embark resolutely on the road of building a new society — whatever name one gives it — where the machine, an instrument of labor, is no longer an instrument for the exploitation of one human being by another. Nor can the confidence of the socialist countries be expected by those who play at balancing between capitalism and socialism, trying to use each force as a counterweight in order to derive certain advantages from such competition. A new policy of absolute seriousness should govern the relations between the two groups of societies. It is worth emphasizing once again that the means of production should preferably be in the hands of the state, so that the marks of exploitation may gradually disappear. Furthermore, development cannot be left to complete improvisation. It is necessary to plan the construction of the new society. Planning is one of the laws of socialism, and without it, socialism would not exist. Without correct planning there can be no adequate guarantee that all the various sectors of a country's economy will combine harmoniously to take the leaps forward that our epoch demands.

Planning cannot be left as an isolated problem of each of our small countries, distorted in their development, possessors of some raw materials or producers of some manufactured or semimanufactured goods, but lacking in most others.[25] From the outset, planning should take on a certain regional dimension in order to intermix the various national economies, and thus bring about integration on a basis that is truly of mutual benefit. We believe the road ahead is full of dangers, not dangers conjured up or foreseen in the distant future by some superior mind but palpable dangers deriving from the realities besetting us. The fight against colonialism has reached its final stages, but in the present era colonial status is only a consequence of imperialist domination. As long as imperialism exists it will, by definition, exert its domination over other countries. Today that domination is called neocolonialism.

Neocolonialism developed first in South America, throughout a whole continent, and today it begins to be felt with increasing intensity in Africa and Asia. Its forms of penetration and development have different characteristics. One is the brutal form we have seen in the Congo. Brute force, without any respect or concealment whatsoever, is its extreme weapon. There is another more subtle form: penetration into countries that win political independence, linking up with the nascent local bourgeoisies, development of a parasitic bourgeois class closely allied to the interests of the former colonizers. This development is based on a certain temporary rise in the people's standard of living, because in a very backward country the simple step from feudal to capitalist relations marks a big advance, regardless of the dire consequences for the workers in the long run.

Neocolonialism has bared its claws in the Congo. That is not a sign of strength but of weakness. It had to resort to force, its extreme weapon, as an economic argument, which has generated very intense opposing reactions. But at the same time a much more subtle form of neocolonialism is being practiced in other countries of Africa and Asia. It is rapidly bringing about what some have called the South Americanization of these continents; that is, the development of a parasitic bourgeoisie that adds nothing to the national wealth of their countries but rather deposits its huge ill-gotten profits in capitalist banks abroad, and makes deals with foreign countries to reap more profits with absolute disregard for the welfare of the people. There are also other dangers, such as competition between fraternal countries, which are politically friendly and sometimes neighbors, as both try to develop the same investments simultaneously to produce for markets that often cannot absorb the increased volume. This competition has the disadvantage of wasting energies that could be used to achieve much greater economic coordination; furthermore, it gives the imperialist monopolies room to maneuver.

When it has been impossible to carry out a given investment project with the aid of the socialist camp, there have been occasions when the project has been accomplished by signing agreements with the capitalists. Such capitalist investments have the disadvantage not only of the terms of the loans but other, much more important disadvantages as well, such as the establishment of joint ventures with a dangerous neighbor. Since these investments in general parallel those made in other states, they tend to cause divisions between friendly countries by creating economic rivalries. Furthermore, they create the dangers of corruption flowing from the constant presence of capitalism, which is very skillful in conjuring up visions of advancement and well-being to fog the minds of many people. Some time later, prices drop in the market saturated by similar products. The affected countries are obliged to seek new loans, or to permit additional investments in order to compete. The final consequences of such a policy are the fall of the economy into the hands of the monopolies, and a slow but sure return to the past. As we see it, the only safe method for investments is direct participation by the state as the sole purchaser of the goods, limiting imperialist activity to contracts for supplies and not letting them set one foot inside our house. And here it is just and proper to take advantage of interimperialist contradictions in order to secure the least burdensome terms.

We have to watch out for “disinterested” economic, cultural and other aid that imperialism grants directly or through puppet states, which gets a better reception in some parts of the world.

If all of these dangers are not seen in time, some countries that began their task of national liberation with faith and enthusiasm may find themselves on the neocolonial road, as monopoly domination is subtly established step by step so that its effects are difficult to discern until they brutally make themselves felt.

There is a big job to be done. Immense problems confront our two worlds — that of the socialist countries and that called the Third World — problems directly concerning human beings and their welfare, and related to the struggle against the main force that bears the responsibility for our backwardness. In the face of these problems, all countries and peoples conscious of their duties, of the dangers involved in the situation, of the sacrifices required by development, must take concrete steps to cement our friendship in the two fields that can never be separated: the economic and the political. We should organize a great solid bloc that, in its turn, helps new countries to free themselves not only from the political power of imperialism but also from its economic power.

The question of liberation by armed struggle from an oppressor political power should be dealt with in accordance with the rules of proletarian internationalism. In a socialist country at war, it would be absurd to conceive of a factory manager demanding guaranteed payment before shipping to the front the tanks produced by his factory. It ought to seem no less absurd to inquire of a people fighting for liberation, or needing arms to defend its freedom, whether or not they can guarantee payment.

Arms cannot be commodities in our world. They must be delivered to the peoples asking for them to use against the common enemy, with no charge and in the quantities needed and available. That is the spirit in which the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have offered us their military aid. We are socialists; we constitute a guarantee of the proper utilization of those arms. But we are not the only ones, and all of us should receive the same treatment.

The reply to the ominous attacks by U.S. imperialism against Vietnam or the Congo should be to supply those sister countries with all the defense equipment they need, and to offer them our full solidarity without any conditions whatsoever.

In the economic field we must conquer the road to development with the most advanced technology possible. We cannot set out to follow the long ascending steps from feudalism to the nuclear and automated era. That would be a road of immense and largely useless sacrifice. We have to start from technology at its current level. We have to make the great technological leap forward that will reduce the current gap between the more developed countries and ourselves. Technology must be applied to the large factories and also to a properly developed agriculture. Above all, its foundation must be technological and ideological education, with a sufficient mass base and strength to sustain the research institutes and organizations that have to be created in each country, as well as the men and women who will use the existing technology and be capable of adapting themselves to the newly mastered technology.

These cadres must have a clear awareness of their duty to the society in which they live. There cannot be adequate technological education if it is not complemented by ideological education; without technological education, in most of our countries, there cannot be an adequate foundation for industrial development, which is what determines the development of a modern society, or the most basic consumer goods and adequate schooling. A good part of the national revenues must be spent on so-called unproductive investment in education. And priority must be given to the development of agricultural productivity. The latter has reached truly incredible levels in many capitalist countries, producing the senseless crisis of overproduction and a surplus of grain and other food products or industrial raw materials in the developed countries. While the rest of the world goes hungry, these countries have enough land and labor to produce several times over what is needed to feed the entire world. Agriculture must be considered a fundamental pillar of our development. Therefore, a fundamental aspect of our work should be changes in the agrarian structure, and adaptation to the new technological possibilities and to the new obligations of eliminating the exploitation of human beings.

Before making costly decisions that could cause irreparable damage, a careful survey of the national territory is needed. This is one of the preliminary steps in economic research and a basic prerequisite for correct planning. We warmly support Algeria's proposal for institutionalizing our relations. We would just like to make some supplementary suggestions: First: in order for the union to be an instrument in the struggle against imperialism, the cooperation of Latin American countries and an alliance with the socialist countries is necessary.

Second: we should be vigilant in preserving the revolutionary character of the union, preventing the admission into it of governments or movements not identified with the general aspirations of the people, and creating mechanisms that would permit the separation from it of any government or popular movement diverging from the just road.

Third: we must advocate the establishment of new relations on an equal footing between our countries and the capitalist ones, creating a revolutionary jurisprudence to defend ourselves in case of conflict, and to give new meaning to the relations between ourselves and the rest of the world. We speak a revolutionary language and we fight honestly for the victory of that cause. But frequently we entangle ourselves in the nets of an international law created as the result of confrontations between the imperialist powers, and not by the free peoples, the just peoples, in the course of their struggles.

For example, our peoples suffer the painful pressure of foreign bases established on their territories, or they have to carry the heavy burden of massive foreign debts. The story of these throwbacks is well known to all of us. Puppet governments, governments weakened by long struggles for liberation or the operation of the laws of the capitalist market, have allowed treaties that threaten our internal stability and jeopardize our future. Now is the time to throw off the yoke, to force renegotiation of oppressive foreign debts, and to force the imperialists to abandon their bases of aggression. I would not want to conclude these remarks, this recitation of concepts you all know, without calling the attention of this gathering to the fact that Cuba is not the only Latin American country; it is simply the only one that has the opportunity of speaking before you today. Other peoples are shedding their blood to win the rights we have. When we send our greetings from here, and from all the conferences and the places where they may be held, to the heroic peoples of Vietnam, Laos, so-called Portuguese Guinea, South Africa, or Palestine — to all exploited countries fighting for their emancipation — we must simultaneously extend our voice of friendship, our hand and our encouragement, to our fraternal peoples in Venezuela, Guatemala and Colombia, who today, arms in hand, are resolutely saying “No!” to the imperialist enemy.

Few settings from which to make this declaration are as symbolic as Algiers, one of the most heroic capitals of freedom. May the magnificent Algerian people — schooled as few others in sufferings for independence, under the decisive leadership of its party, headed by our dear compañero Ahmed Ben Bella — serve as an inspiration to us in this fight without quarter against world imperialism.

[19]. Che Guevara delivered this speech at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro- Asian Solidarity, February 24, 1965. He had been touring Africa since December, after addressing the United Nations General Assembly on December 11, 1964. At this crucial time Che was preparing for his involvement in the liberation movement in the Congo, which began in April 1965. This edition of the speech incorporates for the first time corrections made by Che Guevara to the original published version of the Algiers speech. The corrections were made available from the personal archive of Che Guevara held at the Che Guevara Studies Center, Havana.

[20]. Che's participation in the Algiers conference reflects the relationship of Cuba to the Third World. In 1959, following the triumph of the revolution, from June to September, Che embarked on a tour of the countries involved in the Bandung Pact. The Bandung Pact was the precursor to what later became the Movement of Nonaligned Nations. At the First Seminar on Planning in Algeria on July 16, 1963, Che had outlined the experiences of the Cuban Revolution, explaining that he had accepted the invitation to attend “only in order to offer a little history of our economic development, of our mistakes and successes, which might prove useful to you some time in the near future...”

[21]. In this speech Che defined very precisely his revolutionary thesis for the Third World and the integration of the struggle for national liberation with socialist ideas. Che's call in Algeria on the socialist countries to give unconditional and radical support to the Third World provoked much debate. Nevertheless, history would prove him correct.

[22]. This definition of unequal exchange was part of Che's profound appeal made in Geneva on March 25, 1964, at the UN World Conference on Economics and Development in the Third World: “It is our duty to... draw to the attention of those present that while the status quo is maintained and justice is determined by powerful interests... it will be difficult to eliminate the prevailing tensions that endanger humankind.”

[23]. For Che, socialism inherently meant overcoming exploitation as an essential step toward a just and humane society. Che was outspoken on this issue in debates and was often misunderstood, as was his emphasis on the need for international unity in the struggle for socialism. Che's idea was that the international socialist forces would contribute to the economic and social development of the peoples that liberated themselves.

[24]. Che's direct participation from 1959 to 1965 in the construction of a technological and material basis for Cuban society is strongly linked to his idea of creating the new man and woman. This is a question that he constantly returned to, considering it one of the two main pillars on which a new society would be constructed. His strategy was not only to solve immediate problems but to put in place certain structures that would secure Cuba's future scientific and technological development. He was able to advance this strategy during his time as head of the Ministry of Industry. For further reading on this topic, see his speeches: “May the Universities be Filled with Negroes, Mulattos, Workers and Peasants” (1960) and “Youth and Revolution” (1964).

[25]. In his efforts to understand fully the tasks in the transition to a socialist economy, Che came to see the vital role of economic planning, especially in the construction of a socialist economy in an underdeveloped country that retained elements of capitalism. Planning is necessary because it represents the first human attempt to control economic forces and characterizes this transitional period. He warned also of the trend within socialism to reform the economic system by strengthening the market, material interests and the law of value. To counter this trend, Che advocated centralized, antibureaucratic planning that enriched consciousness. His idea was to use conscious and organized action as the fundamental driving force of planning. For further reading see his article “The Significance of Socialist Planning” (1964).
Land: COD
LT
MILL John Stuart (1806-1873): politieke economie, vrijheid en gezag
ID: 180605204545
John Stuart Mill (20 mei 1806 – 8 mei 1873) was een Engels filosoof en econoom, en de meest invloedrijke vrije denker van de 19e eeuw. Hij was een voorstander van het utilitarisme, de ethische theorie die voorgesteld werd door zijn peetvader Jeremy Bentham.

John Stuart Mill werd geboren in zijn vaders huis in Pentonville, Londen, als de oudste zoon van James Mill. Hij kreeg zijn onderwijs van zijn vader, met advies en assistentie van Jeremy Bentham en Francis Place. Hij kreeg een strenge opvoeding en werd nadrukkelijk afgeschermd van andere jongens van zijn leeftijd. Zijn vader, een navolger van Bentham, had als zijn specifieke doel om een genieus intellect te creëren dat de doelen en uitvoering van het utilisme zou doen verder leven na de dood van Bentham en hemzelf.

Tegen de tijd dat hij drie was kon hij het Griekse alfabet opnoemen, en toen hij acht werd had hij Aesopus' 'Fabels' gelezen en wist hij van Plato. In 1818 begon hij aan een studie logica en het jaar erop kreeg hij te maken met politieke economie.

Hij publiceerde zijn eerste belangrijke boek in 1842, The system of logic. Een van de belangrijkste theorieën is het beginsel van causaliteit – Als A altijd door B wordt gevolgd, kan worden verondersteld dat dit in de toekomst ook altijd zo zal zijn.

In 1869 publiceerde hij Subjection of Women, waarin hij de vrouwenrechten verdedigde. Hij was dan al vier jaar parlementslid waar hij eveneens ijverde voor het vrouwenkiesrecht en de vooruitstrevende liberalen steunde. Zijn vrouw Henriëtte, die in 1858 stierf, zou het boek geschreven hebben, maar op haar naam mocht het niet worden uitgegeven. Tot op de dag van vandaag staat het boek officieel op naam van John Stuart Mill.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill (20070226)

Writings by John Stuart Mill

[books / book excerpts]

· The Logic of the Moral Sciences. Excerpted from A System of Logic. London, 1843, 8th ed. 1872. [French translation]

· Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. London, 1844.

· Principles of Political Economy. London, 1848, 7th ed. 1871.

· On Liberty. London, 1859. [French translation]

· Dissertations and Discussions. London, 1859, 4th ed. 1882.

· Considerations on Representative Government. London, 1861.

· Utilitarianism. London, 1863. Reprinted from Fraser's Magazine, 1861. [French translation]

· Auguste Comte and Positivism. London, 1865. Reprinted from Westminster Review, 1865. [French translation]

· An Examination of Sir Hamilton's Philosophy. London, 1865.

· The Subjection of Women. London, 1869. [French translation] [Spanish translation]

· Autobiography. London, 1873. [French translation]

· Three Essays on Religion [Nature + Utility of Religion + Theism]. London, 1874.

· Chapters on Socialism. Fortnightly Review, 1879.

[articles]

· Free Discussion (1). Morning Chronicle, 1823.

· Free Discussion (2). Morning Chronicle, 1823.

· Free Discussion (3). Morning Chronicle, 1823.

· A Defense of Bentham. Excerpted from 'Whewell on Moral Philosophy'. Westminster Review, 1836.

· Note on N. W. Senior's Political Economy. In Senior's Outline of the Science of Political Economy, London, 1836.

· The Negro Question. Fraser's Magazine, 1850.

· Bentham. 1838, 2nd ed. 1859.

· The Contest in America. Fraser's Magazine, 1862.

· Inaugural Address. Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, 1867.

· Meetings in Royal Parks. Delivered in Parliament, 1867.

· Speech in Favour of Capital Punishment. Delivered in Parliament, 1868.

· Thornton on Labour and its Claims. Fortnightly Review, 1869.

· Theism. In Three Essays on Religion, London, 1874.

· Nature. In Three Essays on Religion, London, 1874.

· Utility of Religion. In Three Essays on Religion, London, 1874.

[letters]

· To James Mill. April 25, 1821.

· To ? March 18, 1840.

· To Gustave D'Eichthal. January 10, 1842.

· To ? May 13, 1865.

· To a Gentleman in Ohio. September 1, 1865.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Writings about John Stuart Mill

[dictionary / encyclopaedia entries]

· John Stuart Mill. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature.

· John Stuart Mill. The Columbia Encyclopedia.

· John Stuart Mill. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

· John Stuart Mill. Encyclopædia Britannica.

· John Stuart Mill. Encyclopædia Britannica (1911).

· John Stuart Mill. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

· John Stuart Mill. Island of Freedom.

· John Stuart Mill. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism.

· John Stuart Mill. The Literary Encyclopedia.

· John Stuart Mill. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy.

· John Stuart Mill. Spartacus Educational.

· John Stuart Mill. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

· John Stuart Mill. Wikipedia.

[other writings]

· Law Reform in England. The United States Democratic Review, 1851.

· John Stuart Mill and his Residence. Anonymous. Littell's Living Age, 1868.

· John Stuart Mill. By G. M. Towle. Appleton's Journal, 1870.

· John Stuart Mill. By M. D. Conway. Harper's New Monthly Magazine, 1873.

· The Reality of Duty. Anonymous. Littell's Living Age, 1876.

· John Stuart Mill (I). By Lyell Adams. New Englander and Yale Review, 1877.

· John Stuart Mill (II). By Lyell Adams. New Englander and Yale Review, 1877.

· John Stuart Mill (III). By Lyell Adams. New Englander and Yale Review, 1877.

· John Stuart Mill and the Destruction of Theism. By President Shairp. Princeton Review, 1878.

· James and John Stuart Mill. Littell's Living Age, 1882.

· John Stuart Mill and the London and Westminster Review. By C. Marion D. Robertson Towers. The Atlantic Monthly, 1892.

· A Letter to John Stuart Mill. By Winthrop More Daniels. The Atlantic Monthly, 1900.

· John Stuart Mill. By Leslie Stephen. In The English Utilitarians. London, 1900, vol. III.

· Variations in the Editions of J. S. Mill's Principles of Political Economy. By M. A. Ellis. Economic Journal, 1906.

· Biography. By O. M. W. Sprague. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Cambridge, 1921.

· John Stuart Mill: Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations. By John Gray. Literature and Liberty, 1979.

· Early Buddhism and John Stuart Mill's Thinking. By Vijitha Rajapakse. Philosophy East and West, 1987.

· J. S. Mill: the Utilitarian Influence in the Demise of laissez-faire. By Ellen Frankel Paul. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1978.

· Wallace's Campaign to Nationalize Land. By M. Gaffney. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, October 1, 1997.

· Utility and Preferences. By Soshichi Uchii. October 25, 1998.

· The Worm at the Root of the Passions: Poetry and Sympathy in Mill's Utilitarianism. By L. A. Paul. Utilitas, 1998.

· The Carlyle-Mill "Negro Question" Debate. ca. 2000.

· Mill, Liberty, and the Facts of Life. By Shannon C. Stimson and Murray Milgate. 2001.

· Mill's "Proof" of the Principle of Utility. By Geoffrey Sayre-McCord. Social Philosophy and Policy, 2001.

· J.S. Mill and the Diversity of Utilitarianism. By Daniel Jacobson. Philosophers' Imprint, 2003.

· Mill between Aristotle & Bentham. By Martha C. Nussbaum. Daedalus, March 22, 2004.

· The Ethics of Identity. By Kwame Anthony Appiah. The New York Times, June 12, 2005.

· The Influence of Mary Bentham on John Stuart Mill. By Catherine Pease-Watkin. Journal of Bentham Studies, 2006.

· Narrative, Imagination, and the Religion of Humanity in Mill's Ethics. By Colin Heydt. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 2006.

· Mill, Bentham and 'Internal Culture'. By Colin Heydt. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, May, 2006.

[reviews]

· Autobiography. New Englander and Yale Review, 1874.

· Autobiography. New Englander and Yale Review, 1874.

· Autobiography. Scribner's Monthly, 1874.

· Autobiography. North American Review, 1874.

· Autobiography. Littell's Living Age, 1874.

· Autobiography and Three Essays on Religion. New Englander and Yale Review, 1875.

· Considerations on Representative Government. New Englander and Yale Review, 1862.

· Dissertations and Discussions, Vols. I-III. New Englander and Yale Review, 1866.

· Dissertations and Discussions, Vol. IV. New Englander and Yale Review, 1867.

· Dissertations and Discussions, Vol. I. North American Review, 1865.

· Dissertations and Discussions, Vol. IV. North American Review, 1868.

· Examination of Sir Hamilton's Philosophy. New Englander and Yale Review, 1865.

· Inaugural Address at the University of St. Andrew's. North American Review, 1865.

· On Liberty. North America Review, 1863.

· On Liberty. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Cambridge, 1921.

· The Philosophy of Auguste Comte. New Englander and Yale Review, 1866.

· Principles of Political Economy. The Prospective Review, 1848.

· Principles of Political Economy. North American Review, 1848.

· Principles of Political Economy. North American Review, 1864.

· Principles of Political Economy. DeBow's Review, 1867.

· Principles of Political Economy. New Englander and Yale Review, 1872.

· Principles of Political Economy. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Cambridge, 1921.

· The Subjection of Women. North American Review, 1869.

· The Subjection of Women. New Englander and Yale Review, 1869.

· A System of Logic. North American Review, 1854.

· A System of Logic. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Cambridge, 1921.

· Three Essays on Religion. North American Review, 1875.

· Utilitarianism. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Cambridge, 1921.

http://www.utilitarian.net/jsmill/ (20070226)
Land: GBR