Edward S. Herman

The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism. The Political Economy of Human Rights

The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism The Volume 1 of Political Economy of Human Rights is a journal of American Imperialism in the contemporary context of the Third World At over 350 pages and replete with another 70 pages of notes and references this tome is no less a scholarly endeavour than the other works of the authors and consequently provides for an informative look at US The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism The This book The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism is the first of two volumes of a series entitled The Political Economy of Human Rights The authors are Noam Chomsky and the late Edward S Herman The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism The The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism The Political Economy of Human Rights Volume I Kindle edition by Chomsky Noam Herman Edward S Download it once and read it on your Kindle device PC phones or tablets Use features like bookmarks note taking and highlighting while reading The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism The Political Economy of Human Rights Volume I The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism Connection and Third World Fascism The Washington Connection

Alfred Chandler's New Business History: A Review

SOME twenty years ago a number of economic historians-trained economists rather than historians-introduced an important methodological shift in their discipline. These practitioners of &dquo;the new economic history&dquo; employed conventional microeconomic theory and econometrics to reinterpret economic history. A major achievement was the use of production functions, comparing changes in capital and labor supplies with percentage increases in output, to evaluate the long-term economic growth performances of nations and to analyze the sources of increased productivity over time. The sources are broken down statistically into increased use of labor and capital, technological improvement, scale effects, reallocation of resources, and more efficient factor organization and use.’ Closely associated with this historical application of neoclassical growth theory was the economic analysis of certain events (for example, British colonial policy to 1775, Jackson’s &dquo;Bank War&dquo; of 1832-35, the social savings of canals and railroads, slavery as an economic institution). The principal finding turned out to be that throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth &dquo;the market worked&dquo; in two senses. First, there were &dquo;rational&dquo; cost-price explanations underlying the output and investment decisions and the key technical innovations that shaped the American economy. Second,

Do Bankers Control Corporations

Several recent developments have rekindled the interest of radicals and reformers in corporate control and the role of banks in the corporate system: among them, the conglomerate movement of the 1960s, the continued growth of the multinational corporation, and the movement for corporate reform spearheaded by Ralph Nader and his associates and allies. At least as important as these, however, was the 1968 publication of the House Committee on Banking and Currencys report, Commercial Banks and Their Trust Activities: Emerging Influence on the American Economy (hereafter referred to as the Patman Report), which disclosed for the first time that by the late 1960s the commercial banks were managing trust accounts aggregating about

Mergers, Concentration, and the Erosion of Democracy

250 billion, heavily concentrated in the larger trust institutions. The 49 leading trust banks were shown to have 5,270 separate holdings of 5 percent or more of the stock of portfolio companies with these larger holdings in many cases paralleled by director interlocks as well.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Kotz on Banker Control

A new surge of corporate concentration is in process in the United States and abroad, driven in large measure by a restructuring of global markets through mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Announced worldwide merger deals reached

Reply to Kurt and Gladys Engel Lang

3.4 trillion in 1999, an amount equivalent to 34 percent of the value of all industrial capital (buildings, plants, machinery and equipment) in the United States in 1999. Of this total, nearly a third were cross-border transactions that involved companies based in different countries, up from an average of one-fourth of all mergers during most of the 1990s.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Morality’s Avenging Angels: the New Humanitarian Crusaders

Review of Bank Control of Large Corporations in the U.S. by David M. Kotz. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

The New Economics: Handmaiden of Inspired Truth

We will try to answer as briefly as possible some of the Langs’ major criticisms of our propaganda model, which we described in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon, 1988, 2002), as well as a few other points relating to Chomsky alone. First, their statement that Chomsky has “a communication model that concedes no legitimacy to state authority and certainly none to any kind of violence even when used to counter something far worse” is completely erroneous, and seems to be an unjustifiable blending of their own (entirely inaccurate) perception of Chomsky’s political views with our communication model. As they themselves describe the propaganda model and its filters, and in reality, there is absolutely nothing in the model or the way the authors have used it that has the slightest implication about the legitimacy of state authority or the merits or demerits of violence. Second, the claim that our proofs of systematic bias are in general based on anecdotal evidence, and lack information on sampling, coding procedures, and so forth, does not withstand scrutiny. They mention our study of media treatment of elections in Central America in Manufacturing Consent, but seem to have missed our three tables detailing how the media treated 31 separate topics in elections in two U.S. client states and in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. The coding and sampling procedures are clear, and the results could be easily checked. These are not anecdotes. The Langs also fail to mention our tabulation of the media treatment of Worthy and Unworthy Victims (Table 2-1), a centerpiece of the book, in which we compared the media attention to the murder of a priest in Communist Poland with their treatment of the murder of 100 religious victims in U.S. client states in Latin America. This information is also clear as to coding and sampling and is not anecdotal. It is supplemented by a follow-up detailed analysis including a comparison of the New York Times’ treatment of the savageries inflicted on worthy and unworthy victims (Table 2-2) that gives more meaning to our basic quantitative findings. The same is true throughout, in this book and many of our other publications. The Langs also mention our discussion of the concurrent massacres of Pol Pot in Cambodia and Indonesian forces in East Timor. There we did not provide a tabulation because it would have been superfluous in the light of our comprehensive review of the

Market System Constraints on Freedom of Expression

Operation Allied Force was not a moral venture. It was, however, carried out in the name of a humanitarian action on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians, and it won support in the NATO-bloc countries by a widespread belief in the authenticity of its moral goals. But such goals are contradicted by the nature of states and the kinds of forces that determine state policy, by the compelling evidence of other, non-humanitarian ends shaping NATO policy, by the character of the leadership of the dominant NATO powers and by the actual results of the war.

The Dismantling of Yugoslavia (Part IV)

the prestige of the Keynesian-inspired &dquo;new economics&dquo; in launching a regressive, pro-business set of &dquo;reforms.&dquo; As we shall see below, the New Economists,2 despite their vaunted liberalism, have formulated a &dquo;growth&dquo; dogma admirably suited to the needs of a government openly hostile to liberal reform itself. The emergence of this conservative doctrine is related to the fact that the New Economists share the ideology and values of the dominant power groups in American society. For this reason they have considerably more rapport with government and business executives than with, say, ghetto residents, union organizers, members of the Union for Radical Political Economics, or socially concerned Third World economists. For this reason too, as we shall discuss at length, the Cold War, the Vietnam escalation, and the militarization of American life -pivotal economic and political facts of our time -have been either acceptable or meritorious for the New Economists. Their self-proclaimed &dquo;internationalism&dquo; is, in fact, a sophisticated nationalism, which opposes the cruder