Friends, I attended the SSC on Saturday and attended 3 sessions. I did not attend the one Louis P. discussed, but I heard about it through Harry Magdoff. Perhaps capitalist relationships have become so dominant that it is difficult even for critics to see through them. Surely growth and productivity will kill us all in the end. The 3 sessions I did attend were all very good. The first one, "Bringing Marx Back" featured several first-rate discussions. Doug Henwood gave a lucid account of the current financial insanity, utilising Marx's rather fragmentary comments on finance to great effect. He made a good point that financial markets are used by capitalsists to gain control over the economy as a whole. He further pointed out that today, money has become more or less completely divorced from social production. We should all hope that Doug's book comes out soon! It promises clear thinking and writing on what most people think of as hopelessly complex. Second, Ellen Wood, newly elected co-editor of Monthly Review, argued that as capital has become universal, in the sense that it has permeated all aspects of life throughout the world, Marxism, as the science of capital, is now needed more than ever. She partially developed the very interesting idea that much of post-Marx Marxism has dealt with capital's "external" aspects (theories of imperialism, etc), rather than its internal contradictions. But now that capital has embraced the entire globe, we need to return to analysing the system as a whole. Unfortunately, the left has proved so far to be inadequate to this task, and she developed some ideas as to why this is so. I hope that she will develop these ideas more fully in the future. Third, Daniel Singer strongly criticized social democracy and pointed to many signs of working class rebellion against the neoliberal regimes attempting to turn back the clock on workers' rights and lving standards. He urged a coherent frontal attack on capitalism, by which he meant, I assume, a united sorking class attack, the only thing which capital really fears. Finally, Istvan Meszaros (I don't dare spell this incorrectly!) made a number of interesting points connected to the idea that Marxism is hardly dead. He wondered if capital does not need a "respectable" left (if it does, all the more reason for radicals to relentlessly criticize social democracy, market socialism, etc.). He argued that capitalsim is completely uncontrollable and today's universal capitalism is engaged in "destructive production." He warned leftists against any acceptance of the logic of a labor market, pointing out that we had better be ready to accept the political implications of full employment, high wage struggles. This first meeting was jam-packed with people, who literally sat in every available space. I was very impressed with this and the general enthusiasm for a return to Marx. The second session was also well-attended and was titled something like "Rebuilding the Labor Movement from Below". Activist and writer Jane Slaughter chaired the session and made a sharp critique of the Sweeney regime in the AFL-CIO, pointing out that union democracy and workplace control are not on the leadership's agenda. Then activists David Pratt (TDU), Cesar Ayala (Latino Workers' Center), and Tim Schermerhorn (TWU New Directions) described their organizations attempts to build various types of democratic workers' movements. I was struck with the importance of democracy within the workers' movement. In his recent Monthly Review piece, Greg Albo suggest that in this age of capitalism's universalization, the struggle for democracy has become more radical than ever. So how can we push forward the struggle for democratic control of society if one of the main vehicles of that struggle, the workers' movement, is not intelf maximally democratic. I was curious, however, about what these activists themselves see as the goal of their struggles beyond their goals in their specific organizations. This session was marred a bit by some speches given by sectarians, but I guess that that goes with the territory. The third session was about postmodernism and chaired by John Foster. the panelist gave good arguments for the need to see the backward political implications of much postmodernism. Again the idea was presented that the totalizing nature of capitalism requires a totalizing critique. All in all, I came away energized and more optimistic than I've been in a long time. But, of course, I only wnet to three sessions and these were organized by groups which I have long supported, so I am sure my views are somewhat biased. Michael Yates