So here's a question. Actually, several. Other things being equal a shorter working day would probably be a good thing. In fact the whole social democratic program, limited though it may be, would probably be vastly preferable to what we're getting now. So where are the social democrats? The British "Labour" party appers to have become the true inheritor of Thatcherism. In France I fear that the Norbert Walter analysis that Louis posted will turn out to be correct, and the socialists will follow Mitterand's path, with no effective opposition from the communists. It would seem clear (or am I wrong in this?) that social democratic reforms like a shorter workweek would mean slower growth than in a similar economy in which workers are sweated more. I have no particular problem with slower growth, but is it possible that the lure of growth has somehow undermined social democracy? The obvious argument (Louis might want to say more on this) is that something has happened to make the social democratic project unstable or untenable. Either something broke down at the political level, or the nature of capitalism has changed (this is the implication of much of the "globalization" argument we hashed over last month). Capitalists will no longer play ball (i.e. maintain any level of capital investment) unless you agree to raise the profit share. I tend to the political answer, but I'll stop here and raise two more questions: 1. unions: the Mbhazima Shilowa speech, which Sid kindly posted, was pretty good. Is there a programmatic alternative emerging there or from other unions? 2. immigration and race: these issues are too pervasive not to be part of the answer to what's going on politically. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from the 1930's. As a related issue I feel the need to put in a word for Ajit: I don't know enough about Australia to adjudicate, but the evidence produced by Bill was not enough to persuade me that Ajit's claims were in any fundamental way mistaken. Best, Colin
