Larry Shute wrote, >Limiting the working day is all right, but does that really deal with the >issues facing workers today? Isn't job security and freedom from Orwellian >"downsizing" and "outsourcing" more of an issue? Don't we need to ask some >of the basic questions: Is production of goods more important in society (= >"efficiency" ), or are the workers, the people more important -- in the >sense of making sure they have jobs and income? The short answer is yes, limiting the working day really deals with the issues facing workers today. Period. The long answer has to rely on volumes of documentation and analysis. At the risk of invoking metaphysics, I would add that the long answer also has to rely on a profound understanding of both historical tradition and of personal experience (Weltanschauung). Larry correctly identifies 'downsizing' and 'outsourcing' as Orwellian terms. What "more" needs to be done, though, than to point out that these terms obfuscate capital's insatiable demand for an OVERSUPPLY of labour, it's need for an industrial reserve army of the unemployed. It's a little like the Peggy Lee song, "Is that all there is?" Yep, that's all there is -- so let's start dancing. Do I mean to say that Karl Marx wrote three volumes of Capital for the sole purpose of demonstrating conclusively the total dependence of the capitalist system on an OVERSUPPLY of labour? I do. Do we need to ask the "basic question" of whether goods or people are more important in society? No, because we know the answer. From the perspective of people (excepting socio-paths), people are more important. From the perspective of capital, in the short term, goods are more important. In the long term, capital has no perspective. And I'll repeat the last sentence because it is crucial to my argument, "In the long term, capital has no perspective." Capital is outside of and against human history. Capital is _dead labour_ and as such can only have meaning to the extent that it contributes to the regeneration of _living labour_. Beyond that precise limit capital ceases to be dead labour "as such"; it becomes merely death "in general" -- a meaningless abyss. Moral relativism does have its limits. We don't need to ask, for example, whether sociopathy is a valid point of view "in its own terms" or whether Hell might be o.k. for a holiday. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Though I may be sent to Hell for it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | such a God will never command my respect." (604) 688-8296 | - John Milton ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm