Tom,
I think your post (Pen-L 15095, which I can't directly reply to)
is a terrific statement on cutting work time, resisting Capitalism, and
organizing.
Your subsequent post about people not engaging is well taken. Sorry
I didn't respond at the time, though I thought your post was so
important that I saved it then as a file.
Responding to the point you quote (from Commons?) -- exactly on target.
The contention is that a reduction in work time is a permanent gain for
labor. A great insight, by you as well as the original. I thank you
for your commitment to struggling for that gain.
Having said that, I wonder if losing the "family wage" -- i. e.
needing two wage earners to support a household that one wage earner
once could isn't a claw-back on the part of capital. Any
thoughts/statistics about that?
Or is the need for two incomes driven by the mad consumerism upon
which we embarked in the same early post-WWII period during which the
family wage was eroded?
I would add another thought: Although it is by no means a sure
thing, cutting working hours (eventually down to a few hours a week)
could change the culture of consumption, so that our esteem could be
gained otherwise than acquiring things.
That ties your post and work back to the issue that Mark Jones addresses
-- that the world can't go on with those in the North living as we do.
And such a cultural shift would be an answer to Henwood who sees no hope
that people won't go on buying till the oceans rise.
Gene Coyle
