One minor point: although I agree with all the objectives that you lay out, but I suspect that our preferred (Gramscian) role should be to help others figure out what their demands should be rather than laying out a plan for them. I say this without pretending in any way to have been particularly successful in doing so.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: > > I certainly agree with this - and with the importance of nonreformist > reforms. So at the present moment in the U.S., I'd say that > developing new forms of union organization (involving workers > themselves and broader communities than the immediate workplace), > changing U.S. labor law, raising the minimum wage, agitating for the > basics of a civilized welfare state, reducing the role of > shareholders and increasing the role of workers and the public in > corporate governance, creating democratically controlled community > development banks, etc., are priorities. Which may sound very dull > and workmanlike next to talk of revolution, but I don't see any > alternative. Besides, the U.S. ruling class would view such an agenda > as the functional equivalent of revolution, and react accordingly. > > Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
