Sandwichman wrote: > > It's all very well to "connect the crisis to the underlying capitalist > system." The proof, though, comes in whether one presents a program > for BOTH responding to the current crisis within the constraints posed > by that system while at the same time moving beyond those very > constraints. That is the difference between calling for a program of > work-time reduction and wool-gathering about the need to replace the > system.
A difficulty is that a program is just a piece of paper, no different from wool-gthering about "the system," so long as there is no working organization (or organizations) to carry it to masses of people. At an iffier level, for organizations with much energy to arise and attract cadre/organizers to do the carrying there has to be some sort of indication that there will be a response to such initiatives. People I worked with in the '80s have stopped even coming to the occasional anti-war demo we put on here, let alone monthly meetings, fundamentally because they simply don't feel it will do any good. That throws gehm back on wishful thinking about good people being elected to do good things. Lenin's WIBTBD, especially the chapters on "sponttaneism," has been misused for 100 years; the was _assuming_ bursts of spontaneous reaction. He was attacking organizers simply depending on those bursts being all that was needed. BUT THEY ARE REALLY NEEDED before we can gather the people to speak to them through a program. Carrol P.S. Programs aren't that hard to generate. 1. Open Borders 2. Twenty Hour Week 3. All military personnel kept within the 50 states 4. State provided medical care. 5. Federal financing of education, K-12 and above. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
