I had posted this earlier but it seems not to have arrived. Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: Carrol Cox [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 5:20 PM To: 'Progressive Economics' Subject: RE: [Pen-l] robots repairing robots? was: ain't gonna be no jobs - farm robotics I agree completely that shorter hours SHOULD be central to an attack on capital. But even the CTU has not raised this slogan. Have the California Nurses. It's the kind of slogan that needs to be raised by the workforce. Contingency rules. That is why both prediction and "Should's" are pretty futile. Carrol -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:30 AM To: Pen-l Pen-L Subject: Re: [Pen-l] robots repairing robots? was: ain't gonna be no jobs - farm robotics Cutting hours with no cut in pay does reduce surplus value. And, to repond to Carroll, cutting hours is a vector, not a destination, and potentially a campaign that speaks to the majority population. I don't think "reduce the amount of surplus value" is a rival for the bumper sticker. Gene On Apr 25, 2014, at 11:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: > "Eugene Coyle" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What's the best way to put that political question on the table? I think it is a fight over shorter hours. > > I think that it's a fight over who controls the means of production. But getting there requires > some intermediate steps such as reducing the amount of surplus value that goes to capital, > rent seekers, religions, and political appointees. > > -- > Ron > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
