I think this misses Reich's point, i.e., that the citizen/worker inside our heads would and should rebel against slavery even though the consumer of sugar would favor its existence.
Bill's point is more germane: the slave-owners had a lot of political power -- enough to keep slavery going for much, much too long -- and, similarly, it's not us citizen/workers but Wal-Mart and its ilk that dominate politics. Typically, Reich is appealing to the liberal "public" (specifically, the readers of the NYT), assuming that they have a lot of political power -- and that they will transcend their narrow "consumerist" greed. Nonetheless, I liked Reich's cleverness. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ > -----Original Message----- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael Perelman > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:52 PM > To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Robert Reich on consumer interests vs. > worker/citizen interests > > You could blame people who wore cotton clothing for slavery by the > same logic. > > Montesquieu wrote "It must be said that slavery is against nature, > though in certain > countries it is founded upon natural reason. One may distinguish > between such > countries and those in which natural reasons reject it. One must > therefore limit > slavery to certain portions of the earth." He added, "Sugar would > be too expensive > if one did not use slave labor." > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
