I appreciate the spirit behind Bello's piece (as exerpted here), but, stripped to
its elements, it strikes me as much too reformist. It hearkens back to the pre-1982
dispensation as a sort-of golden age, and it presents as its agenda all those
progressive things that governments were supposed to
Me, I would begin talking about concrete steps to socialize (which is not
necessarily to put under public ownership) corporations national and
transnational,
and to craft a set of rules and governing procedures to make
possible trade without
the lash of global competitiveness that has poisoned
Marxists would be free to study and write about M-C-M'.
Peter
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
All that without abolishing M-C-M'?
Yoshie
Marxists would be free to study and write about M-C-M'.
Peter
Seriously, Peter, you criticize Bello for being "much too reformist,"
but your program -- "to socialize (which is not necessarily to put
under public ownership) corporations national and transnational, and
to craft a set of rules
Marxists would be free to study and write about M-C-M'.
Peter
Seriously, Peter, you criticize Bello for being "much too reformist,"
but your program -- "to socialize (which is not necessarily to put
under public ownership) corporations national and transnational, and
to craft a set of
Fair enough, but I have more humor at the moment than time. The funny
thing is that I've been studying and thinking about these questions for
over 20 years and have written next to nothing. (2 - 1/2 very obscure
articles.) I promise that, if I ever get some time off, I'll give your
challenge
Ian says:
So what's your meta-reformist plan to get us beyond M-C-M' Yoshie?
First of all, I think we (in the USA) have to get more serious about
reform struggles at local national levels. When we have no power
base, no mass movement in this country (USA), we can't "craft a set
of rules
