Re: Re: Wierd

[Doyle Saylor <djsaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings Economists,
    Carrol Cox,
If you (Michael Perelman) are correct, my prediction would be that the
opportunity for organizing would be severely constrained for at least two or
three years. It is either during a recovery or after a _long_ recession (5
years or more) that great opportunities for organizing appear.

Probably -- but that 'thing,' I believe, is precisely about the
possibilities of organizing. Wood clings, perhaps futilely, to the
marxian conception of the potential role of the working class (including
what moralists and Weberians insist on calling the "middle class") in
revolutionary struggle. Her opponents (like the weathermen in the '60s)
despair of the working class and believe that only moral revulstion at
imperialism and terror of energy exhaustion can trigger resistance. In
other words, they call into question the possible existence of a
revolutionary class within capitalism. So, really, the "Brenner/Wood
thing" is about organizing in the next decade. Do we concentrate on a
moral lashing of capitalism, or do we explore the conditions under which
workers, as workers, can or will take up the struggle against
imperialism, racism, sexism, etc.?

Doyle,
What is organizing now?  For example given some sense that disabled people
are part of social revolution what is organizing?  I would answer that the
production process in social revolution must take into account the inclusion
of cognitive disabilities.  That sectarianism as an accusation requires an
anti-disabled theory in order to function and that therefore cognition and
production of cognition is the key element in real revolution.  I don't
agree with your contention above that revolutions come from up-surges in the
economy.  Revolutions come not so much in the arbitrary happenstance of
upsurges as they come from the ability in certain circumstances to take the
whole people together and face the enemy and win.  That in Russia that was
the end of the vast WWI and the experience of millions of people in war.
But in the U.S. revolution can be about the production process in IT
production.  So that if we consider France in their bourgeois revolution it
was not about the ups and downs of the economy it was the rejection of the
Feudal Monarchy that succeeded.  That IT production directly affects the
deepest elements of disability rights and therefore that the capacity for
revolutionary change in social structure that approaches the deepest element
capitalist structures of the working class, the disabled.  That is the
capacity to liberate the cognitive oppressed in this system.  Specifically
the developmentally disabled, the Schizophrenic, etc.  We are coming to the
point where the tools of production allow us the means to meet the disabled
systems depths of oppression.
Thanks,
Doyle Saylor