Re: [Pen-l] limits on the working week [was: Half-baked Keynes

[Sandwichman <lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To revive the labor movement, I'd
> recommend concrete analysis of current concrete conditions (to dredge
> up an old phrase).

Yes. I would just remind you that I arrived at the conviction that
shorter working time was the key issue from "concrete analysis of
current concrete conditions." Moreover, that analysis took its
starting point from issues seemingly distant from the question of
reducing the hours of work -- issues like child care, adult
illiteracy, social exclusion of youth, endemic underemployment, energy
conservation and generation, 'green' housing, etc. It was the
convergence of those disparate issues on questions about the
organization of working time that persuaded me. Somebody once said
that the presentation of the results of an analysis takes the opposite
course to how those conclusions were arrived at. Why do you assume and
keep insisting that I somehow STARTED OUT with a slogan and can't let
go of it? That's what I find insulting.

> My question: why was limiting the working-day so
> unimportant to "News & Letters," the group she led and inspired?

Great. If that's your question, study it. I'm not an authority on the
evolution of the programs of small left formations and it's not a
question that I would deem vital to the concrete analysis of current
concrete conditions. Unless, perhaps, one happens to be a devotee of
"News a Letters."

-- 
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l