lisa stolarski wrote:
>
> Actually Carrol, I think in Melvin's theory the "technically" unemployed and
> under employed play a significant role in revolution. It was really
> fascinating, you should read it if you have not already.
>
Many sectors of the working class play (will play) a significant role in
revolutionary struggle. But (a) it can't be predicted in advance _what_
sectors at a given time and place and (b) the quarrel over _statistics_
is a purely academic matter, and making a fuss over it on a left
maillist is mere distraction. Unemployment counts _politically_ on the
spot where it occurs, and counts only as local political activity can
involve the unemployed in political struggle. What the hell relevance to
_that_ is whether government staticians are honest or not?
Too often I get the feeling that marxists who, whether through their own
choices or through external forces beyond their control, have been
isolated from political struggle get to playing mind games: merely
trying to "prove" that capitalism is bad. Of course it is. That is our
point of departure. Now what?
Carrol
