Oh, I have followed this thread a bit, sorry, there is so much email. Melvin makes a fabulous analysis because he points out the opening of a positive space in which opposition to capital can occupy, both in theory and in reality. He has identified fertile ground on which an alternative economy can be built. But that is not what you are talking about here.
Statistics are marginally useful at best. I think we are all saying some version of that. You are absolutely right, academics need to 'step outside (y)our lives to where the neighborhood changes.' Lisa on 10/10/2002 11:36 PM, Carrol Cox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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 >
