Ken wrote, >I don't claim that. I don't speak of the revolutonary demands of the working class. >Perhaps u could quote where I say that...All these demands are reformist. If they >had been revolutionary the ruling class couldn't have conceded them. The way you put it, Ken, was ambiguous enough for me to interprete it as actual revolutionary demands of the workers but for you to have meant it only as some future potential demands: Ken: "While the welfare state may have saved capital from even more radical demands and staved off revolutionary demands, the welfare state was more or less forced upon the ruling class. [snip] The welfare state was a great victory for the working class." One can "stave off" either actual or only potential demands. >In the sense that the struggle achieved these concessions it was a >victory... The argument is not (or shouldn't be) about whether something that occured in the past was a "victory", it is about the current status of the institutions established by that "victory". Even genuine victories have a nasty habit of turning into idols -- this is what I call small "s" stalinism. Some of my best friends are paid employees of "progressive organizations" and if I let them they will whine to me incessently about how hard it is to get those institutions to do anything actually politically progressive. They also have a tendency to award themselves medals for continuing to fight the good fight within their bureaucratized organizations. Those imaginary awards for valour are above and beyond their salaries. Just try to get support from one of those organizations to do what is at any rate a resolution approved annually at their convention and you'll see what the anarchists mean by the formula, talk - action = 0 Meanwhile, there always seems to be enough cash in the kitty to hold yet another of their sparsely-attended stale donut bake sales. > Is that an executive summary of your game plan I hope.. Yup. regards, Tom Walker
