Louis Proyect is correct. I most certainly *do* exclude revolution as an economic policy option. If my understanding of the term is adequate "revolution" is a metaphor for profound social and political change. It may very well be that we "need" a revolution, as Proyect seems to claim. But there is a long, long road from prescribing a revolution to having one. We make the road by walking. However, there is a fourth criteria that I didn't think of: D. A progressive political organization could make a compelling case for a mandate to govern based on presenting the measure in its platform. The other three criteria were: > A. The government of the day could adopt the measure because it furthers > one or more of their own objectives. > B. The government of the day could be pressured to adopt the measure -- > against its wishes -- because the government would lose credibility if it > failed to do so. > C. Progressive organizations could begin implementing the measure without > endorsement or funding from the government or corporations. Tom Walker knoW Ware Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mindlink.net/knoWWare/
