Rob Schaap wrote:
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > You still didn't let us know what *you* think "we" should do about
> > falling markets. Maybe the answer will be in your forthcoming book about the
> > New Economy.
>
> Well, I'll take a pop. Let's take another look at 'infrastructure', 'natural
> monopoly' and 'public good' and 'externalities' - and speak loudly for the
> public ownership and control of those sectors which meet the definitions - at
> global (eg. internet, software standards, currency transaction .....
Who is "we" in your response, Rob. You speak as though you were an
adviser to the president of the U.S., or even to Greenspan, and that one
or the other was going to take your advice seriously.
But if "we" refers to those whose only potential power is through the
influence mass movements can exert, all this rigamarole is rather
irrelevant. You have to start by first explaining how the mass movement
is, given present conditions, to come into existence. Then you have to
give an analysis of just how a mass movement's power is exerted. Then
you have to fit your advice to that sort of context. My answer (I don't
know how many on this list agree with it) is that mass movements, with
rare exceptions, must organize around simple negatives. They must say
no, and create enough disturbance in the body politic so those who do
make policy will have to fit it to that no.
Carrol
