On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To revive the labor movement, I'd > recommend concrete analysis of current concrete conditions (to dredge > up an old phrase).
Yes. I would just remind you that I arrived at the conviction that shorter working time was the key issue from "concrete analysis of current concrete conditions." Moreover, that analysis took its starting point from issues seemingly distant from the question of reducing the hours of work -- issues like child care, adult illiteracy, social exclusion of youth, endemic underemployment, energy conservation and generation, 'green' housing, etc. It was the convergence of those disparate issues on questions about the organization of working time that persuaded me. Somebody once said that the presentation of the results of an analysis takes the opposite course to how those conclusions were arrived at. Why do you assume and keep insisting that I somehow STARTED OUT with a slogan and can't let go of it? That's what I find insulting. > My question: why was limiting the working-day so > unimportant to "News & Letters," the group she led and inspired? Great. If that's your question, study it. I'm not an authority on the evolution of the programs of small left formations and it's not a question that I would deem vital to the concrete analysis of current concrete conditions. Unless, perhaps, one happens to be a devotee of "News a Letters." -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
