me: >> To revive the labor movement, I'd >> recommend concrete analysis of current concrete conditions (to dredge >> up an old phrase).
Sandwichman says: > 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." ... I don't see that as the origin of such a one-dimensional focus on this issue, since concrete reality is (by its very nature) multidimensional. But you know better than I do. > 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. I don't assume that you started out with your slogan. It just seems that you start every conversation with it. Or maybe I've missed something. >> 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. ... if Dunayevskaya saw the length of the working day as important as you see it, it follows logically that N&L (if it's still around) would emphasize the length of the working day as much as you do. Or maybe she had a more multidimensional approach. I think that this discussion has reached its natural end. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
