I'm assuming that you are aware of this since you mention a transitional program, but the transitional program of the Fourth International calls for advancing "alongside with a slogan for public works, the slogan of a sliding scale of working hours".
Traditionally Trotskyists have called for "30 for 40", that is, 30 hours work for 40 hours pay. There are Trotskyist organizations (including the one I belong to, the International Bolshevik Tendency) who stand on such demands. A reduction in the workweek would result in a reduction in pay if implemented in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It would only be through working class power that a reduction in the workweek could be implemented without a reduction in pay. The current lack of that power is what is responsible for "30 for 40" appearing "unreasonable" in the present time, but it certainly doesn't mean that the demand is unrealizable - "it would almost automatically mean a cut in wages" is to foreclose even the effort to propose alternatives in the first place, which is what the left is fighting for today. Best Richard On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Eugene Coyle wrote: > > The left must think more deeply than simply aiming for "full employment" > resulting from more public or private consumption. We can have full > employment, i.e. a job for those that want a job, at the current level of > public and private consumption. We can, and should, and must, reduce the > work week to this end. With climate change, and run-away climate change at > that, already looming as a human and environmental catastrophe, having as > the left's goal the consumption of more stuff is pathetic.< > > Nice slogans! But one of the great things (from a capitalist point of > view) about secularly rising inequality and then a severe recession > with a horrible and persistent aftermath is that it (like the prospect > of being hanged) concentrates the minds of workers of all types on > surviving, i.e., getting a job, or keeping the one that they already > have, even if it's subject to speed-up, wage cuts, and stretch-out. > It's hard to be concerned with climate change if you can't feed your > family or pay your bills. It's hard to be in favor of reducing the > work week (even if this is promised to be done without a cut in weekly > pay) if organized labor is on the ropes or fighting defensive battles > against the Governor Walkers of the world. In fact, with the current > balance of political-economic power in the US, a cut in the work-week > almost automatically means that a cut in weekly pay, perhaps even a > cut in hourly pay. > > In this kind of situation, the question that most people will address > (outside of utopian speculation, which seems rare these cynical days > outside of the Austerian set) is "do we let the economy continue to > stagnate with a horrible job situation (perhaps making it worse by > balancing the Federal budget) or do we engage in some kind of > Keynesian fiscal stimulus?" In the best situation, the latter stimulus > would be "green" in orientation, aimed at reducing carbon emissions. > But I doubt that anyone will see cutting the work week as the > solution. Sure Germany has work-sharing, but they also have a > significantly stronger social-democratic tradition than the US does. > > Maybe "shorten the workweek" (without a cut in weekly pay) is a > non-reformist reform or part of a transitional program, aimed at > waking up labor and strengthening its side of the balance of power and > even moving us toward socialism? what kinds of organizations are ready > to take up this slogan and to propagate it? > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
