:-) I thought the bit I copied was funny. Can't guess how e-mail tone turns out.
And I did get two _very_ useful pointers towards the concept: change the "conversation" and terrain of struggle. More later. I hope. Sheer age or the pitter-patter of little TIAs is slowing me up a bit. Carrol I > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Walker > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:22 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Query re "Transformative Reforms" was Is 'post-work' a > social democratic fantasy? > > O.K. but the site from Google was a diversion. I still would prefer that you > consider my comment in the context of Kliman's critique rather than as some > abstract hypothesis about "transformative reforms." You may recall that in > Value, Price and Profit, Marx criticized Weston's notion that it was futile to > struggle for higher wages. Marx concluded his exposition with the statement > that: > > > "Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the > encroachments of capital.They fail partially from an injudicious use of their > power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against > the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change > it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation > of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages > system." > > > Thus it wasn't pointless to struggle for higher wages. It just wasn't enough. > But what's the "next step"? Marx suggested it should be raising the banner > "Abolish the wages system!" Maybe that was tongue in cheek. But if so, a lot > of people have taken it at face value and if not it's actually a pretty > ineffectual idea for a slogan. The average Marxian theoretician -- let alone > the average worker -- doesn't have a clue about what it might mean to > abolish the wages system. So what would be the point of writing it on a > banner? Irony? > > Elsewhere, Marx talks about the limitation of the working day as a > "preliminary condition" for improvement and emancipation. This makes > more sense. It was something that trade unions (and workers outside of > trade unions) were actually demanding at the time. And it is something that > highlights the subordination of workers to capital rather than the exchange > of an "equivalent" (x wages for y labor). > > I think there needs to be more ambiguity about demands. What I mean is > that policies, programs, slogans, demands need to be ambiguous as to > whether or not they entail a rejection of the capitalist system. My point is > that. for example, in a labor negotiation the employer (private sector, at > least) maintains the potential threat of bankruptcy, outsourcing, offshoring > etc. Against such a catastrophic (but ambiguous) threat, the threat of a work > stoppage is trivial. > > Without the threat of the workers outright rejecting the system, the balance > of coercion is very uneven exclusively in favor of capital. But on the other > hand, an overt, unequivocal "threat" that is not acted on ceases to be > credible. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I was asking you, not google. The latter was merely a preliminary > check. > > I didn't even read very far in the site I quoted from. I knew your > meaning > must be different, but the quote was a way of narrowing the > question. > > Carrol > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Walker > > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 12:58 PM > > To: Progressive Economics > > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Query re "Transformative Reforms" was Is > 'post-work' > a > > social democratic fantasy? > > > > Better to ask me what I mean than ask Google. Maybe the NSA > knows what > > I'm thinking but they won't say. Transformative reforms are > reforms that > > change -- or potentially change -- the "conversation" or the terrain > of > > struggle. > > > > Please don't get hung up on the word choice. The Rose Community > > Foundation is welcome to use the same words to talk about > whatever they > > are talking about. What I was commenting on was a critique by > Andrew > > Kliman, not an announcement from the aforementioned > foundation. Either > > consider my comment in the context it was presented or ignore it. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Tom Walker: "This doesn't mean such improvement can go on > > indefinitely, but > > such improvement as can be achieved has the potential of > opening > > up other > > possibilities. That's the notion of transformative reforms." > > > > ========= > > > > This concept ("transformative reforms") sounds interesting, but > I > > would like > > to see some clarification of its content. I googled the phrase, but > > didn't > > see much that fit the present context. One example is attached > below > > (in > > part). I > > > > Carrol > > > > **** > > Home > Press Releases > > > CLF Announces Forward-Thinking Funding Support from Rose > > Community > > Foundation > > CLF Announces Forward-Thinking Funding Support from Rose > > Community > > Foundation > > Posted at June 25, 2013 | 0 Comment > > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > June 25, 2013 > > Colorado Legacy Foundation Announces Forward-Thinking > Funding > > Support from > > Rose Community Foundation > > > > DENVER, CO - Today the Colorado Legacy Foundation (CLF) > > announced another > > significant investment by Rose Community Foundation to > support > > CLF's > > sustainability. The $300,000 two-year grant will build > organizational > > capacity to support communications and development, project > > management and > > collaborative partnerships. > > > > "Rose Community Foundation has been an integral part of the > > success of our > > organization. More importantly, they have seeded > transformative > > reforms > > throughout Colorado - reforms that are garnering national > > attention," said > > Dr. Helayne Jones, President and CEO of the Colorado Legacy > > Foundation. "At > > the Colorado Legacy Foundation, we believe that not one > initiative, > or > > one > > organization for that matter, can meaningfully and permanently > > deliver on > > the promise of a great education for every student in this state. > And > > this > > investment by Rose Community Foundation is a critical > statement of > > support > > for CLF's whole child, whole system, whole community approach > to > > engage with > > multiple stakeholders cross the state and at every level of > > education." > > > > Rose Community Foundation was one of the first investors in > the > > programmatic > > work of CLF partnering with other organizations including > Daniels > > Fund, > > Gates Family Foundation and The Piton Foundation to provide > > support to > > infrastructure needs that have not kept pace with CLF's rapid > growth. > > In > > addition, the CLF's success in drawn national funding has been > > bolstered > > greatly by the widespread support of Colorado's local funding > > community. > > [snip] > > > > http://colegacy.org/2013/06/colorado-legacy-foundation- > > announces-forward-thi > > nking-funding-support-from-rose-community-foundation/ > > > <http://colegacy.org/2013/06/colorado-legacy-foundation- > announces- > > forward-thi nking-funding-support-from-rose-community- > foundation/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
