From: BHANDARI, RAKESH (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 23:35:31 EDT
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:19:54 -0400 Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote: >>That the working class is now in a defensive position vis-a-vis >> longer and more intense working hours is not as obviously >> incorrect as you are suggesting. > > Rakesh: > > I didn't challenge the idea that the "working class is now in a > more defensive position vis-a-vis longer and more intense > working hours." In fact, I didn't even mention more intense > working hours. Rather, I suggested that that the assertion > that "capitalism in crisis" can _only_ lengthen the working day > _is_ obviously incorrect. It's not obviously incorrect. Again see the Basso book. He looks carefully and critically at the great exception to this empirical trend, the 35 hr work week in France. > > It is incorrect theoretically. why? At at a late stage of accumulation, previous advances may be reversed, class struggle becoming only defensive vis a vis past material improvements. Surely you have read the conclusion to Grossmann's book and Kuhn's elucidation of it? > It is incorrect historically. It need not be a historical claim. It can be a claim as to the present trend of a late capitalism or a capitalism in crisis. It is an attempt to make sense of what are emerging as trends. > It leads to incorrect political conclusions and praxis. Again this is where you are wrong. You claimed initially that such a pessimistic view left no room for class struggle. This clearly does not follow from the theoretical claim that capital will NOW be compelled to, and will have the balance of forces necessary to,, lengthen and intensify the working day which however can be attenuated by working class struggle. Pessimism and the stating of uncomfortable truths are not undermining of class struggle but the potential basis for its radicalization. Yaffe argued that long ago, so did Shaikh in his review of crisis theories. These are not new positions, so I am surprised by your caricature of them. I still do not see how you have substantiated your initial claim that theoretical pessisism is one sided because it leaves no room for class struggle. This simply does not follow. Please prove your point. Rakesh > > Note (please) that I was responding directly to the article > that I cited. > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT