> Sweezy makes the point - one I
> totally agree with - that no left
> movement will ever succeed in
> the US by promising less material
> wealth, and criticizes Mills's
> "characteristically American"
> weaknesses in that regard.
But then wealth has to be redefined, which is to say *needs* have to be redefined. A lot of what passes for wealth in our society is destructive of human potential and of humans as social beings. Even economists admit that goods external to markets get short shrift. By the same token, marketed bads pass as goods because near or far consequences of their use or consumption are often external to markets as well.
And I don't mean that this redefinition will consist of mere semantic exercises in the ivory tower. Rather, I'm referring to political processes involving large crowds groping for better ways to reorganize their social affairs.
Julio