On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:35:58 -0600, "rayrena" <rayrena at realtime.net> wrote:
> I dislike a lot of what you write here: how is it not
> valuable to investigate ("theoretical discourse" ) social
> formations?
I never said that. I am quite interested in investigations of all sorts. However, information is only useful when it is put to use. "spreading the word" or "sending a message" is not really putting information to use, despite being the primary activity of most activist and analysts.
Engaging in the direct organization of production is.
> "Worker's capital," ugh.
Ugn? I suppose you object to the use of the work "capital."
I use this word in the classical sense, Capital is any reproducible productive asset.
Since I am not an academic, I stick to the terminology of classical heterodox political economy. The idiosyncratic usages among various tendencies require specialized knowledge to use correctly, so I try to avoid such usage in the name of clarity.
> "Leftists who care"?
> And the whole head-heart divide underlying your distinction
> between workers and leftists.
I make no such divide.
> But I think your emphasis on
> organization is important, as I see it as recognizing
> workers' formation as they are, not as they should be. Too
> many people see a lack of unionization, a lack of influence
> on the state, and withdrawal from parliamentary politics as
> a lack of organization. This, more than analysis paralysis,
> makes soi-disant leftists irrelevant.
It is not analysis paralysis I am talking about. Analysis is important, and good analysts build significant value in terms of audience power, my criticism is that they squander their audience power by capturing its value only with things like google adsence and amazon affiliate links, or not at all, instead of promoting actual workers collectives.
Cheers.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net