> Yeah, me too. But you seem to be against anything one might do in this world to get even a few steps closer to it. Is it that a few steps closer are worse than none? Or what? Or am I missing something?
Two things: First, it's not like I'm taking to the Wall Street Journal editorial page with these arguments, am I? Seems to me that a left space where everyone is on the same side, more or less, is the place to be ruthlessly critical.
Second, I did, tentatively, endorse something like a living social wage, which also has problems, instead of full employment. Seems to me to be better, not least because full employment only benefits those that can actually work. Mike and SA say that full employment means more freedom from the boss, which seems ridiculous even beyond the surface level objection that work-is-freedom is a nonsense statement. The full employment argument assumes that once it is achieved, then the next stage of socialist development can begin. It's never worked this way. In fact, the segment of the population that has the best conditions, that has the closest thing to full employment--white males--is also the most reactionary, nasty, vindictive, and punitive.