....some thoughts on praxeology...The praxeology of:
Ernest Mandel, The Second Slump (1978)
is presented in "The Workers' Movement and the Crisis" (chapter 5, section
3, p. 192-208). Mandel subdivides the future into three time zones (stages),
namely: Zone 3 (distant future) -- "a democratic, self-managed, and planned
socialist society based on the power of workers' councils" (p. 208; this
corresponds to the stage of "communism" of some Marxist texts); Zone 2
(middle-range future) -- "transitional demands ... expropriation of all
companies that close down or lay off masses of workers ...; nationalization
.... of all credit institutions, key industries, and monopolies ... ", etc.
(p. 207; this corresponds to the stage of "socialism" of some Marxist
texts); Zone 1 (the present and the near future) -- "defensive fight for
immediate demands" (p. 206). Here he lists the following targets (written in
1970's Europe): (1) "35-36 hour week"; (2) "a sliding scale of wages" [not
clear to me what he means]; (3) "defense of the right to strike and the
freedom to negotiate wages"; (4) "solidarity with the hardest hit sectors --
immigrant workers, women, youth, old people, the unemployed" ... "such are
the prime imperatives of this essentially defensive struggle" (p. 206).
The vision for future Zone 3 and future Zone 2 is radical, while the
demands for the present Zone 1 are fairly pragmatic and could have been
taken from a newsletter of a Canadian labour union in 1998 or an economic
statement of the Canadian Roman Catholic church. From a left-Keynesian point
of view, the long-term goal (utopia) of a democratic and just world which
serves the people sounds just fine. (Why bicker about the special feature of
"workers' councils"; it's utopia.) However, how to get there (transition) is
a mighty problem. Instead of ubiquitous nationalization (Mandel), Keynesians
try to sell "government intervention" of various kinds. From a globocentric
point of view, Mandel's praxeology appears remarkably eurocentric. Most
importantly, one cannot postulate the existence of workers' solidarity
around the world. What is the commonality of material interests between a
Swiss worker ($40,000 per year?), a Thai sweatshop worker ($1,000 per
year?), a Mozambiquan subsistance farmer ($0 per year?) and the academic
proletariat of the world (unemployed?)? It seems that commonality of
interests does not simply exist (as Mandel seems to imply) but is, if
anything, a "constructed reality". If this is so, then "solidarity" is a
goal rather than a premise of action; and one of the tasks of WS praxeology
would appear to be to figure out -- not how to use (existing) solidarity,
but how to bring about (create) solidarity on a global scale. Comments?
-gk