風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
工作中的民主：資本主義的良藥
作者：理查德·沃爾夫 (Richard D. Wolff)（作者）2012 年 10 月
by October 2012
資本主義作為一種製度，在其花錢買來的政治體製的同時，也引發了日益加深的經濟危機。 兩者都不能滿足我們社會的需求。 無論是安全、高薪、有意義的工作，還是我們所依賴的與自然環境的可持續關係，我們的社會都沒有提供人們需要和應得的結果。
造成這種令人無法容忍的狀況的一個關鍵原因是我們的經濟和政治缺乏真正的民主。 解決方案需要建立真正的經濟民主，從工人管理自己的工作場所開始，作為真正政治民主的基礎。
理查德·D·沃爾夫 (Richard D. Wolff) 在這裏提出了如何實現這一目標的充滿希望和具體的願景，向許多已經得出結論認為經濟不平等和政治一如既往不能再被容忍並正在尋求具體行動計劃的人們。
理查德·D·沃爾夫 (Richard D. Wolff) 是馬薩諸塞大學阿默斯特分校的經濟學名譽教授。 他目前是紐約社會研究新學院的客座教授。 沃爾夫是多本書的作者，其中包括《資本主義陷入困境：全球經濟崩潰》和《如何應對》。 他在 WBAI（Pacifica Radio）上主持每周一小時的廣播節目《經濟更新》，並定期為《衛報》、Truthout.org 和 MRZine 撰稿。
書評
https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/7827_democracy-at-work-review-by-hans-g-despain/
評論者：漢斯·G·德斯潘 (Hans G Despain) ，馬薩諸塞州尼科爾斯學院的經濟學教授兼係主任。 他鼓勵您通信：hans.despain@nichols.edu
理查德·沃爾夫的最新著作《工作中的民主：資本主義的治愈方法》探討了從現在到另類非資本主義社會的轉變，主要關注當下。 沃爾夫為美國讀者，特別是美國的製度變革寫了這本書。 然而，它的一般原則適用於所有資本主義社會。 從本質上講，沃爾夫認為資本主義工作場所應該通過創建和建立工人自主企業（WSDE）來開始民主化。 目前這種努力的時機已經成熟，首先，因為公民渴望並願意接受替代方案，以取代我們大多數人目前所忍受的工人不友好、低工資、福利匱乏和不民主的工作場所。 其次，仍有數百萬美國工人因2007年8月的金融崩潰而周期性失業。 第三，公民仍然對缺乏“大街”級別的“救助”感到憤怒，並且有一種感覺，該係統被操縱以反對工人並被操縱以支持狹隘的精英（另見169-79）。
沃爾夫的書分為三個部分，十一章，一個引言和一個非常簡短的結論。 第一部分解釋了資本主義社會的不穩定、發展不平衡以及危機和金融崩潰的趨勢，其中2007年8月的崩潰隻是最近的一次。 第二部分解釋說，國家形式的資本主義（例如蘇聯、中國等）充其量隻是部分替代方案。 他們成功地改變了經濟生產的宏觀政治管理。 然而，沃爾夫認為，除了改變宏觀政治管理之外，個體生產企業的微觀內部組織和管理也需要民主化。 第三部分是本書的核心部分，也是最長的部分。 第三部分詳細介紹了在資本主義社會中創建和建立“工人自主企業”（WSDE）的可能性和方法，以及它們對資本主義政治的係統動力所產生的影響和後果。 經濟，工人和管理者行為和激勵的改變，以及對現實世界替代不民主的極權主義資本主義工作場所的概念的認知轉變，以及公民、社區和工人的政治賦權。
沃爾夫並不抱有 WSDE 能夠結束工人鬥爭的幻想。 與奴隸製的終結類似，前奴隸仍然麵臨著經濟和政治問題。 前奴隸不再為成為奴隸主的財產而鬥爭，但其他形式的剝削、壓迫和種族主義仍然存在（182）。 十九世紀的解放宣言改變了鬥爭的基礎。 機構發生轉變，權力關係發生變化。 同樣，沃爾夫認為，WSDE 將改變工人鬥爭的政治和經濟基礎。 WSDE 將成為民主的延伸和社會治理權力關係的轉變。
與其他馬克思主義經濟學家類似，沃爾夫強調了資本主義的不穩定（25）、其不平衡發展（27）以及在收入（135-7）、財富（92）、機會（44- 5）和政治權力（89-90）。 福利國家資本主義和新政政治旨在彌補資本主義的這些矛盾和弊病（31-7）。 新政改革既是局部的，又是暫時的。
繁榮和蕭條的曆史有平行的政策發生。 也就是說，在蕭條時期，監管和支持勞工的政策有所增加，而在繁榮時期，監管的廢除和反勞工政策的增加（151-4）。 換句話說，典型的危機之後會出現反周期、有利於勞工和“涓滴”的經濟計劃，這些計劃對於扭轉危機的緊迫性相當有效（112-3），但對於防止繁榮和蕭條卻無效 序列本身 (35-7)。
美國對 2007 年 8 月金融危機的政策反應在曆史上是獨一無二且引人注目的，那就是沒有對保護美國工人和家庭的“涓滴”經濟計劃進行認真的辯論 (68)。 相反，應對措施是對金融公司和關鍵行業的救助（56-60），以及“涓滴”經濟計劃（96-7），即政府向（通常是大）企業和富人提供大量直接援助， 這反過來“應該會‘滲透’並為大眾提供康複”(7)。 問題是“預期的涓滴效應未能實現”（57）。
救助和涓滴計劃產生了巨額聯邦預算赤字（56-60），辯論很快從社會經濟危機轉向對“赤字支出”的批評（63）。 現在的大問題變成了政府赤字和債務的“病症”，而適當的藥物被認為是緊縮或勒緊經濟腰帶（66-7）。 對於緊縮政策的重要性和有效性幾乎沒有什麽分歧（9）。 主要的政治問題不是是否緊縮，而是緊縮的程度（67）。
“太大而不能倒”的銀行在 2007 年 8 月倒閉後規模變得更大 (76)，但如果沒有政府的大規模支持和救助就無法運作的銀行仍然被認為是“私營企業”(71)。 因此，不僅沒有關於新政“涓滴”經濟的認真辯論，“資本主義的任何係統性替代方案”也被保持沉默並排除在國家議程之外（68）。 占領華爾街運動試圖挑戰財富和權力的集中（177）以及任何有關“資本主義的係統性替代方案”（174-5）的全國性討論的社會禁忌。
“資本主義的係統性替代方案”討論麵臨的一個主要問題是蘇聯和中國式“社會主義”的遺產。 沃爾夫大量借鑒了他以前的著作（Wolff and Resnick 2002），仔細地定義了資本主義。 傳統觀點認為，（1）生產資料所有權的轉變，以及（2）生產資料和產出分配的轉變，（分別是（1）從資本家到國家政府，以及（2）從經濟 市場到政治計劃）就是從資本主義轉向“社會主義”（99-100）。 沃爾夫認為這是錯誤的。 它確實實現了宏觀經濟轉變，但是，進一步需要的是生產企業（93）內部組織的微觀經濟轉變（140）以及誰控製所產生的剩餘分配（104）。 在西式資本主義（“私人資本主義”）和所謂的資本主義替代品（國家資本主義）中，工人生產的剩餘被其他人侵占和分配（109）。
沃爾夫的馬克思主義盈餘分析揭示了美國資本主義和蘇聯“社會主義”的醜聞：這些製度產生的盈餘分配缺乏民主。 “事實上，我們必須質疑在一個以資本主義為基本經濟製度的社會中真正民主的可能性”（94），兩者都缺乏真正的民主。 醜聞是，在被認為是世界上最重要的民主國家的美國，工人激發了蘇聯的“社會主義”，兩者都排除了民主和工人控製的工作場所。 新的經濟體係必須批判私人和國家資本主義，並提供具體的前進道路（116）。
沃爾夫的主要議程是為工作場所民主化提供論據和藍圖。 畢竟，大多數美國人接受民主作為基本的社會價值觀。 “如果民主是真正的基本社會價值觀，那麽它應該首先管理工作場所”（147）。 他的總體希望似乎是革命性的，然而，他的論點和藍圖無疑是改良主義的。 沃爾夫認為，改革政治可以成為社會轉型的補充基石。 “事實上，沃爾夫書中的一個目標”是“製定一項革命性變革計劃，以實現不會輕易逆轉的改革”（113）。 例如，我們目睹了新政和其他改革和法規的倒退（36-7）。
在私人和國家資本主義中，與工人不同的董事會或公共機構集體占有和分配剩餘。 “相比之下，在 WSDE 中，任何單獨的群體——任何不參與企業生產性工作的個人——都不能成為董事會成員”（118）。 WSDE內部組織的要點在於“WSDE中的剩餘生產、分配和分配不同於各種生產資料所有製形式，並且可以與之共存”（141）以及貨幣和市場的存在與否（143）。 -4）。
對於 WSDE 來說，在（微觀）政治上解決“兩種工人”之間“相互可接受的關係”至關重要（129）。 第一類工人是剩餘產品的直接生產者，第二類工人是間接“促成”剩餘產品生產的工人，如秘書、文員、保安、清潔工、經理、律師、建築師、顧問等。 誰維護提供必要條件的文書工作和物理空間（128）。 此外，還有第二個推動者領域（沃爾夫未提及），他們與整個社區一起維持家庭，為兒童、老人、病人等提供護理（145）。
沃爾夫對如何製定 WSDE 的微觀政治提供了很少的指導。 盡管如此，應該指出的是，這些微觀政治問題目前是以一種根本不民主的方式簡單地解決的（151）。 沃爾夫的觀點是強調“占領”運動表明了從 1% 寡頭非民主霸權中徹底變革的願望。 工人如何選擇解決和不斷調整WSDE內部的關係將深刻地塑造其內部生活，並將其與資本主義企業的內部（通常是極權主義）內部生活區分開來（130）。
沃爾夫在他的網站 www.democracyatwork.info 上提供了一百多個當前工人自主經營企業的例子。 書中提供的主要例子是西班牙蒙德拉貢公司及其 85,000 名工人成員，所有這些都基於一名工人一票的前提 (157)。 沃爾夫進一步將他的 WSDE 與員工持股計劃 (ESOP) 和其他工人所有的企業 (119-20)、工人管理的企業 (120-1) 和合作社 (122) 區分開來。 主要區別在於，隻有在 WSDE 中，盈餘分配才是民主決定的。 這在經濟和政治上賦予了工人權力（146），最重要的是工人階級日常生活中的徹底的非剝削性微觀政治轉變（124）。
沃爾夫認為，WSDE 可以存在於資本主義及其企業內部並與其共存（159）。 他認為，認為非資本主義企業無法成功與資本主義企業競爭的觀點是錯誤的（156）。 西班牙蒙德拉貢公司五十多年來取得了令人矚目的成功 (128)。 數百個 WSDE 正在證明資本主義企業還有另一種選擇（參見 www.democarcyatwork.info）。
不僅有理由相信工人和公民會更喜歡、在政治上爭取並在經濟上支持 WSDE（例如僅消費 WSDE 生產的商品），而且還會對社會的其他幾個方麵產生積極影響。 參與性政治將會發生轉變，因為人們會被鼓勵他們的政治信仰和行動可以產生影響（146）。 同樣，對技術變革和專利的影響也將是革命性的，因為工人和社區決定是否實施新技術 (131-2)。 地方環境政策 (172)、收入分配 (135) 和教育 (128, 161) 將發生根本性轉變。
盡管沃爾夫將 WSDE 與 ESOP、工人管理的企業和合作社區分開來，並且更喜歡 WSDE，但他強調，從戰略上講，這些機構（以及工會）與 WSDE 的創建和製度化之間存在著密切的聯係（169- 79）。
此外，沃爾夫建議我們支持一項聯邦計劃，允許失業工人一次性領取失業補償金，與其他人共同創建 WSDE (170-1) 和支持 WSDE 的基礎設施項目 (161)。 例如，“WSDE 需要公立學校教導所有學生如何設計和指導大型團體活動”、“集體行為的好處和方式”、“以及如何在平等的社區內發出和接受命令”（162）。 當然，這些想法在改善工人生活方麵比當今國會討論的任何其他想法都更有潛力。
沃爾夫的 WSDE 提供了一項新政，與其說是關於政府與公民之間的關係，不如說是關於生產性企業與其工人成員之間的關係的新政。 這將是一項從根本上擴展美國人及其政治曆史所珍視的民主的新政。 WSDE 將成為能夠實現以下四件事的新機構：（1）為失業者提供就業機會，（2）為所有工人提供極權資本主義企業的替代方案，（3）能夠與資本主義企業競爭並超越資本主義企業，以及（ 4）抵製政治倒退。
沃爾夫的書和想法值得廣泛支持和廣泛辯論，以實現美國人口的重新政治化並重振美國勞動力和公民的活力。
2013 年 10 月 4 日
參考
Wolff, R. D. 和 Resnick, S. 2002 年階級理論和曆史：蘇聯的資本主義和共產主義 紐約：勞特利奇。
網址：https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/7827_democracy-at-work-review-by-hans-g-despain/
Capitalism as a system has spawned deepening economic crisis alongside its bought-and-paid-for political establishment. Neither serves the needs of our society. Whether it is secure, well-paid, and meaningful jobs or a sustainable relationship with the natural environment that we depend on, our society is not delivering the results people need and deserve.
One key cause for this intolerable state of affairs is the lack of genuine democracy in our economy as well as in our politics. The solution requires the institution of genuine economic democracy, starting with workers directing their own workplaces, as the basis for a genuine political democracy.
Here Richard D. Wolff lays out a hopeful and concrete vision of how to make that possible, addressing the many people who have concluded economic inequality and politics as usual can no longer be tolerated and are looking for a concrete program of action.
Richard D. Wolff is professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is currently a visiting professor at the New School for Social Research in New York. Wolff is the author of many books, includingCapitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It. He hosts the weekly hour-long radio programEconomic Updateon WBAI (Pacifica Radio) and writes regularly forThe Guardian, Truthout.org, and MRZine.
<<<<<<>>>>>>
Reviewed by Hans G Despain
https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/7827_democracy-at-work-review-by-hans-g-despain/
About the reviewer
Hans G Despain is Professor of Economics and Department Chair at Nichols College, Massachusetts. He encourages your correspondence: hans.despain@nichols.edu
Richard Wolff’s latest book Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism addresses the transition from now to an alternative non-capitalistic society, with the primary focus on the now. Wolff has written the book for an American audience and specifically U.S. institutional change. However, its general principles are applicable to all capitalistic societies. Essentially, Wolff argues capitalistic workplaces should begin to be democratized by means of creating and instituting Worker Self-Directed Enterprises (WSDEs). The current moment is ripe for such an effort, first, because citizens are eager and receptive for alternatives to the worker unfriendly, low pay, benefit impoverished, and undemocratic workplaces most of us are currently enduring. Second, there are still millions of American workers cyclically unemployed from the financial collapse of 2007-8. Third, citizens remain angry about the lack of ‘main-street’ level ‘bailouts’ and there is a sense that the system is rigged against the workers and rigged in favor of a narrow elite (also see 169-79).
Wolff’s book is divided into three parts and eleven chapters, an introduction, and very brief conclusion. Part One explains the instability of capitalist societies, uneven development, and tendency for crisis and financial collapse, with the collapse of 2007-8 merely the most recent. Part Two explains that state-form capitalisms (e.g. Soviet, China, etc.) are partial alternatives at best. They successfully changed the macro-political management of economic production. However, Wolff argues in addition to changing macro-political management, the micro internal organization and management of individual productive enterprises need democratization. Part Three is the heart, and lengthiest section, of the book. Part Three presents in great detail the possibility for, and the how-to of, creating and instituting “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises” (WSDEs) within a capitalistic society and the impact and consequences they would have on the systemic dynamic of a capitalistic political economy, the change of behavior and incentives for workers and managers, and the transformation of cognition with respect to the conception of real-world alternatives to the undemocratic totalitarian capitalist workplaces and the political empowerment of citizens, community, and workers.
Wolff is under no illusion that WSDEs will end workers’ struggles. Analogous to the end of slavery, ex-slaves still had economic and political problems. Ex-slaves no longer struggled over being the property of a slave-master, but other forms of exploitation, oppression, and racism persisted (182). The nineteenth century emancipation proclamation shifted the grounds of the struggles; institutions transformed and power-relations shifted. Similarly, Wolff believes that WSDEs will transform the political and economic grounds of worker struggles. WSDEs will be an extension of democracy and a shift of the power-relations that govern society.
Similar to other Marxian economists, Wolff underscores the historical record of the instability of capitalism (25), its uneven development (27), and tendency to generate massive inequalities in income (135-7), wealth (92), opportunity (44-5), and political power (89-90). Welfare state capitalism and New Deal politics intended to mend these contradictions and maladies of capitalism (31-7). New Deal reforms were both partial and all too temporary.
The boom and bust history has a parallel policy occurrence. Namely, during the bust there is an increase in regulation and pro-labor policy, and during the boom there is a dismantling of regulations and an increase in anti-labor policy (151-4). In other words, typically crises have been followed by countercyclical, pro-labor, and “trickle-up” economic programs that have been rather effective to reverse the immediacy of the crisis (112-3), but ineffective to prevent the boom and bust sequence itself (35-7).
Historically unique and remarkable, of the U.S. policy response to the 2007-8 financial crisis, was the absence of any serious debate concerning “trickle-up” economic programs to protect American workers and households (68). Instead, the response was bailouts for financial corporations and key industries (56-60), and programs of “trickle-down” economics (96-7), whereby, large and direct government assistance for (typically big) business and the rich, which in turn “is supposed to ‘trickle down’ and provide a recovery for the mass of people, too” (7). The problem is that “the expected trickle [down] failed to materialize” (57).
The bailouts and trickle down programs generated massive federal budget deficits (56-60), and the debate quickly turned from socio-economic crisis to a critique of “deficit spending” (63). The big problem now became the “sickness” of government deficits and debts and the appropriate medicine was argued to be austerity or economic belt-tightening (66-7). There was little disagreement about the importance and effectiveness of austerity (9). The main political question was not, if austerity or not, but how much austerity (67).
The “too big to fail” banks got bigger after the 2007-8 collapse (76), but the banks which were unable to function without massive government support and bailouts were nonetheless argued to be “private enterprises” (71). Thus, not only was there no serious debate concerning New Deal “trickle-up” economics, “any systemic alternative to capitalism” was keep silent and off the national agenda (68). The Occupy Wall Street movement attempted to challenge the concentration of wealth and power (177) and the social taboo of any national discussion concerning “a systemic alternative to capitalism” (174-5).
A major problem confronting the discussion of “a systemic alternative to capitalism” is the legacy of Soviet and China style “socialism.” Wolff, drawing heavily from his previous writings (Wolff and Resnick 2002), carefully defines capitalism. The conventional wisdom accepts that a shift in (1) the ownership of the means of production, and (2) the distribution of the means of production and output, (respectively (1) from capitalists to national government, and (2) from economic markets to political planning) is to move from capitalism to “socialism” (99-100). Wolff argues this to be false. It does accomplish a macroeconomic shift to be sure, however, what is further required is microeconomic shift (140) in the internal organization of producing enterprises (93) and who controls the distribution of the surplus generated (104). In both western-style capitalism (“private capitalism”) and the so-called alternatives to capitalism (state capitalism) the surplus produced by workers is appropriated and distributed by others (109).
Wolff’s Marxian surplus analysis reveals the scandal of American capitalism and Soviet “socialism” alike: there is an absence of democracy concerning the distribution of the surplus generated by these systems. “In fact, we must question the very possibility of genuine democracy in a society in which capitalism is the basic economic system” (94), real democracy is absent in both. The scandal then is that in the U.S. which is argued to be the world’s foremost democracy, and the worker inspired Soviet “socialism,” both preclude democratically and worker controlled workplaces. A new economic system must critique both private and state capitalism and provide a concrete pathway forward (116).
Wolff’s primary agenda is to provide an argument and blueprint for the democratization of the workplace. After all, most Americans accept democracy as a foundational social value. “If democracy is a genuine foundational social value, it ought to govern the workplace first and foremost” (147). His overarching hope seems to be revolutionary, however, his argument and blueprint is surely reformist. According to Wolff, reform politics can be complimentary building blocks for social transformation. “Indeed, one goal” of Wolff’s book “is to lay out a program for revolutionary change that can achieve reforms that won’t easily be reversed” (113). For example the rollbacks we have witnessed of the New Deal and other reforms and regulations (36-7).
In private and state capitalism, a board or public body, different from the workers, collectively appropriates and distributes the surplus. “By contrast, in a WSDE, no separate group of persons – no individual who does not participate in the productive work of the enterprise – can be a member of the board of directors” (118). The salient point of the internal organization of WSDEs is that the “surplus production, appropriation and distribution in WSDEs is different from and can coexist with various forms of ownership of means of production” (141) and presence or absence of money and markets (143-4).
It is crucial for WSDEs to work out (micro)politically the “mutually acceptable relationship between” “two kinds of workers” (129). The first type of workers are the direct producers of the surplus and the second type of workers are those that “enable” indirectly the production of surplus, such as secretaries, clerks, security guards, cleaning staff, managers, lawyers, architects, counselors and so on who maintain the paperwork and physical spaces that provide the necessary conditions (128). Additionally there is a second realm of enablers (unaddressed by Wolff) who maintain households, provide caregiving to children, elderly, sick, etc., along with the community at large (145).
Wolff provides little guidance of how the micro-politics of WSDEs would be worked out. Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that these micro-political problems are currently worked out rather simply in a radically undemocratic way (151). Wolff’s point is to underscore the Occupy movement illustrates the desire for radical change from the 1% oligarchic undemocratic hegemony. How workers choose to work out and constantly adjust the relationships within the WSDE will profoundly shape its internal life as well as distinguish it from the internal (typically totalitarian) internal life of the capitalist enterprise (130).
At his website, www.democracyatwork.info, Wolff offers well over one hundred examples of current worker self-directed enterprises. In the book the primary example offered is Mondragón Corporation of Spain and its 85,000 worker-members, all based on the premise of one worker-member, one vote (157). Wolff further differentiates his WSDEs from Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and other worker-owned enterprises (119-20), worker-managed enterprises (120-1), and cooperatives (122). The key difference is that it is only in WSDEs that distribution of surplus is determined democratically. This empowers workers both economically and politically (146) and most important is a radical nonexploitative micro-political shift in the daily lives of the working-class (124).
Wolff argues that WSDEs can exist within, and coexist with, capitalism and its enterprises (159). He argues it erroneous to believe that noncapitalistic enterprises cannot successfully compete with capitalistic enterprises (156). The Mondragón Corporation of Spain has been impressively successful for more than five decades (128). Hundreds of WSDEs are demonstrating there is an alternative to capitalistic enterprises (see www.democarcyatwork.info).
Not only are there reasons to believe that workers and citizens will prefer, politically fight for, and economically support WSDEs (e.g. consuming only WSDEs produced goods), there will also be positive impacts on several other dimensions of society. There will be a shift in participatory politics, because people will be encouraged that their political beliefs and actions can make a difference (146). Likewise, the impact on technical change and patents will be revolutionary because workers and communities decide whether to implement new technology (131-2). There will be a radical shift in local environmental policy (172), distribution of income (135), and education (128, 161).
Although Wolff distinguishes and prefers WSDEs from and over ESOPs, worker-managed enterprises, and co-ops, he emphasizes that strategically there is a close connection between these institutions (along with trade-unions) and the creation and institutionalization of WSDEs (169-79).
Moreover, Wolff suggests that we support a federal program that allows unemployed workers to take their unemployment compensation as a lump-sum to pool with others to create WSDEs (170-1) and infrastructure projects supportive of WSDEs (161). For example, “WSDEs need public schools to teach all students how to design and direct large group activities,” “the benefits and modalities of collective behavior,” “and how to give and receive orders within a community of equals” (162). Certainly these ideas have far more potential to improve the lives of workers than anything else being debated in Congress today.
Wolff’s WSDEs afford a New Deal, not so much concerning the relationship between the government and the citizen, but a New Deal concerning the relationship between a productive enterprise and its worker-members. It would be a New Deal that radically extended the democracy that is so valued by Americans and its political history. WSDEs would be new institutions capable of the following four things: (1) providing jobs to the unemployed, (2) offering an alternative for all workers to the totalitarian capitalist enterprises, (3) able to compete with and outperform capitalist enterprises, and (4) resist political rollback.
Wolff’s book and ideas deserve wide support and wide debate to repoliticize the American population and rejuvenate the American workforce and citizens.
4 October 2013
References
- Wolff, R. D. and Resnick, S. 2002 Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the USSR New York: Routledge.
