michael perelman wrote: > > I wonder what the academic economics community would think of a book > that routinely described economic policies in terms of labor repression. > I suspect that no matter what the quality of the book might be such > language would automatically convict the author of unacceptable bias. > You are correct, but the reason you are correct is that the "establishmnent" is as foolish as leftitsts on one poing: both fantasoze that difficulties for current business, even extreme difficulty worse than The Great Depression, is bad for capitalsim as a system. That is not true at all.
One of the features of capitalism as a mode of social organization (as distinct from any particular group of actual capitalists) is that no change is really bad for it. All changes, even nearly susscessful revolutions, stregthen capitalism The movements of the '30s might have scared individual capitalists and enthused individual social ists, but in retrospect they represented no threat at all to capitalism, and it emerged from depression and war stronger than ever. This endless search for things that are "bad"for capitalism is a barrier to clear political thought, to asking the right questions. One thin and one think only will ever be "bad" for capitalism. A socvial revolution that reaches the point of abolishing the wage system. Until that happens there will always be a strong possiblity, even probability, of capitalism emerging stronger than ever from a socialist revolution. The organization of labor has to be utterlychanged, changed in an irreversible way. That is bad for capitalism. That is all that is bad for capitalism There are many things which will make 'the left' stronger, but most of them simultaneoulsy make capitalism stronger. But the last word is always Mao's: If you don't hit it it won't fall. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
