raghu wrote:
I don't buy this line of reasoning. A welfare state is in the long-term interests of the elites. Are you going to oppose a robust welfare state on that basis? And of course, you have oppose everything Keynesian based on that line of reasoning.
You are confused about the origins of the welfare state. It came about through militant struggle. Bismarck's unemployment insurance was only enacted because of the growing threat of a massive socialist movement. A general strike in Sweden in 1931 produced the first welfare state of the modern era. The CIO militancy had the same effect on FDR, etc.
So what if something progressive happens to be in the long-term interests of the elites? I say, good for them, lets have more of the same.
Have you ever read Karl Marx? I am sure, at least partially, that you would find him most edifying. Particularly on the question of the class struggle.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
