As Jim mentioned, no one suggested homogeneity. Of course, there are times when one can use divisions within the class. Marx noted how child laborlaws were passed because of divisions between the landowners who wanted agricultural protection and the industrialists who wanted cheap food for lower wages. When they got their cheap food, landed interests got the restricitons on child labor.
Obama was trying to pick off certain parts of business to pass healthcare -- deals with various interest groups. It did not work very well. Energy companies with a high nuclear capacity will support cap and trade. There may be gains to be made at the edges, but that kind of stategy is a recipe for weakness, since the gains will be limited. On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 06:07:40PM -0600, raghu wrote: > > Hi Michael, > Don't you think it is a mistake to take the capitalist class as > homogeneous? Surely there is scope for a tactical alliance (with all > the caution that that phrase implies) with the less insane elements of > that class for important reforms like reining in the mad financiers > and having a civilized level of health-care etc? > > That, to me, is the key item of contention in this thread. Purists -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
