Doug Henwood wrote: > I was writing for the NYT, not Workers Vanguard. <
I haven't written for either rag, so back to the theory no matter where it is published. It did sound in your account as though the economic troubles of the 1970s were caused by workers' previous success in class struggle. You do say that higher wages now for the bottom 90 percent and public spending initiatives could restore growth. The implication is that capitalism has a sweet spot in the middle where adequate exploitation hence healthy profits could be combined with reasonably good times for workers. So I asked whether this is a misreading. --- On Mar 31, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Charlie wrote: > It reads like the theory that wages squeezed profits, causing the 1973 recession and subsequent stagflation. Now, after the capitalists have pushed the pendulum hard to the right, the need is to restore workers' consumption. The implication is that capitalism has a sweet spot in the middle, somehow combining adequate exploitation hence healthy profits with reasonably good times for workers. Is this not the implied theory? < _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
