It is a repitition. Part of what Lou said way back in this thread was that some crisis (I can't think of a weaker word at this moment) forces capitalists to cede some ground in order to maintain control.
In the US welfare capitalism grew up in response to workers' ethnic solidarity, which allowed them to win a strategic advantage -- especially because management could not even understand their language. Welfare capitalism was linked with efforts at "Americanization." On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 09:50:54AM -0800, Jim Devine wrote: > > Actually, that's not repeating anything. Rather, it's a completely new > point (a reference to the fallacy of composition). I accept it, since > it's right down the alley of what I was talking about (e.g., the way > in which focus on a few individuals can easily distort one's > perception). But then, why does raghu talk about a far-sighted > capitalists _as individuals_ rather than about "far-sighted > capitalism" (roughly, what I called "soft social democracy") as a > socio-economic system? -- 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
