> > It can be argued, I think convincingly, that the Welfare
> > State and the New Deal saved capitalism in the 1930s.
> > Although these obviously adversely affected some individual
> > capitalists and some sections of capital.
> >
>
>
> Anything can be argued convincingly, and as my French colleague once
> observed, with the proper choice of words and assumptions you can fit
> Paris in a bottle.
>
> The offending part of such arguments is its hidden teleologism - or
> perhaps a hindsight rationalization (which are based on the same kind
> of fallacy) - we observe elements A and B being associated at the time T
> when we observe them, we note, furthermore, that A occurred at the time
> T1 which is before T - and we conclude that A must have been "intended"
> to produce B (a strong version of teleologism) or that A "caused" B (a
> somewhat weaker version of teologism). The problem with teleogical
> arguments or ex post facto rationzalizations is that they cannot predict
> B from A when we know only A but we do know whether B has occurred.
>
> Wojtek
If I catch your drift, you are saying that social security was introduced in the 1930s mostly in response to demands from the working class(??) That may be true. It doesn't mean that it didn't save capitalism. Where else could the bourgeoisie turn, when --- in some countries --- more than 50% of households were suddenly without a breadwinner, and consumption was at a standstill? Enter that staunch anti-Marxist, Mr Keynes...