> The period after WW I was that of the weakening of the laissez faire
> capitalism. Virtually every state started introducing social safety
> net. In some countries, like Sweden, it led to a generaous welfare
> state and stoped short of nationalzing key industries (although such
> proposals were entertained). In the US, it did not go that far. The
> forces behind those changes were labor unions, workers parties,
> progressive intellectuals etc. - and how much they could achive
> depended mainly on the strength of the capitalist reaction to those
> changes. Some of those changes were later reversed as the capitalist
> class regained strenght and launched a reactionary movement.
>
> That is a historical narrative that gives justice to power struggle.
> However, if we take the "system as a whole" approach and start seeing
> all what is going as something that feeds into the system - we abandon
> the realm of empirical science and enter the realm of teleological
> mysticism. Which is what much of modern Marxism cum world system are.
> Basically, the same genre as Talcott Parsons' social systems and
> neo-classical economics, but with with reversed polarities.
None of which alters my point: the Welfare State, New Deal and Keynes saved capitalism. You are presuming and projecting "teleology" onto _one_ aspect of my analysis of the reasons why capitalism did not collapse in the 1930s. Intentions have nothing to do with it.