>On Aug 10, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Angelus Novus wrote:
>
>
>
>>...and If I may be permitted to once more promote the
>>work of Michael Heinrich, readers may wish to consult
>>the following article on MRZine, on why capitalism is
>>not going away anytime soon:
>>
>>http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/heinrich280707.html
>>
>>"...the period of the economic miracle also dominates
>>the perceptions of the more radical left, as the
>>development of capitalism since the miracle is
>>perceived as a plunge towards a final crisis, or at
>>least as a period of decline for capitalism -- as if
>>it were ever the purpose of capitalism to spread full
>>employment and welfare among the people. Crisis and
>>unemployment are in no way a sign of capitalist
>>decline; they are capitalist normality."
>>
>>
>
>Yes yes yes. This is part of the argument I've had many times with
>Patrick Bond over the last decade. I'd only argue with the word
>"crisis" in this context - a crisis is a moment when the reproduction
>of a system is in doubt. Mere quotidian turbulence doesn't qualify.
>
>
This line of argument is too clever by half. You can point to 1800-1945 as "normal" capitalism and 1945-1973 as "miracle" capitalism - and you might even be right as far as economic history is concerned. But subjectively speaking, the vast majority of people in the US and Europe still see 1945-1973 as a baseline. Going back to 1929 social relations -- even with 2007 income levels -- feels like a giant leap backwards and lacks legitimacy. That's why in the US we've seen massive increases in labor force participation and household debt - these are ways to keep middle-class consumption growth on a "miracle" path despite "normal" levels of inequality and volatility. Now the growth in labor force participation seems tapped out and household debt is causing severe strains in the system.
Seth