>Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's deployed as a weapon against people on the left who want to
> > improve the lot of humanity and only "end up hurting those whom they
> > aim to help."
>
>So?
>
>Carrol
carrol's right to say "so"? It's the same answer Andie should have given Yoshie when she implied Andie's views were similar to views of US conservatives re: Iran. It's just that, while I understand the way this phrase has been used against leftist (and pwogs) "social engineering", isn't it the case that Kristol, a former lefty, got it from left analysis itself.
e.g. marx may not have used the phrase, and marxists who followed didn't either, but nearly all of them seem to explore unintended consequences. that capitalism supposedly produces its own gravediggers -- classic example of unintended consequences.
michael burawoy studies workers and observes, under the guise of resisting mgmt, workers 'manufacture their own consent' -- he's observing an unintended consequence of supposed resistance to exploitation on the shop floor.
eric just talked about -- and no one called it conservative -- the way struggles for a more humane workplace had the unintended consequence of strengthening capitalism, etc. you (doug) argue that the unintended consequence of prosperity has been resistance and revolt (e.g., the 90s). Etc.