On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:32:38 -0500 bitch at pulpculture.org writes:
> At 10:09 AM 12/2/2007, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> >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.
The bitch is right. Marx of course got the notion from Adam Smith with his "invisble hand" and Hegel with his "cunning of reason." And before those guys, there was Bernard de Mandeville with his "Fable of the Bees." (http://tinyurl.com/2bhmlc).
Anyway the sword of unintended consequences cuts both ways.
Jim F.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>