On Feb 1, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Tahir Wood wrote:
> However, let's just note in passing
> that this immiseration argument, which is rightly despised, is often
> deliberately conflated with another quite different argument
> concerning
> the sustainability of capitalist society. (The very prominent list
> member who does this most often for rhetorical effect knows who he
> is.)
I assume this would be me, though I don't get your point. Capitalist society has proved itself sustainable, despite a million predictions to the contrary, for more several centuries. Its luck may run out sooner or later - maybe even sooner, who knows? - but the presumption has to be that it will remain, to use the language of accountants, a going concern. It didn't merely survive its greatest crisis, that of the 1930s, it emerged stronger from it. Why call it unsustainable? What's gained by that, especially since the odds are you'll be proved wrong for the rest of your lifetime?
Doug