Ted Winslow wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > the
> > differences revolve around those "social" issues that simply lie outside
> > the substantial interests of the ruling class. (I find "ruling class"
> > and every other term I or others have used unsatisfactory, but i"ll leae
> > it here.)
>
> How can this idea of "capitalists" as the embodiment of demonic genius be made consistent with the irrationality at work in the development of financial derivative markets over the last 40 years, the irrationality "responsible" for the most recent financial crisis?
I don't quite understand the link between Ted's response and the quoted passage from my post. How doe my text incorporate any idea of capitalists as the emboiment of demonic genius? I was arguing that, in general, the dP leadershp avoids policies that would endnager 'big' capital, and that (as I think Doug has periodically argued) 'big' capital is either indifferent to the so-called "social issues" or actually prefers "progressive" polcies towards gays, women, etc. And in my parenthesis on "ruling class" I meant to indicate my scepticism re any direct orders from an organized class -- that is, to leave open the question of just _how- capitalsit intersts get embodied and manifested while asserting the fact.
I don't get where any demonic genius enters the picture.
Carrol