On May 19, 2010, at 8:35 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> But what if this is part of a permanent (until the next) change in the
> structure of capitalist economy, representing a more-or-less 'normal'
> grinding poverty for up to 20% of the population, pins & needles for
> another (say) 40%, and doing fine for the top 40.
That's pretty much what I've been saying for a long time. The anomaly was 1950-73.
> Why assume that capitalism's (projected) failure to "work" for a large
> populattion is any failure from the perspective of either the "system"
> or its favored elements?
That's not my position. In fact, part of my longstanding disagreement with Patrick Bond has been over just that. Large swathes of poverty are not a sign that the system isn't working - it's standard operating procedure.
Doug