[WS:] I am afraid that this is correct. Not only European style welfare state but also European style democracy were products of unique social conditions that do not exist anymore, and will likely be replaced by market totalitarianism (cf. China.) Or perhaps meet the fate of European monarchies - reduced to purely ceremonial institutions that have zero impact on economy and society. Neo-liberalism shows the way it will happen - creating the tyranny of "the markets" (euphemism for the capitalist class) in the name of freedom and liberty.
Wojtek
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:04 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
> > The point is that Hutton's recommendations fall short of what Polanyi
> said
> > long ago, and even short of post-war practice in Europe.
>
> Even pretending that Michael's point isn't correct (and it is
> correct), I'm having trouble seeing why this is relevant or even
> remarkable. It seems to me it only is if you assume progress to be the
> movement of history, if you expect us (21st centurians) to be more
> advanced than them (20th century boys). But it's worth pointing out,
> for the eight thousandth time, that "postwar practice in Europe" was a
> complete anomaly in capitalism's history. It was the exception, not
> the norm.
>
> > Neoliberalism was a setback that current reform proposals don't
> recuperate.
>
> It wasn't a "setback." It was/is a movement that changed the way
> capitalism functioned, to the detriment of many who were protected by
> the previous form and for the benefit of some who were excluded from
> what came before.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>