> You think full employment can be just implemented and that's that. But
> that's never happened without the stratifications Voyou and I have
> mentioned or without very bloody war (at least in a substantial
> capitalist economy, which Sweden doesn't count as). As Doug said here
> a few years ago: "The only problems that capitalism can't solve by its
> very nature - leaving aside the contingencies of politics and such -
> are polarization and cyclicality." I think it's on you to describe how
> something that has never happened--how polarization has been
> overcome--is now possible.
Okay. As Doug says, capitalism has a built-in tendency toward polarization. That tendency can be and has been combated by movements from below, which can win and have won concessions from above. Full employment, as a "concession," creates very deep contradictions and tensions, because it generates certain economic and social phenomena that are dysfunctional for capitalism. (In my view, the economic dysfunctions are actually not strictly fatal for capitalism - they could be addressed through "technical" means. But politically speaking, it's unlikely that that would actually happen without a revolution.) To me, those tensions are a feature, not a bug. I don't see why you'd disagree.
As for the "stratifications" you correlate with full employment, they don't have any grounding in economic or political analysis that I can see. All you're saying is that, empirically, there was once full employment and simultaneously there were lots of evils in the world -- WWII, racial hierarchy, patriarchy. Therefore, if we fight for full employment, we must be fighting for WWII, racial hierarchy and patriarchy. I know that sounds like a straw man, but frankly your argument is a straw man.
SA