>The full employment argument assumes that once it is achieved, then
>the next stage of socialist development can begin. It's never worked
>this way.
otoh, there's never been full-employment.
>In fact, the segment of the population that has the best
>conditions, that has the closest thing to full employment--white
>males--is also the most reactionary, nasty, vindictive, and punitive.
What about all the wildcat strikes and absenteeism in the '70s? If full-employment doesn't threaten bosses, then why do they work so hard against it?