[PEN-L:33297] Re: RE: The Economist considers Karl Marx

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim D: but just as the lunatics have taken over the asylum, the looney right wing has taken over the conciousness of much of the US citizenry (at least here in SoCal), along with taking over more and more of the judiciary every day.

Well, Southern Cal, that's where all the loose marbles go anyway . . . . Haven't you read Nathaniel West's Day of the Lucust?

Of course, in _practice_, there's an amendment that should be made: if the government intervention directly and materially helps businesses, it's not "socialism" but is part of "laissez-faire." This amendment reflects the common contrast between laissez-faire theory (no guvmint!) and laizzez-faire practice (guvmint should help biz, in public/private partnerships). 

But in common parlance in places where I've lived, ordinary folk may disagree about how much the govt should regulate, etc., without starting to use the S-word.

>>yes, but in much of popular consciousness, state ownership is simply further down the spectrum from state intervention in the "free" market. It's a matter of quantitative change becoming qualitative.

There's something to that, no? If the state nationalizes the commanding heights, you might not have a worker's democracy, but you won't have capitalism anymore.

jks

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now