|
fta: babysitter and corporate entities are not similar enough for an analogy leaning on the former to say much of anything about the latter. same problem the alchemists had--they thought that because a and 3 (empty variables referring to substances/objects) were both material that it should follow that one could be converted into the other.
point 2 (from your post):
property in the form of a corporation owned by shareholders is not like property in the form of your lawn held by you. so if i understand the point you are making (and i am not sure that i do), it seems to be another strange analogy. but i am not sure. so please explain more of what you mean.
point 3: at the descriptive level, you're right...but this isn't a conversation about descriptions of capitalism so much as it is a political argument about how capitalism is framed ideologically. so i am making an argument for the widest extension of the notion of public-ness in the context of captialist organization. during most of the fordist period (particularly ww2-the early 197os) the political situation was such that unions had significantly cut into what had been understood as the "private" space of profit maximizing--but they did it based on political conflict--which presupposed organization and pressure and, well, conflict. in the states, you had a screwy trade union model, so things didnt go as well for working folk as they did in europe, where the power of the trade union movement was reflected in functionally social-democratic arrangements. with the shift toward more flex-accumulation modes across the 70s, this situation began to change quickly--now the political situation is dominated by capital and their functionaries (to use a neutral term)...the relation of labor to capital is political, as is the extension of the notion of public-ness. all of this changes as the overall balance of power changes. i am making an argument about the current political situation--and it refers to the op via the linking of conservative economic ideology to the range of options bush has to actually do something about, say, ceo salaries (or the radically uneven distribution of wealth that has come about since the reagan period)--the claim is that the ideology leave bush no room to do anything but talk.
cooking something as i write this: i'll get back to the thread later and respond to your points, kangaeru.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|