I recently read The World That Never Was. I really liked it, despite the fact that it includes a gazillion people and can be hard to follow (even for someone who was familiar with many of the players). The book basically covers the period between Haymarket and WWI.
There is one part of the book where the author describes in the clearest and simplest terms what the liberal bargain was. The government would “guarantee the property of the rich in return for welfare protection for the poor.” A bad bargain, if you ask me, but I suppose it was understandable. So here is my question.
Is it better for us to fight to continue that bargain, meaning for those social protections, or should we just call the whole deal off and go for the property?
Discuss.
________
** Sorry that I am not able to put up part two of my media post this week. Work has been busy and I haven’t been able to wrap my head around much. So this little mini post will have to do for now.
