At 12:19 10/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Arthur,
I understand the sentiment, but their are historical precedent's for a poor
people's movement for change. There is nothing inherently flawed in the
human agency of the poor. Nor do I think we can just see political agency
as part of the cultural capital of the middle classes, although they are
currently the most organized in terms of exercising their own (currently
conservative) will [ie. lower taxes]. But social movements change. Given
the realities of our society, people move in and out of the category of
being classified as poor. It's not a permanent state. Downward mobility is
increasingly a reality for some formerly constructed as middle class, now
poor, and they are coming from a background of higher education levels, and
strength through collective involvement, with the skills to make their
presence known. Once people get beyond the embarrassment and self-blame
[learned cultural responses] who knows how they will respond politically.
As I write, there are organized groups, funded by churches and unions, who
do political outreach in poor neighborhoods. It does often have the outcome
of people finding their efficacy as human beings. I am thinking, for
example, of the work of Jim Wallis. I think the question for the future is
quite open-ended. Who knows, the threat of political instability, within
this group, may well encourage the State to respond with a basic income
scheme to reduce the level of social tension.
Not a chance, I'm afraid. The middle-class won't go along with this. They are increasingly paying most of the taxes and they are increasingly the only ones who bother to turn out to vote (particularly in the US and England). It is they who would revolt if there were any chance of a basic income. I'm afraid the poor are going to suffer increasingly in the coming decades unless they start to do what the working classes were beginning to do in England at around 1860 onwards -- self-help in all sorts of ways (housing societies, doctors' panels, insurance schemes, schooling, etc). In England, however, their own attemtps were cut off from around the turn of the century by do-gooding liberals and the civil service -- who were able to supply far more free services from then onwards (because of the vastly growing prosperity of the country). This time round, though, as energy resources become increasingly costly, this won't be the case. All the welfare-based developed countries (and Bush is now making even America into a welfare state) are really bankrupt and won't be able to bail out the poor. What the poor need to do now is to organise their own schools to teach good basic skills, etc, and lift themsleves up -- just as the miners of Wales and the mechanics of the Midlands were beginning to do in the 1860s and onwards (Mechanics Institutes and Workers Education Movement, etc). The state education systems cannot do so because it's still permeated by middle-class do-gooding -- Nanny know best -- and it is breaking down very badly already, particularly in the two most industrial/service advanced economies, America and England.
Keith Hudson
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Killing its own
> To go against the leadership would imply the need for a political agenda.
A
> context for action. Usually lacking in this group.
>
> The powerless tend to end up "going postal."
>
> arthur
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Killing its own
>
>
> Robert E. Bowd wrote:
> > It creates a complex matrix of self-blame among people who convinced of
> >their > own powerlessness. [Poppycock, really.]
>
> Victimologically, it is interesting to observe that the disenfranchised
> individuals turn against the lower (or middle) strata instead of the
> "responsibles". E.g. the sniper Lee Malvo, or just the usual muggers.
>
> If people have nothing left to lose anyway (and know that the death
> penalty is in force too), wouldn't logic suggest different targets?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the
keyword
> "igve".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
