Although the insistence on work for those on welfare blurs the line a bit, the
working poor (EITC) continue to be treated better than those on welfare. TANF
recipients are subjected to constant harassment to demonstrate their need; EITC
have tax forms to fill out, but face no comparable harassment--the IRS
intensified audits of the working poor notwithstanding. I go with Max on this
one.
Joel B;au
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> > It encourages ultimatism and
> > left-wing-left-wing communism.
>
> One learns new isms all the time. Incidentally what is the difference
> between left-wing communism and left-wing-left-wing communism?
>
> The usual defining feature of ultra-leftism is a refusal to work with
> "bourgeois" leftists -- and of course by pushing one's defintion of
> "the left" far enough to the right, it would be possible to accuse
> someone with ultra-leftism for refusing to work with Pat Buchanan.
> Would I be right in fearing that you would equate ultra-leftism with
> a refusal to work with Clinton or Gore? If so this list is really infested
> with ultra-leftism, beginning with the list owner.
>
> But I think you are dangerously mixing (rather than uniting: there is
> a difference) theory and practice. Jim is not quite saying that if the
> state doesn't replace EITC with direct welfare payments without
> strings he will pick up his marbles and go home. (Is that what you
> mean by ultimatism? It sounds real sinister.) The "level" at which he
> is operating, if I understand him correctly, is that of a basic understanding
>
> of the treatment/mistreatment of the poor at the present time. How that
> is to translate into political practice would be a matter of further
> debate (and probably would not involve "ultimatism." Love that word).
>
> The core point for *understanding* -- again, with the proviso that
> understanding never translates directly into practice without more
> ado -- is where capital draws the line in its treatment of the reserve
> army of labor. And the resemblances as well as differences -- the
> resemblances *more* than the differences -- between public aid
> and EITC are all important here it seems. And you seem dogmatically
> determined not to allow for those resemblances.
>
> Carrol
