Max Sawicky wrote:
> It encourages ultimatism and
> left-wing-left-wing communism.
CC:
One learns new isms all the time. Incidentally what is the difference
between left-wing communism and left-wing-left-wing communism?
[mbs] the same as the difference between overdone and
burnt to a cinder.
CC:
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.
[mbs] true enough, but obviously the question is what is
'too far' and what is not far enough.
CC:
Would I be right in fearing that you would equate ultra-leftism with
a refusal to work with Clinton or Gore?
[mbs] No, you would be wrong.
For instance, I wouldn't call Dave McReynolds
an ultra-leftist. Defining it is harder than recognizing
it when you see it, from my standpoint. I'd say there are
basic characteristics, and if someone exhibits one it is
reasonable to classify the action reflecting the characteristic
as ultra.
Some of these would be:
Refusal to support meaningful reforms on the grounds
that these pacify the working class;
Substituting parallel organizations for trade unions;
Attacking social-democrats as 'worse than rightists';
Failing to recognize the positive aspects of capitalism,
relative to feudalism;
Failing to recognize progress under capitalism, such
as it has been;
CC: If so this list is really infested
with ultra-leftism, beginning with the list owner.
[mbs] Oh, and one more: characterizing the charge of
U-L so as to include much more than is intended or
made explicit, in an effort to label the charge as
broadly anti-left or anti-communist.
I would not classify criticism of labor's trade politics
(or mine), or unease about any sort of coordination with
the anti-globalist right as U-L. I just think it's wrong.
CC:
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).
[mbs]
It's that understanding I was criticizing. Elevating welfare
over the EITC in the way JD did is perfectly backwards, IMO.
A legitimate criticism of the EITC is that it is conditional
on finding employment, but that was not what I took to be the
thrust of JD's comments.
CC:
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
Or I disagree on the nature of the resemblance. Since the
reserve army of labor (RAL) consists, as the name implies, of
workers, I would say a key aspect of the RAL is its ghettoization --
its image as something separate and beneath the general population.
The welfare system is the institutional embodiment of this
separation--it's literally where the RAL must go for its daily bread.
The EITC, to an important extent, breaks down this separateness.
Unlike welfare (i.e., Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, etc)\
it is entirely in cash. There are no restrictions on its use.
Second, one does not go through a demeaning process to get aid.
The government is asking people to file for the EITC, is helping
them file. The audit scandal is a minor aspect of the program.
The new welfare systems are two-edged in this regard. Presently
they have some ugly resemblance to the old, pre-1970 system. But
insofar as 'welfare clients' are put in programs that entail
regular employment of some type or another, sooner or later,
with benefits that are conditional on work, I would argue that the new
system has a potential to create new political opportunities for the left.
The new work-conditioned benefits could conceivably be the basis
for universal benefits. An example is Wisconsin. The caseload
there has been chopped down by about 90% over the past decade.
At the same time there is a child care system which is open
to TANF clients, but also to low-income families in general.
The newly-employed workers are obvious candidates for trade
union and other organizing.
All these questions become a kind of political dynamite when
the next recession comes along -- when the myth that welfare
is the cause of unemployment is dashed and the question of
income becomes inseparable from the question of employment.
Or when a general understanding develops that everybody
is in the RAL, so to speak.
mbs
