Oh goody! I've always admired magazines like COSMO with their constant
barrage of quizzes ("Are You Giving Your Man All that He Wants?"). Luckily,
MBS has provided us with a "Are You a Left-Wing-Left-Wing Communist?" quiz.
>Some of these [characteristics of left-wing-left-wing communism] would be:
>Refusal to support meaningful reforms on the grounds that these pacify the
>working class;
not guilty. That's like opposing unions or wage increases.
>Substituting parallel organizations for trade unions;
I reject this. Instead, I favor caucuses that strive to make unions more
democrat and/or more militant (where militance is defined in terms of what
the rank-and-file want). (However, some proponents of company unions might
accuse those who favor independent unions of being ultra-leftists. There's
a gray area here.)
>Attacking social-democrats as 'worse than rightists';
not guilty. I wish we had social democracy in the US and the world. I don't
think that social democratic strategies work to produce social democracy,
however, since s.d. represents a compromised version of something better.
>Failing to recognize the positive aspects of capitalism, relative to
>feudalism;
Not guilty. The transition from feudalism to capitalism had both costs and
benefits. I would say that it's hard to balance these (especially since
different classes suffered the costs more than others). But I wouldn't want
to go "back." Indoor plumbing seems a major step forward. (Rather, it's the
generalization of indoor plumbing that's a step forward, since the Minoan
version was probably mostly for the royalty.)
>Failing to recognize progress under capitalism, such as it has been;
not guilty. I've mentioned recent rises in real wages, for example, though
I think that they're a cyclical phenomenon more than the beginning of a trend.
Actually, wouldn't the first "left-wing" cancel out the second "left-wing"
(the way an anti-anti-missile becomes merely a missile) so that it would
simply be "communist"? But if we bring in Barkley's third "left-wing," it
gets us back to a meaningful "left-wing communism."
BTW, Max, who on the pen-l list lives up to your definition of
"ultra-left"? (Please answer off-list if you wish.)
getting beyond the quiz:
>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.
I didn't "elevate" AFDC ("welfare") over EITC as much as do a comparison,
which seems relevant given the way in which the latter (along with TANF,
etc.) has helped substitute for the former. Max, is it possible that you
have some sort of emotional commitment to EITC that warped your analysis so
that you didn't understand what I was saying?
>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.
so does the EITC. Those without jobs don't get benefits from the EITC,
since they don't have "earned income."
>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.
This is valid, but the EITC is still linked to "earned income," separating
the "worthy" poor from the "unworthy" poor.
BTW, none of the above should be interpreted as saying that the EITC should
be repealed.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"From the east side of Chicago/ to the down side of L.A.
There's no place that he gods/ We don't bow down to him and pray.
Yeah we follow him to the slaughter / We go through the fire and ash.
Cause he's the doll inside our dollars / Our Lord and Savior Jesus Cash
(chorus): Ah we blow him up -- inflated / and we let him down -- depressed
We play with him forever -- he's our doll / and we love him best."
-- Terry Allen.
