> It seems to me that we should emphasize the _solidarity_ between the poor > and the working class rather than seeing their interests as opposed or > hoping that good stuff for the working class will trickle down to the poor > or that good stuff for the poor will trickle up. Think about programs that > are good for both, such as full employment, training & education, a rising > real minimum wage ... To me 'solidarity' means a convincing portrait of how the poor and the working class are ONE. Poor people are workers without jobs or income, workers are people whose only source of sustenance is their labor, a large part of the working class is poor at one time or another, all workers are at risk of poverty (more so now than other times), etc. That's why the concept of social insurance is so appealing to me. It is a unifying concept (unlike welfare, which is isolating). It binds the class together conceptually, not just in 'one hand washes the other' fashion. We're not different patches making up a quilt, with apologies to J. Jackson. There's more to Rawls than I can explicate, but his 'maximin' notion, while appealing philsophically, I think is prey to the conventional, politically disastrous 'isolationist' view of the poor. In this vein, just to be provocative, I would suggest that the Church's concept of social justice is broader, more appealing, and more effective politically than Rawls. The Church as institution is something else again. And of course we need not dwell too long on the World Bank. I'd like to hear more about Illich too. MBS
[PEN-L:718] RE: Re: Re: redefining the poor out of existence
Max Sawicky Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:08:43 -0500charset="iso-8859-1"