From: Paul Gallagher <pcg-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Feeding the poor
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:39:43 -0400 (EDT)


> From: james m blaut <70671.2032-AT-CompuServe.COM>
> 
> 
> More and more, the poor are the non-whites. This is capitalism's way of
> softening the burden on the primary labor market. A worker who has a small
> house, a car, a kid in college with bright opportunities ahead of him/her,
> is not likely (in my view) to be very revolutionary.
> 
> Yr. obdt. srv.
> 
> Jim Blaut  

Thank you for your post. I agree (but have been wrong before). Godena and 
others disagree, and probably can find many quotations from Marx in support.
You're right for many reasons that it's important to be clear whom we're 
talking about when we talk about "the poor." People often define the working
class too narrowly. More important, in mainstream debate "the poor" 
is often a code word for black people and other ethnic minorities. By shifting
the meaning of "the poor" back and forth, writers can play on stereotypes and
racial divisions while appearing innocent of bigotry. For example, Murray 
and Herrnstein's book cleverly evades the appearance of racism by devoting 
the bulk of its first section to the genetic failings of the white poor.

The arguments of James Q. Wilson, Murray, Rushton, et al, are that most
of the white working class is hard-working, responsible, and richly rewarded
for it by society, while many of the poor of various ethnic minorities are
lazy, irresponsible, often criminal, and a burden on society, including the
hard working whites. The reason for this, they argue, should not be
sought in the society as a whole, but in the innate failings of the
individuals in these groups themselves. Some identify these failings
as genetic, others identify them as cultural. People who disagree, Murray
says, are poverty pimps, who want to enrich themselves and strengthen an
already too powerful state.

I don't see much difference between Murray's argument and the arguments
presented on this list, except that I don't suspect Godena of racial
prejudice. That doesn't prove them wrong, but I expect at least a little
sublation is in order.

How this will affect the revolution that's coming any day now, is a harder
question.  Some poor people are criminals who prey on the working class;
Godena can correctly point out that this segment of the poor may still be
a burden in a socialist USA. However, the scenario of the unionized industrial
white working class  leading an American revolution, and the poor stabbing 
them in the back, doesn't sound very likely to me.  But whatever the case, 
I'm prejudiced to look for the source of the poor's problems in the society
as a whole, rather than in the innate properties of individuals: I'd look for
the cause of the mental illness, alcoholism, crime, etc., which Godena cited, 
in society first: "There but for the grace of God[ena] go I."  Certainly, this
a cliche of welfare state liberalism.  Perhaps somebody here can formulate it 
better. Certainly Jim Blaut's points about class mobility  in the dominant
ethnic groups versus mobility in the oppressed ethnic groups are important.
Poverty has been displaced onto the oppressed minorities, not because of
the innate failings of the minorities, but because they are oppressed.
Anyway I remember promising my last post would be the last on this subject,


Paul



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---