Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:17:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan-AT-umich.edu>
To: rakesh bhandari <djones-AT-uclink.berkeley.edu>
cc: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Cockburn?/child abuse


Rakesh on my side? No!
	Seriously, another note: mutual aid is always immediate, in the 
present, and practical.


Bryan Alexander					Department of English
email: bnalexan-AT-umich.edu			University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418				Ann Arbor, MI  USA    48103
fax: (313) 763-3128				http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, rakesh bhandari wrote:

> I append Bryan and Tim's exchange on state intervention into the problem of
> child abuse and neglect.  It seems to me that the problem is one of what
> the rational choice theorists (this will be loose) call segregration.  
> 
> That is, Tim has advocated those actions and solutions that have an
> *immediate* impact on the situation; moreover, he takes the problem as it
> has been framed:  whether the federal courts should take on its
> responsibility as a protector of the weak against recalcitrant state
> governments.    
> 
> Tim holds that opposition to immediate action by the federal courts is
> inexcusably uncompassionate.  
> 
> First, let it be noted that there has been no demonstration of the
> immediate benefits to be gained from such federal-level court supervision
> of recalcitrant states.    
> 
> Second, Tim fails to consider the greater oppression that the  court system
> has inflicted on children. 
> 
>  Here are two examples, drawn from William Darity, et. al The Black
> Underclass:  Essays in Race and Unwantedness (Garland, 1994); the examples
> are not specific to court treatment of African-Americans.  
> 
> A.  As the courts have targetted child support collection from low-income
> fathers more in order to reduce the costs of the welfare system than to
> sustain the security of mother and child, the effect has been obvious:
> "Given the threat of imprisonment or wage assignment, fathers who are
> unable to make regular payments have a greater incentive to flee, to
> disappear, and to break off ties completely with their children and their
> children's mothers.  It seems unlikely that judges honestly believe such
> punitive sanctions will help families stay together; but what seems clear
> is that wheatever chance there may be for separated parents to reunite or
> for fathers of children born out of wedlock to marry and/or support those
> children's mothers vanishes when the court adopts its punitive sanctions."
> (214)
> 
> B. "The courts seek to establish paternity, ostensibly with an eye toward
> having the father of the woman's child provide financial support.  But any
> funds so obtained typically are merely transferred to state agencies to
> reduce the expenses of the welfare system, rather than going directly to
> mother and child." (215)    
> 
> I believe that Cockburn is attempting to prevent us from ensnaring
> ourselves by our response to *a single problem as it has already been
> framed* in what Bryan has called "the logic of exploitation and domination"
> of the state.  
> 
> Far from being defenders of rights of the powerless, the courts are 
> instruments for the regulation and oppression of the poor. 
> 
>  *The more that we value these courts as the only mechanism by which to
> protect children from abuse, the more we will be unable to criticize them
> for the much greater harm they do in creating the dissolution and
> insecurity of families.*  
> 
> Only in this more global context can one evaluate the immediate action
> called for by Tim and Hillary Clinton.   
> 
> Rakesh
> 
> >Setting aside your investigations into Cockburn's organs for the moment, 
> >Tim - this is clearly a problem best solved by mutual aid societies.  
> >There are some now, and they, not the putrescent state, deserve our 
> >support.  Turning to the state is the short cut to liberalism.  If you 
> >want to steal its resources without borrowing from its logic of 
> >exploitation and domination (logics hardly apt for this problem, eh?), at 
> >least have the consistency to cloak your argument in decent piratical 
> >language.  
> 
> >
> >On Sun, 17 Mar 1996 TimW333521-AT-AOL.COM wrote:
> >
> >> I willjust answer on the question of Hilliary Clinton and the role of the
> >> state in relation to children.  I urge everyone check out Sunday's NY Time's
> >> report that 21 states are under court supervision because of neglect of
> >> children who are abused or neglected by their parents.  Now, if we are to
> >> follow the logic of Cockburn, we should say "Great" the capitalist state has
> >> properly kept not interevened to protect 2.9 million children.  This news
> >> represents a victory for the working class!
> >> 
> >> I am suggesting that this kind of "radicalism" is irresponsible and places
> >> the left in an objective alliance with the extreme right.
> >> 
> >> We have at the moment a capitalist state.  There is no other state available
> >> to us.  Should we or should we not demand that this state act in defense of
> >> children who are subject to sexual and physical abuse and neglect by their
> >> parents?  If we do not so demand, what do we on the left propose as an
> >> alternative way of protecting these children between now and the socialist
> >> revolution?
> >> 
> >> I believe we should be in the forefront in demanding that the state fullfill
> >> its obligations to children both in terms of financial aid as well as
> >> protection against abuse.
> >> 
> >> Now if Hilliary Clinton  advocates such a course and Alexander Cockburn
> >> opposes it, this makes Hillary more radical than Alexander. 
> >> 
> >> There is no socialism without humanity, without heart.  I have not detected
> >> such an organ in Cockburn.
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


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