Max this is the last from me of the postings to you about decadence/marginalization. There is nothing new to add to what I already said about your comment. I would like to end this series by answering a little of the final remarks you made.
Max Sawicky Aug. 24,98: " In other words, I do not believe we lack for a vigorous labor movement (broadly defined) because of attitudes towards gays, the disabled, etc. Such attitudes might be an artifact of such a lack, but that's a different story and implies a different sequence of response."
Doyle Actually I wasn’t writing about a labor movement in the sense of labor parties, and masses of people. I will re-iterate that the origin of this series was about Temp work and I added to the discussion about temporary work, an idea about marginalizing processes of temporary work as an important aspect of that work especially in a time of advancing economic crisis. So I was writing about how someone in temporary work might experience the work site. The experience without a labor movement would be a confusing and complex social array of groups and how the system would "morally" describe those groups. And I used the term "decadence" which I associate with a crisis economic atmosphere.
To bring home the political dimension of this situation I used your comment as a typical way that marginalization would spring up amongst my fellow workers. I could have used my work experiences, but instead I chose to use someone here on LBO who could talk back to me. So that everyone on LBO could see the political will formed behind the words which are marginalizing based and how I would deal with a real live person to whom I disagreed. It is roughly the same problem in a work site. Without a labor movement how does one begin to counter-act what one sees around oneself which potentially starts the process of pulling everyone together from their isolation. In the context of what I just said you replied:
Max: "Without diminishing it, I also think you are talking about a social problem, not a political one, or if it's political it is so only in a way that makes it too subtle for political use. In other words, I do not believe we lack for a vigorous labor movement (broadly defined) because of attitudes towards gays, the disabled, etc."
Doyle I would answer this by saying the social interpenetrates with the political. For example was the civil rights movement non-political? The labor movement in this country has historically been composed of advantaged workers over more marginalized workers. There has been a consistent and powerful effort to use the structure of the hierarchy to organically form a moral order. So I want to see and understand in my work with others, I mean at the job how they are marginalized by the system, how this become a moral understanding, and then is used against people to hold them into their place.
Doyle I think because you concern yourself with explaining the ins and outs of how major national structures like social security work, that my point seems subtle and unrelated to a labor movement. From my experience it is often the first step to forge ties across social groupings to understand how to unite with other people. For example your comment about "crazy left" becomes a lot clearer with understanding its origin in how a group has been marginalized then morally judged for their being powerless. Without the ability to see past such ideological moralist structures I am bound to see only the moral judgements that are ubiquitous. When dealing with my fellow workers, then I look for people who have similar understandings. This clues me into who I can form solid working relationships with. That in turn tells me we can form alliances against the employer, or boss. These are important on the job skills, because otherwise someone ends up totally isolated when there is not a labor movement to support one. And you see lots of poor souls who are simply isolated because they feel "morally" superior from their fellows. That doesn’t build anything but high walls.
Doyle Max I see your self deprecation about yourself as the "troll" as a form of trying to unite with the sentiments of people in LBO. Trying to charm. That is related to calling yourself crazy. But I don’t think of that as being prideful and self respecting. I’m trying as a truly marginalized worker to find a place where I am not having to find ways to get my needs met indirectly as your strategy of self deprecation illustrates, but to find solidarity with other workers in a straight forward easy to understand practical everyday way. You are dependent when you self deprecate upon the ephemeral attachment of sentimental liking. That goes with the wind. I’m trying to establish my pride, which others who have the same problem every day really can feel as righteous. In that same sense what I do respect about you is your evident skills as a logician. It is not enough to forge close ties, but it is very good in educating like a teacher. For that reason I reject labels like crazy, and troll. That is an elementary part of working with others, to find how to unite positively, and with good will. It is a hard struggle. Full of pitfalls, and heartaches from my experience. That is what an unskilled worker faces. I am proud of being working class. And I was sharing my skills at the level of marginalization.
Max: "A secondary point: you seem to see the attack on Social Security as a replay of welfare reform. Never is the criticism of Social Security motivated as a way to discipline or punish beneficiaries, as was the case with welfare. The attack is more fundamental in an economic sense--it invites people to reject collective provision of our most basic economic benefit as a matter of practicality and ideology."
Doyle Your point is a good surface correction of my comments. The main thrust of Social Security "reform" is undoubtedly not about marginalization. But marginalization or powerlessness is there as a subtext or a cattle prod in sotto voce. We don’t know what their ultimate committee recommendations will be, but for instance during the last year, SSDI tossed every last person with an addiction off the roles. That is a typical decadence type assault upon people who need Social Security. There is no doubt in my mind, that in order to justify changing Social Security, they must have recourse to the threat of marginalization to use to make people who depend upon Social Security go to "privatized" Social Security. It is always there as a stick to move people along the carefully provided pathways. Just one of many tools to structure society. Not even the most important, just a useful mind game to hide the facts of economics. Regards, Doyle Saylor