i agree that social insurance is and has been different from "welfare," if we understand that as afdc (or tanf); the latter is public assistance, rather than social insurance, and carries with it the stigma that maggie and frances mentioned. but there's still the fact that both are both forms of what marx calls *verausserung*, an alienation of the state that "buys off" both its functionaries and citizens. having more or less gotten rid of one, capital now wants to appropriate the other. so, while i get how important it is to argue to secure (not save) social security, and that part of that project (at least in public) would mean distinguishing it from "welfare" (and the semiotics of decadence that go with it), wouldn't you also want to "save" public assistance? to say nothing of a public sector?
best christian
p.s. re: troll. from what i've seen, you aren't one (i saw your pic on the epi website). to be sure, i'd need to see you in leather chaps and a vest.
max wrote
>Social Security is gendered, but it would
>be wrong to call it a male program. Also
>wrong I would say is calling AFDC or TANF "social
>insurance." There is no explicit contribution.
>If we loosen the definition of social insurance
>to include AFDC, we deprive it of any real meaning.
>Social insurance is just welfare.
>
>Social insurance is a political and economic
>success. U.S. welfare is foundering, as we
>know. So two cheers for social insurance.
>
>This exchange has suggested to me that raising
>the gender issue might do some good in shutting
>down the privatization debate, besides being
>worthwhile in and of itself.
>
>MBS
>