no one has said that, really. your original post in which you raised the issue was, in fact, a response to wojtek's characterization of where he thought the left alienated the working class by supporting what he calls "symbolic" measures that don't address,at root, the source of homelessness, poverty, etc. he pointed to defending the right of the homeless to squat in public parks as something that would alienate folks who might otherwise agree with leftist critiques of capitalism etc. you agreed yourself that this was hardly adequate and i don't think wojtek ever disagreed with you.
furthermore, had you been paying attn to the context, then you'd realize that above comments were made by way of contrasting an "authentic" working class against upper middle class folks who romanticize the working class [woj] and upper middle class leftist activists who do a lot of hand wringing over how to bring "the working class" on board in order to have a "real" strong social movement that might actually affect change. if there was any essentializing or defining people out of the working class it lies mainly with the above and not with some attempt to define the homeless as not working class.
wojtek's original point simply highlights the fact the the working class in the US is not some homogeneous entity. and, right or wrong, people who earn a paycheck every week, however tenuous that is, do, in fact, see themselves as having different interests than, say, the homeless or welfare recipients. i live in a low income housing development up the road from a deteriorating 1950s "project". no one who lives here is especially different from the folks who lived down the road 50 yrs ago or even now, but you sure wouldn't know it listening to folks--black, white, latino/a, pacific islander, cuban, puerto rican, et. they are freaking out over the possibility that our apt complex might become like "the willows". they are so concerned that they happily agreed to security guards, a security gate, locking all facilities like the laundry room and pool, cops roaming all over the place night and day, and even a cop sitting at the gate 8-10x/night to make sure none of the "bad" kids from up the road decide to use "our" basketball courts or swimming pool, etc. characterizing what i hear at block parties, volunteering for the daycare program or working with community watch hardly means i agree with what folks are saying--which was pretty much what wojtek was doing in the original post.
but do let the kids know when it's safe to cross the street.
kelley
>and max chimed:
>
>> real proletarian movement
>
>Wojtek and max get to claim empiricism and realism in order
>to confirm their own positions on the death penalty, urban poverty, and
>suchlike. but in order for this realism to work, to look like realism,
>they have to define whole sections of the working class as something
>else, no longer the _real_ working class, etc.
>
>as Alex wrote:
>
>> But the death penalty also disproportionately affects minorities and
>the poor, so i dont see how
>> that particular argument holds up.
>
>and, for the tenth time, those who are homeless are part of the working
>class.
>
>where is it the law of politics that we have to like, agree with or
>exalt other working class people in
>order to regard them as our class?
>
>i suspect the shitting on people's doorsteps that Wojtek so objects to
>is both
>
>1. a basic requirement for some degree of privacy where i also suspect
>public toilets have been removed (to 'discourage' the homeless as are
>are park benches removed/redesigned), a pretence that removing amenities
>solves the problem, but really a plan to enclose the poor in smaller and
>smaller urban spaces; and
>
>2. perhaps also a version of making a nuisance where no other possible
>kind of articulation of protest is either possible or envisioned.
>
>Wojtek, instead of resorting to guiliani as a response to shit on your
>doorstep, why not insist that there are public amenities that can be
>used by those who are homeless? oh, i forgot, homeless people aren't
>part of the working class...
>
>Angela
>_________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>