>Why not make a distinction between social services and state repression?
>Both are done by the government, but the former can be and most often is
>good (health care, old age pension, trash collection, schooling, etc.),
>while the increase of the latter (the police and the military) is against
>the interest of the working class.
yes, this would be why we have food stamps. yes indeed, because social services are generally good and don't police behavior. huh uh.
'fraid not and you know this. i'll just elaborate for anyone who doesn't know. food stamps weren't the result of leftist struggle. there was some, but most of the program is the result of the growing ind. ag lobby. they saw this as a way to subsidize purchase of their products. and clearly, the policy was designed to police because rather than give people money to spend as they chose, they were given coupons that they could only spend on food. this would be why? yes, that's right: b/c the poor can't check their impulses toward immediate gratification and will end up buying unhealthy junk food instead of good healthy food. moreover, best give them as little as possible [amt wise] so they'll have to learn to budget like good white, successful amercians who know how to budget to make poor richard proud
the distinction isn't as neat as you make it out. but i know yoshie that you don't exactly mean what you've typed above. i just thought there should be some clarification.
>Yoshie
>
>
>
>