.>
>Doug's remark about "capitalist logic" is both political and relevant.
What's the point, that a demand for reparations is nota demand for revolutionary socialism? Is it an objection to a program for a reform within capitalism that it must obey the logic and forms of bourgeois legality? Of which, by the way, in my tediously liberal manner, I am an unabashed proponent, by the way.
>
>The business about race and eligibility comes in because many of the
>proponents of reparations do not wish to limit the claim or the payment to
>the descendants of the slaves. I think this will make it more difficult to
>proceed.
Right, well, I was addressing that version of it.
>
>In reference to (5), it seems to me that a tax on property, rather than
>income, would be more appropriate, because that is where most of the wealth
>stolen from the slaves wound up. It's old money now. And the payment is not
>supposed to be an ongoing, year-to-year expense, like most of the
>government's expenditures.
>
Whatever, this isn't a big deal. It would workers, those that own real estate would pay directly, and those that rent would pay indirectly.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com