The Social Movement Left OUT

[Marta Russell]

My beef:
The authors don't go far enough to assert that unemployment is a part 
of capitalism.  They don't challenge who owns the means of production 
and that owners dictate who are employed and not employed.  They 
aren't radical economists, they are social policy wonks.  Some good 
ideas but restricted to a liberal approach and keeping their tenure 
at their universities I( would think) knowing these churn out papers 
every where for every symposium on disability possible.

I don't believe that the main problem is prejudice as the ADA lays it 
out to be or misguided state policy.  I think that disabled people 
have been shoved out of the work force intentionally and that the 
moral justification has been to give them poverty based benefits. 
This may be too brief an explanation but I have a paper published if 
you are interested in the longer theorizing.

And I do agree with your take on "dependence" being cast as a 
negative.  This only seems to apply to people who are poor and 
dependent however.  Homeowners are not seen to be dependent upon 
government for their mortgage tax write offs but indeed they are to 
give but one example.
marta


>Just a footnote. Why "neoliberal capitalism" rather than "capitalism"?
>The relations which you trace in this post first appeared in Elizabethan
>England in the form of the "Poor Laws." Some form of such "social
>welfare" is inherent in capitalism as such, regardless of what sort of
>qualfiers may be attached to it. The insertion of "neoliberal" here I
>think blurs the argument.
>
>I do think it very important to emphasize the "dependence" we all have
>on each other -- hence, for example, the long quarrel Yoshie & I had
>with several posters who thought "dependence" was inherently "bad."
>
>Carrol
>
>Chuck Grimes wrote:
>>  [clip]
>  >  neoliberal capitalist [clip]
>  >
>  > neoliberal capitalism, [clip]
>  > neoliberal capitalism [clip]

--