Stop Me Before I Vote Again

There are different measures of social exclusion, a term used more in Europe than here, but they all get back to inequality in terms of participation. There is more to life than the right to be equally excluded. Indeed, there is more to human dignity than civil rights. Like fulfillment, which entails responsibilities we are deprived of exercising due to institutionalized exclusion from decision-making on all the vital choices. Denying us the opportunity to be responsible generates all sorts of misbehavior and dysfunction.

The book blurb tends to be a little reductionist, but Michaels apparently is not. Establishing an authentic identity and respecting multiculturalism is no small accomplishment, particularly in light of current conflicts between indigenous nations and corporate states, but perhaps those relationships, too, might be improved by a more democratic society. Democratizing capital ownership as a social objective seems to be a prevalent theme these days.

Seeing in the NYPD in action has largely shattered my illusions about the twilight of racism in this country. In many ways, it seems racism has just evolved into more liberal-friendly forms such as police racial profiling and away from overt segregation (effective segregation is of course "well and truly alive", to quote an Australian Aboriginal activist I once heard speaking). That African Americans--i.e., the decendants of slaves--are consistently denied, in comparison with their counterparts of other backgrounds (even African and Haitian immigrants), opportunities for economic advancement and social empowerment goes without saying--a fact most liberal-intellectual-types seem just fine with.

"What is the profit in being able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if one doesn't earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?"

"You could say we’re involved in the class struggle."

I often wonder why so many people clamor for gay marriage rights when (1) marriage is a church/govt institution that has a pretty lousy track record, especially in the RC church; and (2) the basic fundamental problems in our system wreak much more havoc in a person's life, and they aren't being fixed by directing energies toward gay marriage.

Is there a link between capitalism and whether gays should be allowed to marry in a civil or church ceremony?

Is there a link between a bellicose foreign policy and whether gays should be allowed to marry in a civil or church ceremony?

on and on....

I guess I have the convenience of being a heterosexual but I imagine if I were gay the right to "marry" my partner wouldn't matter anywhere near as much as whether my partner was is and will be inclined to remain faithful etc. But I'm not that eager to have society's sanction. I guess others are different, eh?

Marriage entitles one to spousal social security benefits, as well as undisputed power of attorney should one fall severely ill.

As mentioned, there are a lot of bennies to being married. Health insurance for your spouse through work is another one.

The struggle I don't understand and in many ways oppose is for the right for gays to serve openly in the military. Within the theme of equality being the right to get screwed equally with everyone else, there is nothing that beats earning the "right" to be drafted. Why do I oppose it? Because being gay is one of the best ways any young man or woman, gay or straight, has of avoiding the draft.

Not really on point, but a thing I've often wondered -- why does marriage need to be a state-regulated thing, with state-enforced consequences? Pardon me if my libertarian slip is showing.

i love it
class post
identity comments

in fact the pundit
uses weak stats
quintile on quintile
the bottom should be the unemployed
and the top the proerty income share of the wealthiest 5%

class politics begins by busting apartt household income by source

this is half way pb butter balling
equality itself is a sick sky hook

to each acoording to his work
even once evaluating work is stipulated some how
leaves plenty of room for inequality
ask that black sheet waving
porcupine head albert
over at pentacostal inter-clavicle

down with equality mongers

left in form slight in essence

OP, you old grouch. Do you like the Gini coefficient any better than quintiles?

(Why is it called a coefficient, anyway? Wouldn't "Gini ratio" be better?)

It's not clear to me that Michaels is calling for absolute equality -- certainly not in the review I read. What he is noting is the very high and increasing levels of inequality. "From each according to his work" hardly describes the state of affairs we're seeing these days.

Not understanding.
Government won't acknowledge 20% unemployed.
Top quintile containing only 5%?

Governor Good, a neighbor, suggests "medianizing" all federal tax cost items, e.g. the home mortgage deduction. Argues that the portion of home's price above median home price is a consumption item or some Veblenesque category of expenditure. Similarly for child tax credit. Children above @int(median number) as consumption items! Love that.

May be in wrong website. Sorry.

mjs:

i've been in florida recently
and as you well know
it causes me to itch
like a black bear
and sneeze and gurgle and hoik

so just what could u expect ???

of course you are strictly speaking
exactly correct
the gini business
"picks up "naughty " changes here and there
in the welfare of various strata
of the social structure
but by that moo cow of moo cows

income !!!

a low income rentier
monkishly at bay in the woods of new england
like ..ahhem...some of my own dearest
and closest relatives
are categorically worse social beings
in my demonology
then the highest paid anal surgeon
in that
mittel-burgerish haunt

--such a favorite whipping boy of yours--

...scarsdale

flak

i like the spirit of your wonkishness

i'm not suggesting quintiles at all
though i suspect the bottom quintile is more the prper contrast to the upper 5 %
then the full upper quintile
with its large measure of honest professionals
and shop keepers
and other commercial small balls of fire

albeit stinkers most of em politics wise

where as some of youyr upper rentier loons can be quite politically rollicking

Owen -- Leaving aside, for the moment, Michaels' inexpert handling of the economic data, what do you think of the political point he seems to be making?

"institutionalized exclusion from decision-making on all the vital choices"

anti inequality
meets
anti hierarchy eh ?
lets throw in
pro universal solidarity

why not ??

the other two Abbadons of the pink rads
to complete the jacobin trio

liquidate the national question

liquidate commanders

liquidate social reality

rise up en masse
form the multitude as
undifferentiated phalanx

we have only our " constructions " to lose
we have social plasma to gain

michaels political point
couldn't be more on target
as you point out often
the" increasing tolerance of economic inequality and increasing intolerance of racism, sexism and homophobia "
is the code de combat
of the dlc neo lib - poison ivy academy axis

i'd gladly join arms with such as he

err after i'd scratched my back on an oak tree

Look, I'm no fan of marriage. But having the option is a human right, even if it's only a sentimental gesture, which is all it would be under ideal conditions.

I also think the struggle for gay rights, including the right to marry, is an important part of the class struggle. Pressing and winning this fight deprives the reactionaries of old clubs, and also expands people's realism about what's real and what isn't.

Having said that, these things are necessary but not sufficient. Few things are as odious as those who know only identity politics.

I often wonder why so many people clamor for gay marriage rights when (1) marriage is a church/govt institution that has a pretty lousy track record, especially in the RC church; and (2) the basic fundamental problems in our system wreak much more havoc in a person's life, and they aren't being fixed by directing energies toward gay marriage.

For better or worse, people's political engagement tends to correlate with struggles that benefit them directly. There are certainly worse things in America than the large legal disparities between gay couples and married couples, but they nevertheless have a very significant impact on a lot of people's lives and as political initiatives go, it seems like there is a fair return on investment.

You could argue that identity politics is a ruse that distracts people from a larger class struggle but you could also make the case that as inequality worsens under the financial oligarchs, identity movements -- with their emphasis on social programs and equity -- provide some quick fixes to insulate mobilized communities from the worst of it.

Way back when, the gay movement was a little more radical and intersected with more genuinely left politics than it does now. The thinking was that the family for many, if not most, gay people was ground zero of oppression and that the movement should aim at freeing the individual from it as soon as possible. Therefore, it argued for things like universal health insurance and a social safety net and there is still some of that left, particular among older gay activists.

Jay, one can set up power of attorney without a legal or church marriage binding the giver and the taker of such power. As to social security benefits, I'm not sure I follow that one. I would imagine a trust could be established to do the same with SS benes. Obviously I could be wrong, I'm not a trusts/estates expert. I don't spend time thinking about this subject because I don't really count on Social Security for myself, and thus I don't understand others who look down the road expecting it to be there.

Jay, one can set up power of attorney without a legal or church marriage binding the giver and the taker of such power. As to social security benefits, I'm not sure I follow that one. I would imagine a trust could be established to do the same with SS benes.

Many gay couples do set up legal documents to give them some of the fortifications that come out of the box with marriage. However they are limited and usually require legal assistance. Gay people need to set up wills, durable powers of attorney and health proxies and frequently have to fight to have them honored.

There is no way to force employers to share your benefits -- such as health insurance, tuition benefits and the like -- with a gay spouse and even employers who have more inclusive policies are forced to withhold taxes on things like additional health insurance for a domestic partner which are calculated as additional income.

Jay, one can set up power of attorney without a legal or church marriage binding the giver and the taker of such power. As to social security benefits, I'm not sure I follow that one. I would imagine a trust could be established to do the same with SS benes.

Many gay couples do set up legal documents to give them some of the fortifications that come out of the box with marriage. However they are limited and usually require legal assistance. Gay people need to set up wills, durable powers of attorney and health proxies and frequently have to fight to have them honored.

There is no way to force employers to share your benefits -- such as health insurance, tuition benefits and the like -- with a gay spouse and even employers who have more inclusive policies are forced to withhold taxes on things like additional health insurance for a domestic partner which are calculated as additional income.

Sorry about the double comment.

The post didn't show up and there was also no error message the first time I submitted.

Not really on point, but a thing I've often wondered -- why does marriage need to be a state-regulated thing, with state-enforced consequences?

It doesn't, but it is, and since it's a state-regulated thing where folks are unequal under the law, it makes sense for gays to fight for inclusion.

I used to think that it would have made more sense for gay people to unite with single people and folks involved in other forms of non-traditional households to disconnect marriage from privilege, but you'd have to put a huge package of laws in place to handle things like employment benefits, child support, taxes, hospital visitation, divorce etc. Add to this the cultural weight of marriage and well, it's just not a realistic way to go.

I used to live in Connecticut, where Love Makes a Family -- the gay marriage group Benn mentions in his lead off -- was very adamant in their campaigning that a domestic partner law or any other kind of non-marriage workaround was off the table. They did this not simply because such measures fortify inequality, but also because of the sheer volume of all the laws in Connecticut where a right or privilege is specifically accorded to a spouse that a simple domestic partner law would not likely touch. Sometimes they would begin a presentation with a table piled high with copies of all the laws where this was so and I was somewhat surprised by the volume.

michael, you're spreading fear rather than facts. Courts don't treat "gay wills" differently than "straight wills." That's absurd. But I guess a person has to cling to some sort of symbolism.

Arguing that gay couples "need to have a lawyer help them" is bullshit too. Any legal document requires a lawyer if you want to get it closer to what's intended, whether you're hetero, gay, or into bestiality.

the top one percent doubled their share of income in the last 30 years
note the dramatics of that versus the top twenty vs the bottom twenty

the attempt to pose skill against unskill
is a diversion from exploitation to adverse market structure

what ??
well the return on hu cap way exceeds what
rational markets produce

but what accounts for the increase in
"surplus value share "

this distinction requires a clear understanding
of inequality as market outcome and as capitalist outcome

anti market politics
can be as off big point
as identity politics

post up something about
the class dynamics of MNC hegemony
it hardly gets a peep here

but discuss child statutory rape
or legalizing gay marriage
the comment cages flutter away
like butterfly wings

ultimately
anti classism is about equal opportunity
too kike anti sexism

this chap Michaels gets that very nicely

but his notion of capitalism is about
the income inequality
that capitalism generates
thru its exploitation mechanisms
not the exploitation system per se

income inequality between skill classes
that results from existing institutional structures again only calls for institutional reform to create equal opportunity

that it doesn't create equaler outcomes
is hard to combat using this paradigm

exploitation must be exposed for what it is
not what it does
ie generate inequality

imagine a society with 50 million "producer"
households
and 100 million utterly petty more or less equally "endowed" rentier households

where the producer households had twice the "income" per capita then the rentier households

sounds like the essence of many bo ho fantasy make overs of the late 60's

"let the workaholics " hold all the jobs
and
let the jobless live like free range
subsistence assured legally entitled ...free birds

-----

calling for non market solutions
like single provider
single producer medicine
or a massive pigou tax on carbon
jumps over the problem by abolition
at bets
one is at best
back in post october russia
without any notions
beyond
make profiteering universally illegal
hell make markets illegal if we have to
to end profiteering

the history between 1918 and 1988
ought to sober u up about the wisdom you embody by attacking private health care
if all u can say is

give us beveridge !!!

michael, you're spreading fear rather than facts. Courts don't treat "gay wills" differently than "straight wills." That's absurd. But I guess a person has to cling to some sort of symbolism.

I didn't say anywhere that courts treat gay wills differently than straight wills. What's different is that if I want my partner to inherit my assets, I need a will to do it. A husband doesn't require that for a wife. The same goes for things like making decisions about medical care. If a blood family member wants to contest my right in that realm, they can do so if I have not put a legal document in place. Again, a legal spouse gets that right without requiring a document.

Any legal document requires a lawyer if you want to get it closer to what's intended, whether you're hetero, gay, or into bestiality.

Exactly. But the thing is, I need more documents than you do and these particular rights are only part of the issue. Work benefits is the other.

I agree completely with something MJS wrote previously that members of an oppressed class don't have a monopoly on any particular discussion. However, identity types who differ on that get a certain amount of traction when they get lectured from more privileged others who weigh in with only a shallow acquaintance with the issues at stake. I don't expect you to agree with me about gay marriage. I am ambivalent about it myself. But I do expect you to know the basic facts at stake, especially as your posts progress from merely ignorant to needlessly and inexplicably insulting.

i love it
class post
identity comments

Actually the post was about both identity politics and class and many of the comments are about both too but I guess only an identity politics = thwarted class struggle circle jerk will do for some folks.

Certainly CF Oxtrot, recently seen here lamenting the extent to which white activists follow black activists (the horror!), has got his johnson lubed up and is even talking dirty: ('bestiality' he panted, Freeperly). And why not, when such bastions of anti-neoliberal thought as the Atlantic Monthly, the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post have whipped their radical dicks out too, according to that publisher site MJS linked to.

Funny how so often when this comes up, gay lib is advanced as the quintessential identity diversion. In fact, it is markedly different from gender and race struggles in the extent to which it is not mostly concerned with equality of opportunity. If one wants to pick one more misdirected, simple-minded fight with identity struggles, it makes more sense to continue with the the Harris-Lacewell's of the world , since you could argue that their preoccupation with equal opportunity is a plank in the ideology of merit.

From its beginnings and even now, gay lib has mostly concerned itself with very fundamental human rights, such as the right to congregate without harassment; the right to fuck; the right to not be psychologized, medicated, electorshocked, exorcised; the right to not be blackmailed or assaulted. Even now, it is mostly concerned with the very modest claim to marriage and the basic benefits that confers.

I find it really hard to find any place at all where it is in conflict with class struggle, and to the extent that it removes one of the shinier hate baubles with which with the oligarchs distract poor folks from the real source of their troubles, it is very much a part of it.

As for the article in question, it is compelling in some ways but mostly full of shit in others. Benn-Michaels wildly overstates the successes of the gay movement. Saying that they are actually 'comparable' to those of women in blacks shows how very little he knows about it. There is no federal guarantee against discrimination and certainly no affirmative action. All the recent successes on the marriage front are getting wiped away in court decisions and referenda.

His statement that 'increasing intolerance of racism, sexism and homophobia. . . are fundamental characteristics of neoliberalism' is flatly ridiculous, or are we now going to define neoliberalism as anything some public neo-liberal somewhere believes?

Lower-case michael makes some good points above. It's quite true that the gay movement is very different from the black movement and the women's movement in many ways. And its political demands, as michael correctly points out, are really about legal equality -- at least these days.

It's a hard case to argue against: if marriage is going to be -- for whatever godforsaken reason -- a state-sanctioned institution, with state-sanctioned privileges thereto appertaining, it's hard to see what legitimate state interest there might be in restricting it to M+F couples.

In the Unis, though, the essentialist identity/diversity paradigm incorporates same-sexery along with gender and "race". That was more the target of my animus. Not having read the professorial upper-case Michaels' book yet, I don't know to what extent he takes on the legal-equality aspect of the gay movement, where his argument might not be so strong.

I do think Michaels is onto something when he talks about neoliberalism being quite happy to accommodate object-choice diversity along with every other kind. Mainstream media have been pretty gay-friendly in recent decades. But gay marriage might be a bit costly for corporations whose insurance and pension plans would have more spouses to cover, and to that extent it's precisely the equality rather than the diversity aspect that they might be most likely to oppose.

The gay-unfriendly media tend to be the faux-populist ones -- the appropriators of popular ressentiment over the erosion of familiar verities, and the ascendancy of metropolitan smarty-pantses in the culture.

Over here at the state prison farm the membership has gotten more diverse, if I understand the term aright. There used to be just black guys (75%) and white guys (the rest), but now there are a lot of Mexicans as well .. so it's like 50% black, 35% Mex and 15% white. Of course there's a lot more of everybody here in absolute numbers.

Yep, those neo-liberals just won't tolerate discrimination.

We don't see many women here but there were always a good number of "sisters", if you catch my drift.

On the other hand most of the white guys here killed somebody in a holdup or maimed their wife, while the non whites are mostly doing time for pushing coke and weed. So I guess that "the extraordinary advances in the battle against discrimination" may not have got to the justice system yet.

Hey, maybe the extraordinary advances are just some kind of meritocratic bullfeathers. Better ask Al.

lower case michael
needs to relax the pounce response
particularly since around here
his views aren't facing a gauntlet

so what if crucial distinctions among
various identity struggles emerge
as they elbow thru the pack of contenders
for special society wide consideration

since that game
can be played by all the identity groups
on each other
it becomes a nice
divide and conquer wedge

but my point stands on this

identity pol gets the juices flowing here
as else where in the pwogsphere

class struggle gets respectful bows
but produces little rapture
much
like the alter at my local catholic church

a place at best
for ritually
fatigued
and
boundlessly
profunctory
communion

ps
your unctuated jag off figures
seem to me
a bit strained mikey

perhaps u need to relieve yourself
thinking of cruel ole oxtrotter

anon

get thee to a nunnery

Michael Dawson beat me to the punch.

Oh, and Oxtrot, I think "michael" has a point; speaking as somebody who toiled in the Country Recorder's office several years back. You get all kinds of goodies automatically, without needing a lawyer, if you're a straight married couple. If you want them as a same-sex couple (even one whose gone through a marriage ceremony), it's going to cost you more to set up, and if push comes to shove it's going to be harder to defend in court.

And, uh, "bestiality"? Really? o_O

Another district reports:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJUeLBbrGWWfnhAN8ik0m_CZ_33gD9E6RAFG0