[PEN-L:193] Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left and Inequality

["Gar W. Lipow" <lipowg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

michael perelman wrote:
> see us.  Winning a lottery does not change all that; nor would redistribution.  Marx  discussed this problem in his brief mention about the difficulty of building socialism  with a people who had been formed under capitalism.
>
> A one time redistribution will not change society any more than a one time election.  Fundamental change is a long term process.
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>

No a one time redistribution will not permanently change society. But
redistribution (and a permanent rather than one time redistribution)
is part of the socialist project; it is not sufficient, but it is not
trivial either. I don't know if it is really possible to seperate the
ill effects capitalism creates through inequality, and those in
creates through alientation and extreme atomization. But the point is
that without trying to do some sort of absurd numerical weighting,
inequality is an important source of evil in the world; I doubt a
successful and humane socialism will allow a great of such inequality.

And fights for redistributionist reforms within capitalism (such as
single payer health, a minimum wage in the  10-20 dollar an hour
range, a decent welfare system for those who cannot work, child care,
decent funding for education -- the whole social democratic laundry
list) are important to winning any long term socialism.

1) There is the immediate  relief of suffering victories in such
matters would produce. This is very real; there seems to be  a great
deal of evidence that even within capitalism reducing inequality
lengthens life spans, reduces crime has a great many positive effects
(not to mention the postive effectsa for those at the bottom of the
scale who get decent homes, enough to eat, and for those toward the
middle who have reduced insecurity. Your own recent essay pointed out
how lowering inequality makes capitalism more economically stable,
less vulnerable to depressions, massive deflation and bankruptcy.
2) There is the increase in labors bargaining power and reduction in
capitals -- leading to an arena of conflict with much more space for
the left
3) There is the education that comes in fighting for such reform,
4) there is the possibility of building a movement in fighting for
such reforms.

In short -- the redistributionist project is not the whole of
socialism, any more than social ownership, the fight against skin
privilege, gender privelege, hertrosexism, ableism, environmental
sanity, the rights of indigious people are the whole of the socialist
project. But it is not trivial, and not to be dismissed a la Nove. I'm
not suggesting that if a left mass movement ever comes into existence
that it drop other demands in favor of redistribution or be narrowly
redistributionist. But redistributions reforms are certainly one type
of non-reformist reform to include in the fight against capitalism.

BTW the fact that capitalism can accomodate a particular reform
without collapsing does not make it a bad thing. If the accomadation
means transfering a little bargaining power from capitalist to working
people, it is worthwhile -- especially if said working people have
become a little more concious of their own ability to win change
through struggle, and especially if it sparks the formation of mass
organizations.