My vote goes to Tom and Max. Poverty politics too often become politically impoverished because they provide a fertile ground for "intermediaries" (poverty pimps) who advocate "on behalf of" the poor. One might cynically suggest that poverty technocrats (along with "job training" entrepreneurs) have a vested interest in keeping enough poverty around to justify their existence. Tom Kruse wrote, >At 09:10 28/10/98 -0500, you wrote: >>MBS suggested that... >>"A more renegade thought is that it is a mistake to zero in on poverty in >>the first place, rather than put the condition of the working class first. >>If the class is well-served, so too will be the poor" >> >>On the contrary, I find the issues of welfare, minimum wage, homelessness >>very useful politically. > >Interesting. Here the discourses on povery are completely taken over by >owners, operators, and development technocrats. And the conception is akin >to the World Bank's, whose webpage now sports a "world without poverty" >doo-dad. I thik we need to stop talkling about it all together here. Ivian >Illich's _Invention of Poverty_ is light in the darkness in this regard. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
