jones/bhandari djones at uclink.berkeley.edu
Wed Nov 1 09:06:52 MST 1995

In reply to Dr. Orcutt's post forwarded by Proyect:  

1. In *Backdoor to Eugenics* Troy Duster argues precisely that by "crying
wolf" about an explict race-based program of genocide, we will miss the
'backdoor' mechanisms (genetic screening for socially constructed diseases,
for example) by which it will be carried out.  Recently, I heard Duster
emphasize that the technologies and apparatus are in place to carry out
eugenics by the  the backdoor.   

2.  It is people like James Q Wilson who are "yelling at the top of their
lungs" for bootcamps, sterilization of welfare mothers, the death penalty. 
Why dismiss as paranoid radicals who are listening to  reactionaries who
have been able to foist themselves upon the public and garner influence?   

3.  Welfare cuts in themselves are of course not genocidal.  It is the
whole complex of residential segregration, redlining, racist labor markets,
deindustrialization, automation, stagnation, etc. which is destroying the
life chances of people.  *To whom* does it cloud the issue to call this
complex of effects "genocidal in a fashion"? 

4. I don't think  oppressed people think that they are being saved by cuts
in basic resources, however comforting such Orwellianisms may be for some. 
Some oppressed peoples are indeed resigned to the fact that they cannot
rely on the state to provide basic real services, and others  find those
services intolerable because of the concomitant bureaucratic invasion. 

5. I thank Andrew for the effusive praise of my provocative (no more,no
less) post; as I have argued elsewhere (the marxism internet conference)
that Andrew's work in value theory represents a decisive and brilliant
break with Ricardianism, he perhaps felt a bit obliged to me.  But I'll
take it where I can get it. 

Rakesh Bhandari
Ph.D. Candidate
Ethnic Studies
UC Berkeley  

> Dear PEN-L
>The need to fashion a response to the Right's attack on basic human services
>is obvious and I find the discussions in this group mostly well reasoned.
>However, I am concerned when terms like fascism and genocide are thrown
>around without careful consideration. For example  Andrew Kliman writes:
>> So what is next?  Outright fascism
>> is a real possibility.  Automation, drugs, and falling wages have already 
>> devastated the ghettos; the cuts in welfare--in addition to a decade or more
>> of cutting--will do more damage.  So genocide is already taking place, in a
>> fashion.  If the need for a scapegoat to deflect attention from capitalism
>> as a system becomes greater, though, things will be even worse.>
>We should not be crying wolf all the time. It does not serve any useful
>purpose, except to make us feel better having yelled at the top of our lungs
>for attention. IMHO that is not a fruitful way to further thinking, gain
>attention or change anything. It clouds the issue to call cuts in welfare
>"genocide in a fashion".
>The Right has been so successful, in part, because it engages in Orwellian
>talk: cutting welfare is saving children, clear cutting is renewing a
>resource etc. etc. It is of course tempting to answer in kind, but then I
>thought we did not want a world where even our language is used against us.
>Anyway, just a thought......all the best
>Carla Orcutt Ph.D.
>Eugene, Oregon
>carlao at efn.org

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list