THE HOMEBOY REVOLUTION: families as economic units instead of sexual units

[nashville_brook]

There's blood in the water, and (surprise!) I'm not talking about indictments. I'm talking about the whole conservative program.

Here's the level of desperation: "Conservatives to Hold Press Conference on Capitol Hill Thursday; Recent Republican Spending Cut Proposals Not Enough, Say Groups" (American Conservative Union, Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council and Club for Growth).

It's going to be a public hissy fit, and here's their message: "poverty is the result of weak families."

Poor, silly conservatives can't help but sound like cartoon villains when they tout this message. They can't bring themselves to treat the poor with any dignity. So, I'm gonna help them. While they're busy with indictments we have the opportunity to advance. We can polish this turd. They are just unable to bring themselves to take their argument to its logical conclusion.

I think I can help.

WHAT WE AGREE ON
We can agree that the poverty PROGRAMS of the PAST do not address the kind of POVERTY we have NOW, and will have IN THE FUTURE.

We can agree that "the government" isn't doing a bang-up job of helping the impoverished, or anyone, really, who isn't a corporation.

We don't have to "stop Norquist," and his ilk in their drowning of Great Society programs. The Great Society was meant for a different time. The Great Society drowned in history; in Katrina -- and lay rotting on the curb outside a municipal convention center.

PRINCIPLES AND PROGRAMS
The GOP has a PRINCIPLE that anti-poverty PROGRAMS don't work. They don't have a replacement PROGRAM except to say "the free-market" will handle it. It's a faith-based program which is to say there's no program except FAITH in the free-market. Why shouldn't they have faith in the free-market? It's worked pretty well for them.

Lets see what it can do for US.

We hear the GOP talking points about "strengthening families," "supporting communities," and "creating security." These are PRINCIPLES. They don't have a PROGRAM. The Democrats have PROGRAMS that are outdated. Katrina for all it's terrible destruction, performed an important job to LAY BARE the wrong-headedness of The Great Society as it is practiced now. The Great Society is little more than a scrimmage between state and federal agencies. They don't trust each other and we don't trust either of them. It wasn't the storm that disappeared almost 10,000 people in New Orleans. It was the crumbling infrastructure followed by a strange war between state and federal leaders. Victim-blaming, race-baiting, and intense xenophobia were drizzled on top of this steaming pile of shit.

IT'S THE FAMILIES, stupid.
In the conservative mind people are poor because they can't get married or stay married. Conservatives claim that if "families" have their lives in order, they won't be a drag on society. Raise the ratio of wage-earning adults to non-wage-earning individuals and enjoy strengthened "families" and communities. The larger the group, the more efficient the economic engine. Duh.

The ONLY difference between moderates and conservatives is the DEFINITION of FAMILY. As a matter of fact, we are locked in a culture war for what constitutes a family. Ironically, conservatives say "it's the sex." People of reason say, "it's the economics." I say, lets take sex out of the family debate entirely. Anyone who has been married will tell you this is the case, anyway. I've written about http://johnsoncity.blogspot.com/2005/06/we-arent-in-kansas-anymore-sex-and.html">the operation of SEX in this model. It's a psychological projection and has no place in public debate.

Focus on the ECONOMIC Family
DEFINE FAMILIES AS ECONOMIC UNITS and provide the SAME benefits any economic unit enjoys. Use the metaphor of corporations. Use the metaphor of tribes. Use whatever metaphor works for your worldview, but RECOGNIZE the truth of our economic relations in the 21st century: people are pooling resources because they can't make it on their own.

People have already taken on the additional RESPONSIBILITY of people outside of their marriage -- aging parents, children of other family members, and friends in need. Pooling resources to protect the vulnerable is already an American "institution." We have moved in to fill the gap left by a broken system. IT'S TIME WE ARE SUPPORTED IN OUR CONTRIBUTION.

Our country's nobility -- big business, and local/state government -- NEED strong communities, workers and taxpayers -- to participate in societal production. They aren't going to retool business to clean up society after hurricanes, riots and epidemics. No reasonable person puts their FAITH in the free market to house a homeless person or provide care to heal people and whole communities. We rely on any other person who can help us. We turn to family, friends and open our homes to take in those who can't make it on their own. Sometimes we put them to work in our home: watching children, fixing leaks, and mowing the lawn. Sometimes we only ask that they heal; get back on their feet; and live another day.

Here's the solution: OPEN the DEFINITION of CORPORATION to include all people who "incorporate" -- who co-operate -- to provide basic economic security for each other. We are on the cusp of invention, as necessity has grown to threaten each and every one of us. NOW IS THE TIME.

HERE IS THE "PROGRAM"
-- Open up the definition of "family" to include any group of people who form an economic unit.

-- Support the New American Corporation by strengthening these families with economic incentives.

-- Apply the corporate model to families.

Rich people form corporations to support their "tribes"; to employ their good-for-nothing in-laws; to build and protect their wealth. Since we apparently can't reel in the misuse of The System by corporations, lets AT LEAST extend The System to everyone who NEEDs the support. By all means, lets CUT TAXES for these corporations.

Forget the ridiculous and divisive debates about marriage, gay or not gay. Families should be defined by their economic impact, not the kind of sex they have. Change this and declare TRUCE in the CULTURE WAR.

Look at it as "incorporation" for families and change nothing else. When I buy computers for my home business, I can deduct the cost from my taxes. Doesn't it seem FAIR that families should be able to deduct the cost of computers used in the micro-business that is their family economic unit? Are not computers and cars and appliances OPERATING EXPENSES? These operating expenses are taxed upon purchase and taxed again when they aren't recognized as meaningful economic resources that benefit society.

Put the burden of proof of familial relations on ECONOMIC IMPACT. Win the culture war. Help the needy. Cut taxes. See how this might work? Use any metaphor you like -- I call it THE HOMEBOY REVOLUTION.

[NashVegas]

1. "poverty is the result of weak families"

I hate to break it to you, but in at least one regard, that is correct. People who grow up in supportive, encouraging atmospheres tend to have a better outlook on their possibilities.

[nashville_brook]

4. maybe you should read the piece

[nashville_brook]

18. you make my argument quite well.

thanky. :)

[marmar]

2. Good read...

Because the definition of family has changed a lot, but the method in which programs are run hasn't changed to adjust to it.

:thumbsup:

[nashville_brook]

16. right on! -- i will post later on how we treat corporations as if they

are people. there's lots to say about that.

for today, with the federal budget being debated (principles and programs) i wanted to simply point to something and say, "that. i want that."

we don't have time to think up a whole new universe of PROGRAMS. i'm pointing to CORPORATIONS and saying, "give me that." you want to cut taxes AND have a war AND "strengthen familes."

THEN GIVE ME WHAT CORPORATIONS HAVE. it's that simple.

give me THAT and i can give "you" so much more!

(later chapters of The Homeboy Revolution illustrate The New Family Corporation in greater detail. i see it as much bigger than how many people under your roof. think about baby bands -- those traveling young people who have put off college to essentially start a business; create a product; and do everything a regular business does BUT they don't make money. not yet, and they may never make enough money to support the four separate families that make up the social tribe of "band." what if everyone who supports their enterprise is rewarded with corporate benefits. i think parents might feel better about offeriing up their basements if they were compensated for having to replace the plaster.)

:) -- i could rock that scenario all night long, but i'll stop here. you get the picture. so glad somebody did. but, it IS revolutionary. it takes a while for some to see the light go on. :)

[izzybeans]

3. where all just economic units in this society...to these people and

many others.

They've inverted the logic like any C student might. Families Cause poverty; how about poverty causes changing structures of family life; or better yet, its the economizing of families stupid freepers. We're all feeling the vice grip with our schedules that demand 80% of our hours awake devoted to make money for some other person. It's not just poor families that have been ravaged by our economic system, The beav's parents are feeling the burn as we speak, and Dr. Huxtable (sp?), Michael J. Fox's parents on that one show...it's not just Redd Fox holding down the fort with some stove piping anymore its all of us. Are those terms familiar enough for them? They obviously have no sense of reality, perhaps their little TV minds can wrap around a few stereotypes.

[nashville_brook]

5. the middle class is an endangered specie -- things have already changed

time for everything else to catch up. :)

[kenny blankenship]

6. The GOP's anti-poverty program is very clear

it's more and deeper poverty! (and endemic incarceration and early death).

[nashville_brook]

15. only b/c their creepy little brains haven't had a creative thought, ever.

they want to throw caution to the wind. let people take care of themselves.

i say WE DO -- we DO take care of ourselves. but we can't keep it up for much longer. we need help!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. My husband and I completely support our daughter

and son in law...and I mean 100% so he can go to medical school. We help with the kids, too. This lets my daughter stay home with two babies. We are the ones with the income, and they are producing the next generation. We live in separate houses but we grocery shot together, buy in bulk, etc. We pull together because four is stronger than 2 together. One day we will need them in the same way.

Sex isn't in the equation, obviously.

[nashville_brook]

11. that's so close to my heart -- i was raised by my grandmother

my mother has been ill all my life, so it was a matter of supporting both of us.

when my grandmother died i continued to care for my mother by maintaining the house in Florida where she lived. when i couldn't afford it anymore i found her another living situation. i went down to florida and moved her belongings. I call and i make sure she gets the healthcare she needs (she flat-out refused to move to Tennessee).

that's just a sliver of the support that has been spread out thru our family. there's so much more, and we do it with NO help. we pay the taxes. we take on every bit of the responsibility.

if you take away the fact that there's blood relation -- we've performed an amazing benefit to society by keeping this person off the street and healthy. we've been "healthcare company." we've been "social service." we've been "free housing." try and find that in the "free market."

"we," the people who perform all this crazy shit NEED support. my idea is simple: if it's an economic unit it gets the benefits of a corporation. period.

[wtbymark]

8. I'm single, live alone

my mother is still alive but couldn't help in an economic crisis, can I take a tax deduction for taking the time to read your illogical rant?

[nashville_brook]

13. i see you call yourself a philosopher... ponder this:

what does it mean to be "a family?"

what is the essence of co-operation?

how are we to level the playing field in point in history where there is no longer a balence between rich/poor?

what is the measure of "man?" is it how many hours you log at ACME? or does it have more to do with your contribution.

how might we encourage people to CONTRIBUTE without going off the rails in some kind of neo-marxism?

_________________________

you do bring up an interesting point, however stunk up by your ad hominem attack. you're single. and a philospher. do you publish? do you write? do you contribute? I believe you probably have enormous potential for production. wouldn't it be nice to harness that?

doesn't it make sense to EXTEND THE SAME INCENTIVES enjoyed by corporations, to individuals who contribute to society? this would cost nothing and provide the TAX BREAKS people so favor. i hate that the tax breaks wouldn't go to the friends of nobility -- they will have to just live with that. it's our turn to enjoy the benefit of living in a civilization.

[nashville_brook]

19. if there were an incentive for you to team-up with others, would you?

[Bridget Burke]

30. Even single people can make friends.

Some can, that is.

[nashville_brook]

32. even philosophers can make friends

:)

i should know.

:)

[nashville_brook]

39. coming HOMEBOY chapters will have something for the loner

as well. almost forgot about this aspect -- but a major theme in the work is that we can re-capture labor performed in the home.

[dbeach]

9. blaming the victims is so still in for many pols.

How bout what causes poverty/

Who control the wealth?
Ho wcould a jobs program like FDR the old socialits be implemeted in these yrs of inmcreasing poverty and more wealth in the hands of the elite

[nashville_brook]

10. i am proposing we are *already* employed -- we already contribute

here's some scenarios:

i take care of my elderly parents -- that's my job and that contributes handsomely to society. i should be able to enjoy the same economic benefits as any home health care company.
or...
i provide shelter for our out-of-work drummer, who also happens to play in a band that practices in our basement, uses our cars for transportation to gigs. this enterprise, while not a money-making affair, contributes to society. it should enjoy the same economic benefits as any rental property or entertainment company.
or...
i participate in mentoring a child with after-school activities: everything from how to hold a hammer to how to bake a cake. because i do this his parents don't have to leave work early to pick him up from school. i'm not paid for this, but i provide a valuable service to friends in need. shouldn't that be considered valuable and shouldn't there be the same kind of community-strengthening economic support that would be afforded to a for-profit after-school program?

we ALREADY have a jobs program. we just aren't compensated for it. we don't NEED to dream up things to do -- we ALREADY DO THEM. and more people would DO MORE if they had the support of society to carry on without going broke.

[nashville_brook]

20. what causes poverty?

not having money.

[dbeach]

23. the lack of opportunity

is a common answer from inner city activists..

being empty of funds is awful BUT empty of chances to improve
binds them to the cylce of poverty..as we talk right swingers are planning $50 billion cuts to social programs

a cut for them = money for the pols and the uber rich

[nashville_brook]

24. HOMEBOY is a re-frame from "lack of opportunity"

to "surplus of opportunity, unrecognized."

poor people aren't lazy or inactive. in my experience of being poor, we are otherwise engaged in intensive labor that contributes to society.

they are saying "cut the social programs." okay, that's morally wrong and it's for lack of vision and creativity that we can't engage the labor that exists in meaningful ways.

[dbeach]

27. cuz the rulers want a ready cheacp labor pool

to manipulate

[nashville_brook]

33. HOMEY DON'T PLAY THAT

:)

[dbeach]

37. easy labor pool is the fascist agenda

crush unions and the walmartization of the work force

they don't want talent..they want labor without voice or dissent..

cheap labor depressed wages with minimum bennies.

my pal told me wal mart has contracts with the chinese govt who have the prisoners make products that are then sold in the usa...

the USA needs a dramtic shift away from the corporat society being created and til the repukes are out.its gona continue as is record profits at the top..while the talnets of many are unused

[txaslftist]

12. Funniest thing I've read all day.

"lets take sex out of the family debate entirely. Anyone who has been married will tell you this is the case, anyway."

lmao

[nashville_brook]

14. ain't it da truth! all these conservatives think people are just goin' at

it non-stop!

if only!
:)

[nashville_brook]

17. shameless homeboy kickee

[annabanana]

21. Families used to be "producing" units, not "consuming" ones..

eom

[nashville_brook]

22. that's the idea! and take that further...recognize all the ways in which

we "produce" without any hope of "compensation."

we can do that in fat times, but when the going gets tough (like right about now), people are going to be reigning in the largesse.

all i'm saying is "cultivate" the labor resource that already exists. capture it. reclaim it. deduct it.

it's like a "new" Golden Rule:
do unto people as you would do unto corporations.

[Bouncy Ball]

25. We have an agreement with our close friends

(a hetero couple) that if push comes to shove, they should move into our house (bigger) and share costs. Four adults, one child, four jobs. Pool our resources. We get along super well and have known them for years.

Nice post, very thoughtful.

[nashville_brook]

26. thanks! and that's a great feeling to know someone's got your back

and that you have theirs!

there are a few people we have extended the same scenario to -- it's actually how lots of us moved out of the mountains, was to team up, pool resources and find gigs. in the past we've had anywhere from one to four room mates (as a married couple). when i was in college i shared a house and communal resources (food, wood for the stove, labor) with six other people. our rent was 37 bucks per person per month. we raised it to 50 to cover basic bulk food.

we've also shared living quarters with our businesses at one time running a weekly newspaper out of our apartment. good times.

i also know lots of people in bands who pool resources. like for instance, the mountain staage people actually live together on a patch of land. that's a bit extreme (and old school).

my aim is to maiinstream "community." we should be able to benefit from pooled lablor etc, in a urban and suburban environments.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. So who would still pay taxes?

If everyone's cars and appliances becomes 'expenses', and, I presume, their homes, utility bills, and food bills too, what income is left that isn't spent on 'expenses'?

Where does the money to run the country come from?

[nashville_brook]

34. citizens paying federal income tax isn't the only source of revenue

and sure, we might need to reel in some spending on things like WAR -- but i think we manage THAT sacrifice.

[nashville_brook]

35. also, judge taxes on IMPACT. for instance -- a company sending jobs to

China should have to PAY us back for the loss thru taxes.

Companies polluting the environment, should have to PAY us back for the loss thru TAXES.

Companies that pay the CEO more than 500% of what the lowest paid worker gets, SHOULD have to pay us back for the loss thru TAXES.

Companies that don't offer healthcare, flextime and reasonable workers' rights, should have to PAY US BACK for the LOSS thru TAXES.

right not we have aystem where the LEAST effcient use of the TAX SYSTEM has all the power. we have to turn this around and RE-CAPTURE that lost revenue.

as we EMPOWER people for their PRODUCTIVITY, fewer will accept the disparity. when we are all on the same PLAYING FIELD it will be less acceptable to BANKROLL corporations thru our tax system.

[rucky]

29. This is what I LOVE to see on DU:

Think-Tanking for solutions instead of pointing out problems all the time.

Unfortunately, new ideas are usually in invitation for back-seat pundits to poke holes. No hole-poking here, but I'm on board if you want to flesh it out. It really coincided with the type of "community" in the new milennium I've been envisioning as well. Similar to the Kibbutzim in Israel, but with a focus on energy independence as well as agriculture (and healthcare, if possible).

Bravo! Very inspirational! Thanks again, NB.

[nashville_brook]

31. oh, thankyouthinkyouthankyou!

finally! someone gets it!

i did social theory in grad school, and the most important thing i learned in terms of getting things done, is being able to say things in simple terms. the part of THE HOMEBOY that i present here is about pointing to what corporations have and saying "lets start here to level the playing field." it doesn't require any theory or grand PROGRAM (to use the language of policy-making) -- just give us what "they" have.

the other end of THE HOMEBOY that i don't reveal is highly theoretical in terms of labor economy. i believe that people are CONSTANTLY "in production." it's a myth that people (poor people, non-middle class) are lazy. they aren't lazy -- they are BUSY outside of the normal modes of production. not only that, but they are BUSY doing things that the STATE used to do -- providing a saftey net. that, i believe is a VALUABLE PRODUCT -- one that corporations GET PAID FOR because they do it on a large scale.

the KEY to the economics is that corporations leak LABOR and PRODUCTION. they aren't nearly as EFFICIENT at taking care of people as "families" are. this seems to be a huge swath of political real estate that can be agreed on. for example, if you have the choice of institutionalizing a relative b/c of illness OR taking care of the relative yourself -- EVEN IF you suffer big economic consequences, most people would rather provide the LABOR themselves. AND ALREADY ARE PROVIDING THE LABOR THEMSELVES making them "consumers" in our economy unfairly. they really are PRODUCTIVE. why not provide the SAME BENEFITS to them that a coporation enjoy while performing the same task with a much lower rate of productivity.

[rucky]

36. Labor as capital.

I think your plan could work in our existing system (tune-up vs. overhaul) by, like as you said, redefining the terms. These caregivers you mentioned are essentially contractors performing a service that would get "outsourced/privitized" to Halliburton if it were a singular event (Katrina) happening on a larger scale.

So instead of corporate personhood, why not peronal corporate-hood?

[nashville_brook]

38. that's it! and the best/worst part is -- what we have now is a lie.

people will protect a lie b/c they've invested in it.

i think there's a biological metaphor (reality?) here in that natural systems send out each insect/fish/mammal to do their own work. the natural world doesn't outsouce.

as in errol morris' Fast, Cheap, Out of Control: effcient systems (ones that might one day replace humans) go out on their own and do their work. the designer of nano-bots, who is interested in the long-term survival of "his creation" gives them the ability to acheive their "mission" individually -- like cells -- so that if one nano-bot is destroyed, the rest go on with their mission. there are no CEO nano-bots. in the world of "intelligent scientific design" it is counter-productive to have leaders b/c that designs weakness into the system.

on another level, i'm asking "why are people poor?" i've been poor and grew up around poor people. we were the busiest people i knew. the rich kids at school got to play sports and lay around the pool -- i had to work on the house, help with sick relatives, cook, clean, clear brush, work with my developmentally delayed half-brother and keep him out of trouble. we weren't lazy. we were taking care of family who fell thru the holes. we were constantly trying to get the half-brother help from the state: he'd go into a hospital or group home and be out in a few months. no education. no therapy. just drugs. in other words -- NO LABOR was ever spent on his well-being that wasn't FREE and of the familiy. BUT, if you look at how much money the State of Florida supposedly spent on his hospitalization and later incarceration, you'd have to ask yourself, where'd it all go? we asked for HELP. we never got it. if the money spent on just his incarceration were diverted at an early age we could have done something. we could have protected him. but no money or help was EVER given to US. in fact, we were constantly booted out of any meaningful assistance while drowning in taxes, bills and the cost of caring for 5 people (3 of them ill) on social security alone. talk about an effcient system. we recycled EVERYTHING!

back to Katrina: this is FERTILE ground to flesh out where human labor vs corporate labor can be examined. there's no reason this couldn't be expressed in a spread-sheet: money given to Halliburton and person-hours of work that bought VS what individuals would be able to do with that same money if it were divied up and put where it would be used effciently.

[nashpipe]

40. i love this idea

Being a former full time musician, pooling resources was the only way to survive. If I could get a write-off on my taxes for all the drummers I've taken in, I would be doing great!

[nashville_brook]

41. did you hear the one about the bass player who locked his keys in the car?

he had to break a window to get the drummer out.

:) -- bada bum!

[AnnieBW]

42. I Like This Idea

And I'm neither black nor a "boy". :D Why? Two years ago, my best friend lived with my husband and I for about 4 months, because she was being transferred from Maryland to New York, but didn't know when. So, she cancelled her lease and moved in with us. Other than our cats not getting along with her cat, it worked out really well. My husband called her his "second wife", even though there was no sex going on between them. (For various reasons, I'm 100% positive there was no sex between them.) The three of us floated the idea of buying one of those McMansions together, with two master bedrooms and bathrooms, and sharing the rest of the living space. With our 3 combined salaries, we could live quite well. Unfortunately, she's still in New York, or we would be strongly considering this option.

If we could have a "family" of three adult wage-earners, it would make life a LOT easier for all concerned. But, alas, things aren't set up that way now.

If you're really serious about this, look into some of the literature on intentional communities.

[nashville_brook]

43. intentional communities -- will do!

the name Homeboy actually comes out of another aspect of the idea which is that "home" is devalued in a culture that forces everyone to work, to separate houses, to opposite sides of the country, etc. i'll be posting more on this later, but the term "Homeboy" is all about reclaiming the economic power of "home."

so the ultimate compliment is "you're a Homey? wow! i wish i could be a Homey!" instead of "you're a stay-at-home mom/hubby? jeez? how do not go mad?" :)

[nashville_brook]

44. one thing about intentional communities and Homeboy

there's simpatico but as i flesh this out i'll be making it something anyone can do no matter where they live. it's jsut about taxes, but that was in the news and it inspired me.

maybe intentional living.

[nashville_brook]

45. ...