P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
The renewed and unrelenting attack upon Social Security by the current British government has reduced many to a grinding poverty, unworthy of a modern civilised country that boasts of being the seventh richest world economy. However, as a consequence of the dominance of neoliberal capitalism, many of the poor are reluctant to even acknowledge that they are poor. The most consistent attribute of poverty in Britain today seems to be a deep sense of shame. Thus, for example, men are ashamed that they cannot provide for their children’s most basic needs, they are ashamed to be seen having to resort to a ‘food bank’, they are ashamed about falling into debt to make ends meet or they are ashamed about having to buy clothes from a charity shop. In a capitalist and consumerist society there is quite undeniably shame attached to poverty, with the result that the poor feel increasingly socially excluded and lonely. All of this is a relatively new development since the poor have traditionally been proud, dignified and very stoical when facing abject poverty and divers hardships. Thus why has shame become the particular inflection of poverty in a supposedly enlightened and tolerant age?
The poor in contemporary Britain, and I suspect in America as well, have become painfully conscious of their supposedly blameworthy conduct and faulty actions, assisted no end by the accusatory right-wing press and elitist Conservative politicians who want to show solidarity with the middle-classes and ‘hard-working families’. Forgive me, dear friends, if this sounds cynical, but this is precisely what the British government intends, for there is nothing like punitive and harsh Social Security policies to enhance a sense of guilt. Now it does rather seem that the poor have internalised this cruel evaluation of government and moralists, for they have started to accept responsibility for what has, down through the ages, been seen as chance or fate or the ordering of the divine providence, not necessarily as evidence of their own failings or want of diligence.
Prior to the industrial era, direct experience disconfirmed for the poor the cruel fable that they were victims of their own folly, laziness or improvidence. Indeed, dear friends, this was the basis of much of the resistance to capitalism: the whole notion that we are simply individuals who must make our own private accommodation with wealth and power was vehemently repudiated by those who knew otherwise and recognised the role of a society who withheld from them the necessities of survival. As a matter of fact the labour movement itself was established on just this very recognition. Accordingly, the malignant assertion that poverty was some personal failing was negated by the power of the people to negotiate collectively for a decent level of living, an honourable livelihood or a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
Is it then any wonder, dear friends, that an objective of governments has been to weaken the power of collective resistance by undermining the institutions created by the poor for self-defence. This task has received tremendous impetus in recent decades by a spectacular rise in prosperity. The advent of the consumer society was accompanied by a profound psychological change in the poor themselves, which predisposed them more readily to accept a proposition they had hitherto resented and rejected.
In such a context, dear friends, the corollary was (and is) that those who neglected to take advantage of the ubiquitous plenty must needs be suffering from some moral defect. Capitalist ideology stubbornly refuses to accept that many of the poor do work jolly hard - sometimes holding down two jobs just to make ends meet - and yet are still suffering severe hardship by the standards of the society in which they live and move and have their being. Here in Britain, for example, it is the *working *poor who frequently need recourse to food banks, because their employer claims he has not the funds to pay them a decent living wage. If that is truly the case then he ought not to be business. Capitalist ideology also stubbornly refuses to accept that there will always be a percentage of people who are losers in the struggle to survive, the long-term mentally or physically sick or those who just cannot cope with our modern technological age and rapid change. Their silly philosophy is that anyone can do virtually anything, if only they would but try!
We now have, dear friends, an unpleasant dog eat dog world where supposedly civilised people turn against the weak and sick and those who have not availed themselves of all that capitalism innocently wishes to shower upon them. Moreover, under the barrage of resentment and loathing this incapacity incurs, is it any big surprise that the poor themselves echo the prevailing narrative of their condition? Now that they are a despised and rejected minority and no longer pose any electoral threat, they can be treated with punitive disdain. Every decent person should be alarmed at this sad state of affairs, for let us remember that we are speaking here of God’s poor.
God bless and thankyou for taking time to read the above.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
The renewed and unrelenting attack upon Social Security by the current British government has reduced many to a grinding poverty, unworthy of a modern civilised country that boasts of being the seventh richest world economy. However, as a consequence of the dominance of neoliberal capitalism, many of the poor are reluctant to even acknowledge that they are poor. The most consistent attribute of poverty in Britain today seems to be a deep sense of shame. Thus, for example, men are ashamed that they cannot provide for their children’s most basic needs, they are ashamed to be seen having to resort to a ‘food bank’, they are ashamed about falling into debt to make ends meet or they are ashamed about having to buy clothes from a charity shop. In a capitalist and consumerist society there is quite undeniably shame attached to poverty, with the result that the poor feel increasingly socially excluded and lonely. All of this is a relatively new development since the poor have traditionally been proud, dignified and very stoical when facing abject poverty and divers hardships. Thus why has shame become the particular inflection of poverty in a supposedly enlightened and tolerant age?
The poor in contemporary Britain, and I suspect in America as well, have become painfully conscious of their supposedly blameworthy conduct and faulty actions, assisted no end by the accusatory right-wing press and elitist Conservative politicians who want to show solidarity with the middle-classes and ‘hard-working families’. Forgive me, dear friends, if this sounds cynical, but this is precisely what the British government intends, for there is nothing like punitive and harsh Social Security policies to enhance a sense of guilt. Now it does rather seem that the poor have internalised this cruel evaluation of government and moralists, for they have started to accept responsibility for what has, down through the ages, been seen as chance or fate or the ordering of the divine providence, not necessarily as evidence of their own failings or want of diligence.
Prior to the industrial era, direct experience disconfirmed for the poor the cruel fable that they were victims of their own folly, laziness or improvidence. Indeed, dear friends, this was the basis of much of the resistance to capitalism: the whole notion that we are simply individuals who must make our own private accommodation with wealth and power was vehemently repudiated by those who knew otherwise and recognised the role of a society who withheld from them the necessities of survival. As a matter of fact the labour movement itself was established on just this very recognition. Accordingly, the malignant assertion that poverty was some personal failing was negated by the power of the people to negotiate collectively for a decent level of living, an honourable livelihood or a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
Is it then any wonder, dear friends, that an objective of governments has been to weaken the power of collective resistance by undermining the institutions created by the poor for self-defence. This task has received tremendous impetus in recent decades by a spectacular rise in prosperity. The advent of the consumer society was accompanied by a profound psychological change in the poor themselves, which predisposed them more readily to accept a proposition they had hitherto resented and rejected.
In such a context, dear friends, the corollary was (and is) that those who neglected to take advantage of the ubiquitous plenty must needs be suffering from some moral defect. Capitalist ideology stubbornly refuses to accept that many of the poor do work jolly hard - sometimes holding down two jobs just to make ends meet - and yet are still suffering severe hardship by the standards of the society in which they live and move and have their being. Here in Britain, for example, it is the *working *poor who frequently need recourse to food banks, because their employer claims he has not the funds to pay them a decent living wage. If that is truly the case then he ought not to be business. Capitalist ideology also stubbornly refuses to accept that there will always be a percentage of people who are losers in the struggle to survive, the long-term mentally or physically sick or those who just cannot cope with our modern technological age and rapid change. Their silly philosophy is that anyone can do virtually anything, if only they would but try!
We now have, dear friends, an unpleasant dog eat dog world where supposedly civilised people turn against the weak and sick and those who have not availed themselves of all that capitalism innocently wishes to shower upon them. Moreover, under the barrage of resentment and loathing this incapacity incurs, is it any big surprise that the poor themselves echo the prevailing narrative of their condition? Now that they are a despised and rejected minority and no longer pose any electoral threat, they can be treated with punitive disdain. Every decent person should be alarmed at this sad state of affairs, for let us remember that we are speaking here of God’s poor.
God bless and thankyou for taking time to read the above.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos