Housing Benefit as Business Subsidy

Cross posted at Liberal Conspiracy. YAY ME!

Last Thursday night I had the unenviable experience of watching “The Future State of Welfare Reform”, with John Humphrys.

If you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favour: don’t. Watch Tory propaganda instead; the two are barely indistinguishable.

I want to use a small point made during the programme to make my own point on a topic I know too well: housing benefit, and the Tory plan to push poor people out of London.

Humphrys and his production crew managed to find one of those “Daily Male” benefit cases that tick all the boxes. An Ecuadorian family, all of them with brown skin, living in a big-ish flat in Islington, apparently unable to utter a single word of English.

The father and sole earner of the family was a cleaner. His wages wouldn’t have been enough to pay the rent for such a “palace”, so, as a person on “low income”, he is entitled to housing benefit to help him bridge the gap between what his employers feel like paying him and what he actually needs to live.

Mr Humphrys asked the man “whether he feels the state should subsidise his flat”. Or something like that.

Mr Humphrys, being, of course, well educated and doing a job that is reserved for those who are as well educated as him or more, got it wrong. Very wrong indeed.

The state isn’t subsidising Mr Housing Benefit Recipient; the state is actually subsidising Mr Cleaning Company Who Employs Mr Housing Benefit Recipient because he cannot cough up the wages that his employee would need to live on.

This point is hardly ever made by the Left, and I can’t understand why. This is an unashamed transfer of public funds into private landlord’s and private companies pocket’s.

It is up to employers to pay enough for employees to live, that is what wages are all about. If employers don’t feel generous enough, then employees need to go somewhere else. Low wages, no employees. At least that’s what would happen in a functioning “free market”. Instead, the state steps in and gives Mr Housing Benefit Recipient enough money to pay his rent.

Notice that neither him nor his family get to “enjoy” this wealth, for having a roof above their heads is non negotiable; it is a pre requisite for any worker to go and do their jobs.

The ones who do enjoy “extra” wealth are the private companies who get away with paying, essentially, below subsistence wages, safe in the comfort that the state will step in and fill in the gap so that their workers can make do.

If private companies were to pay living wages, it would make their profits sink. See? Housing benefit neatly translates into private profit.

This is the reason why the Welfare State doesn’t “work”. Benefits are supposed to be there to provide workers with a safety net; they were never meant to compensate for low wages simply because employers cannot be bothered to pay more.

But don’t expect Humphrys to tell you that. I suspect he’s too educated.

"Savages"

Savages. “Feral savages”. Those words have been used to characterise the rioters. Not just the rioters, but all the people who belong to the “class” that rioters are presumed to come from. And because there isn’t a social class called “rioters”, pundits have rushed in to fill the description by making unfounded assumptions: they are black and brown, they have single mothers, they are on benefits, they live in council housing, they don’t have fathers.

And every time someone has referred to the rioters as “savages”, this very song would pop up in my head.

Melanie Phillips is the picture of a friendly, progressive, liberal lady who goes to yoga classes and makes vegetarian soups. It came as a shock to learn that she’s a rightwing Daily Male pundit.

I don’t usually engage with the insanity that pesters in the Daily Male, so I’ll just use her words to make a wider point. In a recent piece of hers, Phillips wrote:

“(…) the most important thing that socialises children and turns them from feral savages into civilised citizens”

That most important thing turns out to be a “father”, in case you were wondering.

I want to go back to this song because it provides a neat context on which to judge this accusation of rioters as “feral savages”.

For those who haven’t heard of it, the song is from the movie “Pocahontas”, which tells the story of British Settlers arriving to the “New World” with the intention to pillage and plunder in good old British fashion.

The word “savages” is, as you may have guessed, used by the settlers to refer to the natives. The settlers were “civilised”, and the natives were not. This state of affairs was essential for the settlers to justify the carnage they inflicted upon several peoples in order to steal their land.

Some of the descendents of those peoples, referred today as Native Americans, are still around and there is no shortage of activists ready to condemn the carnage and the destruction that the settlers brought to their ancestors.

But that’s the thing, you see: they condemn the Americans for their actions. And Britain is left off the hook. To my knowledge, Native American activists have not laid the blame for the actions of the White Man at the feet of the “Mother Country”.

It was British settlers who first arrived to America. And the idea of natives as “savages”, and of Europeans as “civilised” grew, partly, on British soil. It clearly hasn’t been extirpated yet.

I find it fascinating that these ideas share the same root with the accusations of rioters as “feral savages” in need of “civilising”. The words are the same for a reason.

And the template for dealing with the rioters is the same as the template for colonization: there are “feral savages” in need of “civilising” by the White Man or Great Father.

I also wonder if Melanie Phillips would have been able to get away with using these words in a country like Australia.

It didn’t work in the case of Native Americans, and it won’t work with the rioters. That much is obvious. The mindset that considers “brown people” or “children” (notice how in the case of the rioters those two categories are blurry) as “feral savages” is not the mindset that will “civilise” them. If by “civilising” one means educating them, clothing them, feeding them; all the noble goals that colonizers adopted and which, as you might expect, amounted to nothing. Instead, the "savages" were exterminated or turned into "second class citizens" of a nation they didn't not choose.

The problem is Patriarchy. The problem is Civilisation. And we must end both.

Note: Yes, I do know that "Pocahontas" is problematic in a bazillion ways, but I'm making a very basic point here, which still stands.

"It's Not Fair"

Pat Bagley's editorial cartoon for The Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday, August 14, 2011

Richard Seymour (aka “Lenin”) has argued that the connecting thread behind the riots is “injustice”. I agree.

It is fascinating to observe how much can be connected by that single thread. But it’s particularly interesting when the thread is used to frame the desperate cries of the media.

“It is not fair!”, they all seem to say, before dwelling over the personal crisis of innocent “victims” of the riots.

“It’s not fair that 15 families had to see their business burn down. A business that had been in the family for generations, a business that survived the great depression and two world wars. I mean, why target them, eh? It’s not fair”.

“It’s not fair that three men were killed after they tried to protect their homes. Honestly, it wasn’t their fault, was it?”

“It’s not fair that so many people lost their homes because of arson attacks. These people lost everything! How can it make sense for members of the community to lose how little they had?”

“It’s not fair that small businesses were looted. The businesses of hard working people were vandalized. How can anyone justify that? These are members of the community”

You know what our answer to all these cries should be?

“Precisely”

None of the above things are fair. But at the same time, there are other many things that are not fair.

It is not fair that young black men are stopped and searched twenty times in one month because their skin makes them suspect of criminality in the eyes of the police.

It is not fair that poor youths about to enter the labour market cannot find jobs that will support them. I mean, people who have never had a stake in the labour market cannot, in all conscience, be blamed for what has happened with the labour market.

It is not fair that people born in poverty have no chance of escaping poverty.

It is not fair that young people will never be able to afford higher education.

It is not fair that people die under police custody and nobody is charged.

It is not fair that some severely ill people see their disability benefits cut because they are deemed “fit enough to work”.

Some media heads have pointed out that the reason given by the rioters for their rioting was “because we can”.

That’s it. Those in power inflicting “injustice” on everyone else are also doing it “because they can”.

If those in power have no higher purpose for their actions other than “because we can”, why should we expect any different from the poorest, most desperate and most vulnerable members of society?

Similarly, if the richest people in the country are not “fair”, why should the poorest be?

If society is run under the premise of “it’s not fair”, why should we be surprised when things turn out to not be fair?

A society that breeds injustice should not be surprised to find injustice.

The riots are not a revolution. Rioters are not trying to replace our current system with a “fairer one”.

Riots are a continuation of the theme of injustice, which has become acceptable and par the course, so long as it flows mainly in one direction.

So when somebody from the media cries out that the riots are “not fair”, our response should be “No, it’s not fair. That’s precisely the problem.”

The answer to injustice, of course is, “justice”. But for that you need a Revolution.

(Note: It’s interesting to notice how journalists pick on the examples of poor, hard working people being affected by the riots as evidence of “unfairness” on the part of the rioters. What they are NOT SAYING, and not saying very loudly, is: “If the rioters had only targeted the rich, then it would have been fair”. It’s a lie, of course: when people do target the rich the media still blames them. But another response to these journalists pushing the whole “rioters were mean to fellow poor, brown people” could very well be: “so you’re saying that if rioters had only targeted rich, white people, it would have been justifiable?”. At which point I can easily imagine the journalist squirming in their seats.)

Dear Britain...

At first I was surprised, perhaps even slightly amused.

Now I stare in disbelief. My brain struggles to accept the reality of what I see. Riots? In London???

I have never seen or heard of anything as grave as what is taking place in "the City" today.

There were riots in my home country once. They lasted one day. People targeted supermarkets mostly, and took food. There were no fires. Those of us with a critical eye suspected they must have been coordinated somehow by the opposition, seeing as how they broke out on the same day, all around the country and seemingly out of nowhere.

If what is happening in London had taken place in my home country, the whole world, my people included, would have said “third world country, what do you expect”.

And yet, looking at poor people in London, with their dark skins, their poor housing, their broken neighbourhoods, their ordinary clothes… I could easily fool myself and see any impoverished, suburban neighbourhood in Latin America.

But this is not Latin America. This is the capital of one of the richest nations on Earth. The birthplace of the industrial revolution. The living proof that capitalism doesn’t end poverty.

In Latin America, we have the excuse of poverty. When something bad happens, when the poor are really poor, we can comfort ourselves by saying “we are a poor country, there isn’t much we can do”.

But there is plenty Britain could do. This country has just spent 9.5 billion pounds in preparing itself for the “Olympics”.

Dear Britain.

Thank you for showing your human self. Humans react when provoked. And it’s a relief to discover that despite centuries of indoctrination and “civilization”, you can respond to the violence done upon you.

Thank you for proving Theresa May wrong. I sincerely wished you hadn’t had to resort to this. I’d like to believe I tried to stop things getting to this point. I promise you I’ll carry on working so that you will never see yourself in this situation again.

I wish you the strength and compassion to see yourself as you are, take responsibility for what you have become and heal yourself accordingly.

Love

Mary

What's It Gonna Be?

Following on the attacks in Norway, Jeremy Paxman got busy today interviewing English Defence League leader “Tommy Robinson” (real name Stephen Yaxley Lennon). The reason being that the man behind the attacks in Norway, Anders Breivik, is rumoured to have had connections with the EDL.

The standard liberal response to the interview, much like the time the BNP leader was interviewed on the BBC, is to call him a “thug” “tosser” and “racist”; to decry Newsnight for giving him a platform on which to spout hatred; and to demand that he just stops talking altogether. 

I belong to the more nuanced branch of the Left, which looks at groups like the BNP and the EDL and sees all the signs of fascism that you would expect when THINGS ARE SO CRAP FOR THE WORKING CLASS.

Fascism, contrary to popular belief, is not condemned by those in power: it’s condoned. 

Here’s why:

*In order to rule the world under a right-wing ideology (that’s what we have now, by the way), you need to convince people that the right-wing ideology is good and right.

*Unfortunately, right-wing ideology only serves the interest of those in power, the rich.

*Here’s the catch: most people are not rich. So in order to convince the poor that right-wing ideology is right you need to create scapegoats.

Scapegoats are those groups who are intrinsically oppressed by the system, who will not cause (much) trouble because they are so powerless or so small in number.

What we have here is a whole lot of people getting incredibly angry because their lives are getting progressively worse. And because they can’t find a reason, they turn against the very people that the rich and powerful tell them to turn against. Which, according to the rules of the system, are always the people below them in the social hierarchy. (read Derrick Jensen’s "Endgame" premises for more on this) The very people on which the system acts out violently, one form or another, all the time. Muslims, single mothers, immigrants, asylum seekers, benefit recipients, etc. Because violence is only allowed to flow in one direction, EDL members are merely asking for a more extreme version of that same violence. And it’s in the interest of those in power to keep the poor and angry trapped in kicking those below them to vent their rage and frustration.

In time, however, this situation is unsustainable. Because when poor people don’t turn against the rich and powerful, things tend to get much worse for them. That is exactly what is happening now.

Poor people get angrier because things are getting worse and because their kicking doesn’t seem to be working. This is where Britain is at the moment. And it’s at this juncture that only two things can happen.

* One, people descend into fascism. The leader of the EDL is right in one thing: if things carry on the way they are going, “something like this (the attacks in Norway) could happen in 5 or 10 years time”. Fascism means the most vulnerable in society get some serious kicking. And… nothing much changes for the poor.

* The other thing that could happen is a revolution of some sort. The poor and dispossessed rise against those in power and force them to “make concessions”, that is, distribute the pie more fairly (which comes under the banner of “liberalism”). Or they succeed in taking over power altogether. That would be socialism.

What really chips my hide is that liberals act all surprised at the words of Lennon. Has nobody read the history of fascism? I haven’t, ‘cuz I don’t like history, but even I know the basic ideas behind it. How did Hitler rise to power? Easy. Germans were very poor and very angry. It was either communism/socialism or fascism. And because fascism always works in favour of those in power, it was fascism. (Indeed, Hitler had to disguise his rhetoric under the banner of “socialism”, because the latter was so popular). When he got into power he brought nothing but fascism, and the proof is in the way poor working class people were treated.

There is nothing surprising about what’s going on with the EDL or the BNP. The poor are angry. You only have to listen to Lennon to realise he’s not your average “Newsnight” interviewee. I can’t remember the last time someone on the BBC used the word “them” to mean “those”, a characteristic, I believe, of regional English. How about the words “working class”? This man is not yet another privately educated rich boy with Oxfordian English, which are pretty much the only people you see on the BBC. He represents the poor and angry who have no idea what is causing their misery and lash against those whom the system tells them to lash against.

I get angry and I shouldn’t. The answer is not anger but compassion. Can we at least try to put ourselves in the shoes of those people who are suffering right now, who are poor and working or poorer and unemployed, who have to struggle every day just to get by and watch how the “establishment”, meaning those in power, sneer at the very thought of them?

Can we begin to imagine what it must feel like for those who have only heard one tune their whole lives, one of hatred against those more vulnerable than them, who have never actually known what the left stands for because the “tune” has made sure the left is not an ally to their interests but the cause of their grief, and who have nowhere to turn but towards an ideology that promises some sort of relief by kicking those below them real hard?

Where is the left, I want to know. Sleeping peacefully and soundly among the well-meaning hearts of middle class liberals? Amongst people who find the word “chav” to be offensive but who recoil in horror at the people who carry that label?

I come from a poor country and let me tell you: I have never seen so much hatred against the poor. Yes, they are entirely misguided in their politics. Yes, they are islamophobic, racist, misogynist, homophobic, classist, etc. That’s-the-point. If they weren’t, we would have had a revolution by now.  

We must be very careful not to fall for the trick of hating on the poor ourselves. Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, classism, etc. are not all that surprising: we deal with them on an every day basis. But it's always much easier to hate on the poor when they start spouting these... "ideas". It's much easier because, amongst other things, we get to side with Jeremy Paxman. 

The alternative, as always, is compassion. And dialogue. Lots of it. Yes, even if it is painful and we feel like hating on the haters. Feminists should know; we put up with it everyday.