My father had always cautioned my that a good snooker player was a sure sign of a miss-spent youth, so of course I had taken to hanging around the darkened snooker hall from around 14. Perhaps my probation officer had a slightly shady past too, but I got on with him OK. Though he wasn't good enough at the game to be a completely lost cause. I had once watched a tournament match between him and the great Australian and world champion Eddie Charlton, who ate him for breakfast, without even trying.
Anyhow, the rest of the probation was quite uneventful. The probation officer had a bit of a sideline going, he sold me a snooker cue a bit later. I stayed at the job about 18 months (almost a record for me) and continued to play bad snooker for awhile longer. Didn't mind the meetings at all.
Certainly, my experience of the probation system was a lot more pleasant than that I have had with the welfare system, which is as you imply the sibling of the criminal justice system. But my reaction to the indignities of the welfare system, a few years later, was far from what you describe.
Perhaps it is because, as you say, most of the people living on welfare tend to be "reactive" (or as they say here "passive") I soon learned that it was actually helpful and far more satisfying to take the initiative. They are pushovers if you fight back.
The main thing is to dispel any lingering illusions that welfare authorities are there to help you. Amazing how many people labour under that misapprehension. They are of course the Enemy and one must never forget it for a second. In interviews with them, it is vital to maintain a 'name rank and serial number' attitude, just as you should with cops. Luckily, I'd had a lot to do with cops as a kid, so that went some way towards preparing me.
Cops weren't as bad of course. They would bash you about a bit and try to frame you up for any loose crimes they had hanging about. Which outraged me considerably when it was happening. But there's something i can't quite put my fingers on which was more outrageous about the attitude of the welfare people, which inspired a burning outrage which was much more long-running.
Perhaps it was simply the casual way they abused their power and ignored the consequences for other people, but it got my back up in a way the cops couldn't manage. Maybe it was some kind of class phenomenon, like the hatred of scabs.
Whatever, the thing is that it isn't actually true that you're more likely to achieve success in the welfare system using a passive or reactive strategy. It is much better to take control of your dealings with these bureaucrats. And quite easy.
The real problem, I have discovered over many years, is that the welfare system is cunningly designed to make this difficult. The reason most people don't confront the bureaucrats is quite simple, most people in the welfare system have something to hide and they are fearful of being discovered. So they consciously or unconsciously try to keep a low profile, hoping not to be noticed.
The reason most people are in that situation is no accident, the welfare system is designed to ensure that it will happen. Quite simply welfare systems are always designed so that you are forced to cheat them to survive. For example, it has never been practical for people on the dole to honestly declare income earned from casual work, the effective taxation and welfare reductions rages from 50% at very low rates of income, up to 75%, 85% and even 100%. In some cases, even more.
People may be "reactive", but even the dopiest welfare recipient quickly learns that honesty is penalised very severely. The sensible thing is not to take such work, but of course welfare benefits are so low that this is only possible for people with the most highly developed financial management skills.
The obvious and usual option is to take the work, pocket the money and keep your mouth shut. Which of course is the intended outcome. This suits the employers, who can take advantage by ignoring legal minimum wage regulations without any fear of legal reprisals and it also makes it easier to police the people on welfare. Who of course are now criminalised by the system and thus not in any position to enforce their legal rights. The criminal penalties are incredibly severe, many people are sent to jail for these minor offenses.
Mission accomplished. If you understand what the mission of the welfare system is - to keep the poor under control and facilitate their exploitation as a source of very cheap labour. That's what the welfare system is and that's what its always been. Its the cutting edge of the class war.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
At 2:29 PM -0500 12/11/06, Nick C. Woomer-Deters wrote:
>...It's not just the education system either. The poor in the
>United States are subject to a variety of institutions that foster a
>kind of childlike dependence, where they're put at the mercy of the
>arbitrary whims of the bureaucracy and where you're most likely to
>succeed if you internalize reactive thinking. I suppose that after
>18 years of this, where you only gain anything by doing what other
>people tell you to do -- and you live in a community comprised of
>similarly-situated individuals -- the capacity for deliberative
>thinking is just totally crippled. Is it any wonder, then, that
>this process often produces people who are totally incapable of
>thinking more than a few days ahead?
>
>To bring in another example, while there's a lot of talk about the
>unprecedented size of the U.S. prison and jail population, the
>population on parole or probation is simply staggering
>(<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm>
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm ). Many people don't
>realize how difficult probation and parole is: there are random drug
>and alcohol tests, you have to make sure you keep in touch with your
>probation officer (much harder than it sounds), clear any travel
>with him/her, demonstrate that you're working to find a job and
>pleasing your boss, etc. In my experience, roughly 5-10 percent of
>defendants find probation so burdensome, they'll elect to serve the
>rest of their sentences in prison or jail rather than worry about
>pleasing their probation officer (who has the power to find them in
>violation of the terms of parole and send them back to prison).
>
>It's a false choice between allocating social resources to the
>desperately poor and encouraging personal autonomy, self-reliance
>and deliberative thought but, of course, such an approach is liable
>to encourage uppity-ness.
>
>-N
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk