>Doug:
>
>"Terrorized" is too strong a word, but American society is filled
>with anxiety and fear - fear of homelessness and failure, fear of the
>terrorists, fear of all those Mexicans crossing the border. Maybe
>you've been away too long, but it's one of our foundational
>principles of social organization.
>
>
>[WS:] But that applies only to the US. All other developed countries,
>especially EU, have a much better social safety network - as evidenced inter
>alia by their level of social spending (25 - 30% of the GDP in EU, half that
>in the US).
I don't understand what you mean by "level of social spending". Do you mean government expenditure on health and welfare? If so then you must realise that the statistics you quote are meaningless, since US social spending on things like health care, education, pensions etc defined as private. But Maybe I'm missing the point?
In any event, the existence of welfare for the working doesn't contradict the argument that income insecurity is used to terrorise the working class. The welfare system is simply a more refined method of terrorism.
I was reminded of this on Friday, when I lodged my dole form at the local welfare office and was confronted with the latest refinement in the regime. A long queue stretched out the door, inside the line weaved around the reception area and down the side wall to the back of the building where those from the front of the queue were being called into individual neo-interviews as part of the process of lodging their fortnightly claim form.
To be honest, I can't say exactly what the format of the interview was, since I had become a bit sullen and bad tempered by the time I got to the front of the queue. So I decided to be difficult. When the clerk waved me to come down, I pretended not to notice her, gazing off into space. Eventually, the fellow behind me tapped me on the shoulder and pointed to the wildly gesticulating clerk, so I wandered down to her.
She sat herself down behind a desk and waved me towards a chair in front of it, but I glowered down at her menacingly and ignored this, remained standing. Taking my claim form out of my pocket and silently handing it to her. Then I proceeded to ignore her completely, carefully examining an interesting point in space off to the side, while she fidgeted with the form and her desktop terminal. After a few seconds she announced that my payment would be appearing on the following Monday so I grunted and left.
The point of the interview, aside from the ritual humiliation of keeping people waiting unnecessarily, is supposedly to ensure that people like me are constantly reminded by a human being (rather than just a written form) of our obligation to sell our labour to the highest or any bidder. The overall object is to make the experience as threatening as possible. Not just demeaning. Some elements of the ruling class would prefer to abolish such welfare payments altogether, but they are still in the minority here.
In the US, it seems, this appears to be the prevailing view. So the unemployed have no alternative except crime. I guess its partly due to the fact that the public won't wear this here that it isn't like that. Its a historical legacy, you may remember that the Australian national song (Waltzing Maltilda) is a ballad about a vagrant forced to steal sheep who is driven to suicide rather than submit to the law. Then of course there's the national myth about a nation founded by convicts sentenced to transportation for stealing a loaf of bread. Mostly bullshit of course, but I confess I find it all a little bit appealing all the same. Especially since I have recently discovered that (at least) one of my own ancestors seems to have been deported to Tasmania from Ireland for sheep-duffing.
Nevertheless, the welfare system is not, on the whole, a benevolent system. It is systematically integrated into the capitalist system of wage-slavery. Refined over 400 years, it is a safety net designed mainly with the safety and security of the employing class in mind. Part *of* the terror network, not an antidote for it.
> Mind that insecurity is not the function of income per se, but
>of the social support networks and institutions. In x-socialist countries
>the income level was rather low in comparison to the US, but there was
>almost no sense of fear thanks to extensive social safety networks.
>Everyone living in that part of the world can attest to that.
But then, the distinguishing feature of capitalism is that the ruling class prefers to exercise its rule economically, whereas the X-"socialist" countries retained the feudal system preference of exercising direct political control. They had you imprisoned or shot if you didn't do what you were told, in other words. Whereas in the capitalist system they prefer to starve you into submission. Much more efficient apparently.
>Quite frankly, all that talk - on this site and elsewhere - about
>"capitalism" without taking into account social institution, organization,
>and networks is a bunch of hot air, generalities, and unproductive
>meaningless kvetching that does not lead anywhere. One really needs to look
>into specifics - the material infrastructure, specific organization of
>economy and society, social networks, expectations, values, and types of
>public institutions to understand the concept of social safety or lack
>thereof and the fear it may or may not produce.
Hope I've been of some help then.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas