----------
>From: Bob McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: FutureWork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Irish Workfare
>Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 8:02 PM
>
> Just seeking some clarification here.
>
> Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
>> >From The Servile State Page 122
>>
>> Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it.
>> Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be
>> liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In
>> the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave.
>
> This does not seem to address workfare. Is it not true that a person must
first
> apply for welfare in order to receive it? If some form of work is required
s/he
> should be so informed. At that point the applicant may refuse to work
> presumably. No legal compulsion there. The person may then turn to
> non-governmental sources for aid (charity).
Thomas:
Good question Dan. Belloc's main idea is that capitalism monoplizes the
"means of production" in the hands of the few and by doing that,
disenfranchises those who might or could be productive by not allowing them
to be productive. Now, consider someone going on welfare and for the sake
of this answer, let's eliminate the handicapped, the addicted, etc and
assume that the person going on welfare is doing so because they cannot find
work, or the work they may be able to find does not give them enough money
for their needs. Or they have specialist training and that they are
entitled to choose their work in that area in which they had developed
expertise. If I was the father of six, minimum wage jobs will not solve my
problem. If I was a printer, taking a job as a dishwasher would negate my
experience.
The welfare recipients problem is that he cannot be productive in the
workforce because he cannot find work or work that utilizes his previous
experience or skills - ie those controlling the means of production cannot
find a use for his labour that would allow them to siphon of a profit from
his efforts. Now, capitalism in a pure form would state to that person - go
starve. However, the state intervened with a concept of redistribution,
which basically alleviated the harsh judgement of capitalism and created a
degree of income for the unemployed. Up until about 10 years ago, that was
considered fair and acceptable. The tacit understanding was that this
minimal help was available to all - unconditionally as a "right" of
citizenship.
Then came workfare, which phonetically is heard as workfair, but it is far
from fair in my opinion. The conditions of societal help then became the
negation of a persons "right" to choose his work and he is coerced by the
laws of the state to work at whatever the state chooses to demand of him.
This was a quantum shift from a free man in a society that valued him to a
slave in a society that was going to get it's pound of flesh. As the
"capitalists" controlled property and capital, the person unable to work for
them is moved into a form of serfdom by the government - who is supposed to
protect his basic rights.
Now as to your second point, the right to refuse the contract and allow
someone of good heart to provide charity is another way of saying that those
who are disenfranchised of the right to work by those who own and use the
"means of production" for their own personal gain have no common
responsibility. The State has moved from a position of supporting the idea
of redistributing income through welfare - to one in which the conditions of
welfare support is given through enforced labour. So, the State is now in
the business of creating slaves. The Capitalists have no responsibility and
are free to pursue their aims.
Now, truthfully, the citizens should never have been forced to see Welfare
funded from their income tax. They are not the ones who disenfranchised the
worker by being unable to provide employment. Rather, those who own the
means of production, should be taxed for those they disenfranchise - as it
is through their system of creating profit that workers do not receive the
full benefit of their labours. So, quite frankly, in my opinion it is the
capitalists and property owners who should by law be required to provide the
"charity" that you speak of.
>
>>
>>
>> Thomas:
>>
>> ... it is the very business class, those
>> who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of
>> production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent
>> to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political
>> moves that are leading the poor into slavery.
>
> While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_
> consider it the equivalent of business owners. In my limited experience those
> who are really ticked off by many welfare recipients is not the business class
> but the so-called working poor, those hard working individuals who barely earn
> more than those on welfare who do nothing in return!
Thomas:
Of course they are ticked off. The money they should earn is being taken
from them in two ways. First, it provides a profit to the capitalist,
second it becomes taxed by the government - after these two mafia
organizations rip them off, no wonder they are ticked off. And then to be
continually told by the business class that it is the welfare poor who are
responsible for their plight gives a focus for their anger. This is not the
first time that anger is has been redirected to victim rather than the
perpretrator. In actuality, corporate welfare is just a big a drain on the
government coffers as is social services. As I stated before, it is the
business class that demands more and more productivity while providing less
and less wages so they can have more and more profit - who should be the
ones responsible for those on welfare - they are the ones who have created
them.
Dan said:
The working poor also
> includes, I'm afraid, many small business owners who barely scrape by.
Thomas:
Of course they are also ticked off. The monopoly tendencies of the
capitalistic system is at war with them in the fight to dominate sectors of
the economy and they - as is the worker and the unemployed - at the mercy of
those who hold the monopoly.
Dan said:
>
> Those who sponsor workfare schemes are probably in a "damned if you do, damned
> if you don't" situation and are following the short-run route of expedience.
Thomas:
Far from being in a ""damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, they
are the creators in collusion with the capitalistic class in creating the
situation. Each governing party pays lip service to the public and yet from
their position of governing often work against the best interests of the
public. Do we hear any business or governmental study of shorter work
weeks, higher minimum wage laws, increased social assistance - nope. The
political parties don't govern for the citizen except as a by product, they
govern to get enough money to advertise and control the media to get
re-elected. In my opinion, Jay Hanson has it right, one dollar - one vote.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
> Just wondering ...
>
>
> --
> http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
>
