|
i have to say i find this entire way of thinking about the redistribution of wealth to be bizarre.
it's a bit of received wisdom in some circles, but i can't help but see in it a kind of strange type of resentment that passes from one dominated fraction of a socio-economic class to another. classic reconstruction-period stuff. and even now after having heard and seen this nonsense recycled over and over as an aspect of the building of resentment conservative-style as a way to hold together an otherwise kinda disparate demographic, i'm still suprised each time i see it and even more each time i see it repeated.
this idea of it "feeding criminality" seems to me a particular far-right political thing which feeds into other discourses of "social parasitism" that have worked out real well when they've been transposed into policy.
in most countries with a social-democratic tradition, welfare was set up as a socio-political compromise. the idea was that the wealth capitalism generates owes itself to the social systems that enable it (i can't believe i have to explain this again)...so the holders of capital owed it to the system to maintain it, to buy solidarity.
the ethical argument was that capitalism was supposed to elevate this fiction they call "civilization" above the level of law of the social-darwinist jungle, and could do so pretty easily (assuming that 30% of your budget doesnt go into things like military procurement of course).
it's depressing to have to outline these arguments in 2009.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|