"The fundamental problem of capitalism is that it is structured, in its very operation, to make it impossible for millions, even billions, to be free in any meaningful sense." - Geoff Mann
Capitalism cannot provide full employment. Some economists believe an 8 to 10 percent national unemployment rate is "ideal", as anything lower leads to recessions and aggressive inflation. Beyond this, it is in the upper and middle classes best interest to have a segment of the labour force perpetually out of work. For the upper classes, this leads to lower wages having to be paid, the ability to use the threat of unemployment to keep workers in line, and an excess pool of skilled labourers to choose from. For the middle and lower classes, unemployment offers some stability to their dollar and keeps the prices of goods within their reach. Because capitalism cannot provide full employment – Reagan and Thatcher, the chieftains of neoliberal capitalism, would boast that unemployment was "necessary for an economy" – radical groups typically demand full employment, using such ancillary demands as a means of destabilising or dethroning the status quo.
Given that capitalism cannot provide full employment, and that there are always more people than available jobs, it seems strange that many aggressively demonize the unemployed, especially when, in some dubious ways, unemployment is "in everyone else's best interest". As an old economics joke goes: don't be angry at the unemployed, be thankful that they didn't take your job.
Even more bizarre is the constant slandering of government welfare. Historically, welfare has always been the price capitalists pay to avoid revolution. Giving money to 8 or so percent of your population placates them, keeps them from getting agitated and militant. Welfare thus has a complex political purpose within modern society. These policies appeal to the masses, plaster over the inefficiencies of laissez-faire capitalism, and also help create divisions within the working class ("look at those lazy parasites!"). Ironically, the middle class has its own respectable social programs, in the form of social security, pensions, unemployment insurance, health care and so on, but the hypocrisy here is rarely grasped. And of course no sector of society is more dependent on "the nanny state" than transnational corporations, which manipulate governments/taxpayers into absorbing the unprofitable parts of the production process and which require states to guarantee markets.
More than this, welfare is used as a tool to keep alternatives to capitalism at bay. When the American communist party was formed in 1919, it and other leftist groups were like a thorn in capitalism's side. When the New Deal came in the 1930s, it was, though bashed by the petite-bourgeoisie, supported by huge banks, corporations, and financial and insurance companies (Chase National Bank, Procter and Gamble, Grace National Bank, Leeds and Northrup, Goldman Sachs etc). Better to give the poor some handouts than watch them start asking questions. Historian Barton J. Bernstein would say "The liberal reforms of the New Deal did not transform the American system; they conserved and protected American corporate capitalism, occasionally by absorbing parts of threatening programs." Historian William E. Leuchtenburg would say similar reforms served but to "contain and placate radical labour groups".
Today, welfare programs are being aggressively shut down or scaled back. They are, many argue, unsustainable and "responsible for debt". Some are outright called "Ponzi schemes", everyone ignoring the fact that capitalism itself is a Ponzi-like scheme that is inherently unsustainable and must exponentially increase aggregate debt; any system which runs on interest-issued currency will always owe more cash than there is cash available, thereby necessitating poverty and massive inequality.
Frederick Wiseman's "Welfare" is one of the director's best films. At two and a half hours long, this is a mammoth documentary set entirely within the windowless walls of an urban welfare office. Here, a steady stream of unemployed men and women plead their cases before social workers.
What's immediately apparently is the difference in body language between the employed and unemployed. Wiseman's unemployed faces are forlorn, petrified, on edge, most seemingly lost in depression. Some are on drugs, some seem to have sexual-identity "issues", some are well educated, some are white, some black, some seem to be recent immigrants. "Well get a job!" a government worker yells when an unemployed man shows his empty pockets. Here, class bigotry reveals its ugly face. The victim politely says thank you and walks away.
As is typical of Wiseman, the film opens and closes with symbolic vignettes. Wiseman opens with a native American who talks about land being stolen, the implication perhaps being that the bureaucratic juggernaut he now faces represents a system foisted upon men and women. Participation is not a choice. Wiseman then closes on an educated man who gives an extensive rant about poverty, inequality and waste. The guy, whose tortured genuflections recall Wiseman's "Titicut Follies", possibly has mental issues. But which came first, the madness or the madhouse?
8.5/10 – See Wiseman's "Belfast, Maine".
Capitalism cannot provide full employment. Some economists believe an 8 to 10 percent national unemployment rate is "ideal", as anything lower leads to recessions and aggressive inflation. Beyond this, it is in the upper and middle classes best interest to have a segment of the labour force perpetually out of work. For the upper classes, this leads to lower wages having to be paid, the ability to use the threat of unemployment to keep workers in line, and an excess pool of skilled labourers to choose from. For the middle and lower classes, unemployment offers some stability to their dollar and keeps the prices of goods within their reach. Because capitalism cannot provide full employment – Reagan and Thatcher, the chieftains of neoliberal capitalism, would boast that unemployment was "necessary for an economy" – radical groups typically demand full employment, using such ancillary demands as a means of destabilising or dethroning the status quo.
Given that capitalism cannot provide full employment, and that there are always more people than available jobs, it seems strange that many aggressively demonize the unemployed, especially when, in some dubious ways, unemployment is "in everyone else's best interest". As an old economics joke goes: don't be angry at the unemployed, be thankful that they didn't take your job.
Even more bizarre is the constant slandering of government welfare. Historically, welfare has always been the price capitalists pay to avoid revolution. Giving money to 8 or so percent of your population placates them, keeps them from getting agitated and militant. Welfare thus has a complex political purpose within modern society. These policies appeal to the masses, plaster over the inefficiencies of laissez-faire capitalism, and also help create divisions within the working class ("look at those lazy parasites!"). Ironically, the middle class has its own respectable social programs, in the form of social security, pensions, unemployment insurance, health care and so on, but the hypocrisy here is rarely grasped. And of course no sector of society is more dependent on "the nanny state" than transnational corporations, which manipulate governments/taxpayers into absorbing the unprofitable parts of the production process and which require states to guarantee markets.
More than this, welfare is used as a tool to keep alternatives to capitalism at bay. When the American communist party was formed in 1919, it and other leftist groups were like a thorn in capitalism's side. When the New Deal came in the 1930s, it was, though bashed by the petite-bourgeoisie, supported by huge banks, corporations, and financial and insurance companies (Chase National Bank, Procter and Gamble, Grace National Bank, Leeds and Northrup, Goldman Sachs etc). Better to give the poor some handouts than watch them start asking questions. Historian Barton J. Bernstein would say "The liberal reforms of the New Deal did not transform the American system; they conserved and protected American corporate capitalism, occasionally by absorbing parts of threatening programs." Historian William E. Leuchtenburg would say similar reforms served but to "contain and placate radical labour groups".
Today, welfare programs are being aggressively shut down or scaled back. They are, many argue, unsustainable and "responsible for debt". Some are outright called "Ponzi schemes", everyone ignoring the fact that capitalism itself is a Ponzi-like scheme that is inherently unsustainable and must exponentially increase aggregate debt; any system which runs on interest-issued currency will always owe more cash than there is cash available, thereby necessitating poverty and massive inequality.
Frederick Wiseman's "Welfare" is one of the director's best films. At two and a half hours long, this is a mammoth documentary set entirely within the windowless walls of an urban welfare office. Here, a steady stream of unemployed men and women plead their cases before social workers.
What's immediately apparently is the difference in body language between the employed and unemployed. Wiseman's unemployed faces are forlorn, petrified, on edge, most seemingly lost in depression. Some are on drugs, some seem to have sexual-identity "issues", some are well educated, some are white, some black, some seem to be recent immigrants. "Well get a job!" a government worker yells when an unemployed man shows his empty pockets. Here, class bigotry reveals its ugly face. The victim politely says thank you and walks away.
As is typical of Wiseman, the film opens and closes with symbolic vignettes. Wiseman opens with a native American who talks about land being stolen, the implication perhaps being that the bureaucratic juggernaut he now faces represents a system foisted upon men and women. Participation is not a choice. Wiseman then closes on an educated man who gives an extensive rant about poverty, inequality and waste. The guy, whose tortured genuflections recall Wiseman's "Titicut Follies", possibly has mental issues. But which came first, the madness or the madhouse?
8.5/10 – See Wiseman's "Belfast, Maine".