Does the welfare system predispose people to unhappiness?

[ViolentPanda]

It's a cultural thing, isn't it? Mainstream culture seems to place a high value on being self-supporting and wealthy. In that context it is unsurprising that welfare claimants can feel stigmatised and therefore unhappy.

30 years ago, most people were far more aware that welfare was something we all paid toward, and which we could all draw on as and when, a collectively-funded collective social good.
Now, post-Thatcher and with neoliberalism, many peoples' awareness only extends as far as seeing their contributions being taken by others, Individualism writ large.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm taking a wild guess that he thinks he's keeping the debate going by playing devil's advocate.

The devil drinks advocaat?
That's him off my yule list!

 

[ViolentPanda]

An important follow-up question might be:

Can anyone account for the observation that there are societies that have no concept of 'pizza' where people live happy and productive lives in conditions less favourable than our own?

What is it about pizza that makes people so unhappy?

Anchovies. Either their presence or their lack.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't be daft, I'm not supporting the whole of shariah, I don't know enough for a start. I am saying that I think it's an interesting question that the love and support of family and community cannot just be replaced by social security.

The problem with shari'ah is that it's pretty much "all or nothing". You don't get to pick and choose only those bit (hospitality, charity) that you agree with.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You and I would both be homeless under Sharia law (and I'd probably new dead), and our kids taken away from us and told that we were evil. They have charity for the righteous only.

To be fair, Sam, you are evil. Allah told me so.

 

[Edie]

30 years ago, most people were far more aware that welfare was something we all paid toward, and which we could all draw on as and when, a collectively-funded collective social good.
Now, post-Thatcher and with neoliberalism, many peoples' awareness only extends as far as seeing their contributions being taken by others, Individualism writ large.

Why? How did this happen? What changed to make social security feel like it was for 'others' not for 'us'? Was there genuinely less stigma about unemployment in the 70s?

 

[phildwyer]

Shariah says a lot of things.

I don't know why everyone's going on about sharia.

I wasn't talking about sharia, but about a sense of social and familial solidarity so traditional and ingrained as to be instinctive, which ensures that no-one sleeps on the streets. It may have nothing to do with Islam, though I've only noticed it in Islamic countries. And Cuba maybe.

I suspect it has more to do with the relative absence of capitalism than anything else.

 

[Edie]

I don't know why everyone's going on about sharia.

I wasn't talking about sharia, but about a sense of social and familial solidarity so traditional and ingrained as to be instinctive, which ensures that no-one sleeps on the streets. It may have nothing to do with Islam, though I've only noticed it in Islamic countries. And Cuba maybe.

I brought up shariah cos I'd recently found out it encorporated charity and hospitality (before I just thought it was law and punishment).

 

[caoineadh7]

On another thread ("list of those for whom Welfare Reform and cuts were too much to bear"), a poster (Falcon) asked:
"Can anyone account for the observation that there are societies which have no concept of "Welfare" in which people live happy productive lives in conditions considerably less favourable than ours?
Could it be that the Welfare system itself predisposes people to unhappiness, and that the concern of those who's jobs depend on the various operations of the Welfare State amount to nothing more than Münchausen syndrome by proxy?"

He was asked if he'd start a new thread (the one he posted on isn't appropriate - it's about those who have died), but he said "I won't".
I've done it for him, and I'll also post the answer I gave his question.

The "welfare state/social security system" is a mirror of capitalism. Unemployment is a integral part of modern neo liberal capitalism.

Capitalism provides a minimal welfare state to stop people from starving and thus revolting. How much it provides in payments depends on how easily its security forces could be overwhelmed and how much chance of unrest there is. In Ireland revolution could potentially happen in days, thus the state gives unemployed people 180 euros a week to appease them. In Britain there is little chance of the population ever rising up, history has broken the peoples spirit, many are heavily institutionalised in belief in the state and Monarchy etc, most resistance comes from the offspring of immigrants, thus unemployment benefit is 70 pounds a week.

People who have fulfilled lives are not unhappy. Engels said the Industrial revolution had created a Souless, dysfunctional society never before seen in the history of the world.

 

[phildwyer]

I brought up shariah cos I'd recently found out it encorporated charity and hospitality (before I just thought it was law and punishment).

Oh right. So I suppose it does have to do with sharia then. But not directly--secular people feel the same about extended family as religious people.

 

[purenarcotic]

I don't know why everyone's going on about sharia.

I wasn't talking about sharia, but about a sense of social and familial solidarity so traditional and ingrained as to be instinctive, which ensures that no-one sleeps on the streets. It may have nothing to do with Islam, though I've only noticed it in Islamic countries. And Cuba maybe.

I suspect it has more to do with the relative absence of capitalism than anything else.

Okay, so ignoring sharia, what about people who have no family? Would you take a stranger into your home because you instinctually feel nobody should be sleeping on the streets? Or would you prefer a welfare system or some sort of system who somebody could go to so that they could be housed?

Lots of charities work with homeless people and help them into accommodation, but there is a big housing shortage. Who should organise the building of more housing? Do you think our government has a responsibility to build more social housing?

 

[Edie]

The welfare state is a mirror of capitalism. Unemployment is a integral part of modern neo liberal capitalism.

Capitalism provides a minimal welfare state to stop people from starving and thus revolting. How much it provides in payments depends on how easily its security forces could be overwhelmed and how much chance of unrest there is. In Ireland revolution could potentially happen in days, thus the state gives unemployed people 180 euros a week to appease them. In Britain there is little chance of the population ever rising up, history has broken the peoples spirit, most resistance comes from the offspring of immigrants, thus unemployment benefit is 70 pounds a week.

People who have fulfilled lives are not unhappy. Engels said the Industrial revolution had created a Souless, dysfunctional society never before seen in the history of the world.

Wow bonkers stuff!

 

[phildwyer]

Okay, so ignoring sharia, what about people who have no family?

That's the thing about the extended family: no-one has no family.

Lots of charities work with homeless people and help them into accommodation, but there is a big housing shortage. Who should organise the building of more housing? Do you think our government has a responsibility to build more social housing?

Of course I do. We don't have the same social and cultural resources that Islamic societies enjoy.

 

[Edie]

Okay, so ignoring sharia, what about people who have no family? Would you take a stranger into your home because you instinctually feel nobody should be sleeping on the streets? Or would you prefer a welfare system or some sort of system who somebody could go to so that they could be housed?

Lots of charities work with homeless people and help them into accommodation, but there is a big housing shortage. Who should organise the building of more housing? Do you think our government has a responsibility to build more social housing?

I don't think it's necessary to polarise the issue It's possible to consider why we have such social isolation and lack of help, and look at how things are better abroad without that meaning NO social security at all!

 

[quimcunx]

If social and familial solidarity worked so well why was there a demand for a welfare state? You'd think there was only one variable, welfare state or no welfare state. You'd think the welfare state caused a breakdown in social and familial solidarity. Also what looks like solidarity from one point of view can be abuse and oppression from an other.

 

[purenarcotic]

That's the thing about the extended family: no-one has no family.



Of course. We don't have the same social and cultural resources that Islamic societies enjoy.

Are you saying there's no homelessness in Islamic societies?

What happens if people are disowned by their families? I'm afraid that this is a reality for some people, for a whole host of reasons.

 

[purenarcotic]

I don't think it's necessary to polarise the issue It's possible to consider why we have such social isolation and lack of help, and look at how things are better abroad without that meaning NO social security at all!

Good! I think pretty much every post I've posted has made that point too lol.

I think phil is polarising the issue though, he seems to be suggesting if we bring back extended families we'll solve homelessness. This is nonsense. Homelessness exists in cultures where extended families are the norm.

All I can gleam from phil is that if we introduce some things we'll remove the need for a welfare state. That's rubbish. Lots of people live in extended families in the UK and have to run away from their families and lose their home and get disowned and all the rest of it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why? How did this happen? What changed to make social security feel like it was for 'others' not for 'us'? Was there genuinely less stigma about unemployment in the 70s?

I keep forgetting you're a fair bit younger than me!
There was less stigma, certainly, because there was very little media and government rhetoric about "scroungers", and since the late '40s there'd been a political consensus between Labour and the Tories that state welfare was, on balance, "a good thing".
Then Thatcher, with her peculiarly Methodist take on things (backed by her hard-right husband's racist and classist views) decided that the welfare state was "a bad thing" that demotivated people from working. Never mind that (just as now) unemployment was spiralling upward while the economy stuttered: The fault was with the claimants. They could get on their bikes and move to where the work was!
Except that when thbey got there, there was no work.

Basically, Thatcher's governments changed the media's rhetoric from an agreement with the post-war consensus to an agreement with post-industrial individualism and "devil take the hindmost". Pure dog-eat-dog economic and social relations. If she could have gotten away with what Cameron and Osborne are now getting away with, she'd have been one happy old troutcunt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The "welfare state/social security system" is a mirror of capitalism. Unemployment is a integral part of modern neo liberal capitalism.

Capitalism provides a minimal welfare state to stop people from starving and thus revolting. How much it provides in payments depends on how easily its security forces could be overwhelmed and how much chance of unrest there is. In Ireland revolution could potentially happen in days, thus the state gives unemployed people 180 euros a week to appease them. In Britain there is little chance of the population ever rising up, history has broken the peoples spirit, many are heavily institutionalised in belief in the state and Monarchy etc, most resistance comes from the offspring of immigrants, thus unemployment benefit is 70 pounds a week.

People who have fulfilled lives are not unhappy. Engels said the Industrial revolution had created a Souless, dysfunctional society never before seen in the history of the world.

I'd cry if that wasn't so funny.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wow bonkers stuff!

It's not bonkers, it's just...well, basic political and economic theory with a really atrocious understanding of the whole ambit of "social control" thrown in. It's correct as far as it goes. it just doesn't go very far.

 

[quimcunx]

Persons with disabilities are mostly unseen, unheard and uncounted persons in Pakistan. They
are the most marginalized group. Persons with Disabilities face overwhelming barriers in
education, skills development and daily life. Most currently offered services focus on children,
with little availability for adult Persons with Disabilities.
Persons with disabilities also face multiple social, economic, physical and political handicaps,
hampering their freedom of movement in society. These barriers include stigmatization and a
misunderstanding of the abilities and aspirations of persons with disabilities. There is also a
pronounced lack of informational data, rules and regulations, rehabilitation centers, and
mainstreaming and specialized services for persons with disabilities.
In Pakistan, no single ministry or federal department deals with, issues related to disability.
There is only the ministry, responsible for social welfare, women’s development and special
education, which touches upon person with disabilities issues. However, at the local level,
there are no specific sections or departments responsible for person with disabilities programs
at the local level.
Moreover, Pakistanis believe that persons with disabilities are a social burden and a curse on
the family. These beliefs lead to the misunderstanding of disability. They prevent people from
obtaining appropriate information and being educated. Employment opportunities for persons
with disabilities are very limited and so they are a financial burden for their families.

Pakistan chosen for no particular reason. From http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/Regions/South Asia/JICA_Pakistan.pdf

Dr. Ali Murtaza, a public health expert, observed that killing or abandoning of unwanted children is not an uncommon act in our country. But, he added, last week the news about a newborn girl with physical disabilities, buried alive by her own father in Punjab, must have jolted the hearts and minds of many if not all. This barbaric act is a reminder of practices prevalent in older times and a reflection of the crumbled state of affairs we are at. Additionally, the case has clearly shown the respect of child rights, in rural areas of the country.

From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO12...ed-girls-among-most-marginalized-children.htm

So much for societal and familial solidarity in Islamic countries.

A welfare state can assist parents with disabled children to cope and can take into care the children whose parents feel they can't cope.

Of course the only difference between Pakistan and here is not the welfare state. It's not welfare which makes people miserable. It eases the misery caused by other factors.

 

[caoineadh7]

I'd cry if that wasn't so funny.

If you drew a graph of the countries in Europe which pay the most dole money against the chance of social unrest, I guarantee the countries which pay the most have the biggest chance of social unrest.

 

[caoineadh7]

It's not bonkers, it's just...well, basic political and economic theory with a really atrocious understanding of the whole ambit of "social control" thrown in. It's correct as far as it goes. it just doesn't go very far.

If you can do better, go ahead.......

 

[ViolentPanda]

If social and familial solidarity worked so well why was there a demand for a welfare state? You'd think there was only one variable, welfare state or no welfare state. You'd think the welfare state caused a breakdown in social and familial solidarity. Also what looks like solidarity from one point of view can be abuse and oppression from an other.

You could equally well argue that the breakdown of social and familial solidarity started with the shift away from rural life 300+ years ago, and accelerated as industrialisation accelerated, or that it started with the shift away from feudalism.

 

[quimcunx]

You could equally well argue that the breakdown of social and familial solidarity started with the shift away from rural life 300+ years ago, and accelerated as industrialisation accelerated, or that it started with the shift away from feudalism.

It was caused by fast food. Or possibly compulsory schooling for children.

 

[Greebo]

<snip>I wasn't talking about sharia, but about a sense of social and familial solidarity so traditional and ingrained as to be instinctive, which ensures that no-one sleeps on the streets. It may have nothing to do with Islam, though I've only noticed it in Islamic countries. And Cuba maybe.

I suspect it has more to do with the relative absence of capitalism than anything else.

Move the goalposts, why don't you? first you claim that it's a cultural thing, now you think it's more about the political system.

If the ability to do away with a state-provided safety net of money (instead of universally free childcare, housing, medical care, respite etc) without making people reliant on charity can only be expected to work if you have an absence of capitalism then we're starting from the wrong place to get where we need to go.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you drew a graph of the countries in Europe which pay the most dole money against the chance of social unrest, I guarantee the countries which pay the most have the biggest chance of social unrest.

That depends entirely on what you mean by social unrest. If you mean "vibrant anti-government politics where people shout slogans and have marches, but never actually crystallise anything approaching a fart, let alone a revolution", then I'm sure you're absolutely correct.
If you mean "issue-based social unrest that has the potential to develop into a wider assault on extant culture" then you're talking out of your arse.
You're putting the cart before the horse. It's a payoff to stop wider unrest developing, to allow the revolutionaries to feel comfortable that they achieve something, while never getting hungry enough to do anything that actually threatens the state itself.
100+ years of British history show me that the reason the British rarely rebel is because we get neither the bread nor the circuses. We're kept hungry, and we're kept down. We're given just enough and no more.

 

[purenarcotic]

Of course I do. We don't have the same social and cultural resources that Islamic societies enjoy.

Are you aware of the plight of trans people in Islamic countries? Hirjas in Pakistan, for example. Forced into a life of homelessness, begging and being seen as outcast and constantly ridiculed.

That's really shitty treatment to me, to outcast a group like that. What happened to their families? Oh wait, they disowned them for simply trying to live their life the way they want. Where's the social resources to stop them from living a life of misery? I am aware that they have now been granted ID cards and can now do some jobs, but they have no access to surgery or hormonal treatment should they wish to physically change their bodies.

I don't understand what it is you want? Do you like the idea of mutual aid, of people helping each other out when necessary, of people supporting one another be that a family or a community member? Because those are pretty universal concepts, they're not specific to Islam or religion in general. Yet the countries you hold up in such high esteem of performing these functions fall very short when it comes to those who are on the margins of society.

 

[Edie]

Charity seems a pretty dirty word round these parts which I always find surprising tbh. I guess cos it undermines the idea that the state should always provide?

 

[phildwyer]

Are you saying there's no homelessness in Islamic societies?

I can only speak for Turkey, but there's very little there. Effectively none in fact. And this despite the lack of a welfare state in the Western sense.

What happens if people are disowned by their families? I'm afraid that this is a reality for some people, for a whole host of reasons.

To be homeless you'd have to be both disowned by your entire family and incapable of supporting yourself. I'm not sure how many people that would be--far fewer than in the West for sure. I imagine the local mosque takes care of any such, though I can't swear to it...