What’s this liberal doing in my head? And why does it think I owe something to society?

Workfare makes us free

This post is one in a series about being a ‘liberal’, an admittedly vague term I use to refer to left-leaning, moderately-inclined people who think it worth fighting for a fairer world and who largely accept existing institutions as the appropriate channel for change.

It is one of those self-evident facts that we should all contribute to society – this is one of the ideas behind the current government policy of forcing people to work for free for large corporations. We will be assisted by society in the course of our lives, the logic goes, and we therefore owe something to society. This view is held by many people but some of those people are not interested in economic ‘justice’ of any kind and I can’t be bothered to address them. Instead I will address this to liberals who might be interested in some kind of increased economic equality but who would still rely on this logic.

The interesting thing about the idea we owe something to society is that what people often mean is that we should contribute to society by having a job (and never mind how pointless or actually unproductive the work might be, right?). Now, there’s an obvious flaw that many people can spot here. A lot of what we might call society is little to do with paid work. Reproduction of the human species, for example, largely takes place outside of the framework of paid labour. Yet presumably it does sort of contribute to society, right?

I am not (I think) moving towards the notion that you having sex is a contribution to the greater good (though it does, in many ways, add to the sum total of human happiness) but here’s a poser: is a mother who never gets a full time job a ‘burden’ on society? You could, rather, make an argument that the mother, doing one of the most important things in society, has an entire world of paid labour parasitic upon her efforts. People have commented that it is probably more common for human societies to regard the production of goods as playing a supporting role to human reproduction, rather than – as the assumption appears to be in our society – human reproduction playing a supporting role to the production of goods.

I could leave the argument there, perhaps add in something about the importance of the unpaid labours of art and love, and we could all reach some vague decision that society has its priorities wrong and has lost its spiritual connection with the essentials of human life. But that would (a) let the liberal in our heads off the hook much too easily, thus defeating the object of this post, and (b) wouldn’t get to the bottom of why ‘we’ might have our priorities wrong.

What is, if we might be so bold as to ask, society? Margaret Thatcher didn’t believe in it so presumably we should. I think social interaction is a defining aspect of human behaviour and so, without getting too far into definitions, there is a ‘society’ of some sort. We need it, therefore we must owe it, right?

Except that it isn’t a homogenous entity, this society. It has structure within it, and one of the structures we can spot within it is the economic structure. And we can pretend if we like that all the wealth we collectively produced is produced between each of us, and that money goes into a big pot, and from that pot we get the benefits. And then we have to work out why some people get a much bigger piece of that than others.

‘Because it works’, is one thing people say, and I have posted on this before so I won’t elaborate on the dishonesty of that here. So instead I propose another hypothesis: that the entire economic structure was never designed for the benefit of most of us but for the benefit of a few. To keep it functioning some of the benefits have to be shared around, but that is secondary to the machinery put in place to generate great wealth for a few.

This idea has recently surfaced in the Occupy movement as the system being run for the 1% not the 99%. It is nothing new, and one of the effects of it is that the benefits to you are an expendable part of the system. This is why you can suddenly get poorer (as you probably are now if you live in Britain and don’t run or own a large corporation) even though you are not working any less.

So, much as society in some sense does exist, a homogenous society in an economic sense is a fiction. On some level we all know that the idea we are paid what we deserve is nonsense – our pay is determined rather by our power to ask for it. So the notion that this unfair system of pay leads to a fair system of us all doing our bit for society is a bit odd. The idea that your role is to contribute economically to the economic pool of ‘society’ is based on fiction – particularly when you discover what tax havens are doing in the world. You can’t owe something to a fiction, or if you feel you do you would normally be advised to seek help with your mental health.

Why is it that so many people see this fiction as ‘common sense’ then? I think that those who benefit most from the fake economic ‘society’ are good at justifying themselves, and paying others to persuade us to join in with their justifications. The idea that we owe it to society to have a job is an ideological tool for forcing people into work when it isn’t necessary. Sure, we get some benefits, but they are in the power of others to confer, and they mostly do it when they are scared of being hung from a lamppost for not sharing enough.

And yes, a lot of the work we do isn’t necessary. Once you start breaking down one fiction you often find a lot of fictions hiding behind it. As Western countries ‘we’ (not you and I obviously) have vast pools of excess wealth. And yet we ‘have to’ work. Everyone has to. Or we’ll all die. Or something. The threat is rarely spelled out. But it would be just awful.

It sounds instinctively wrong to say ‘I owe nothing to society’, but in the sense of paid labour we can and should say just that. But this is only a start – we do need each other and I think most people feel this on some level. The challenge is not just to act as an individual against a fictional economic ‘society’ but then to entangle our lives with others in a meaningful society – which will often involve things which go on beyond the realm of paid work. So we may end up feeling we have long-term obligations to people, but they will be willingly entered into, with a knowledge of the power relations involved. Not, in other words, based on fiction.

People often seem slightly put out when I say that I don’t want a job at all, that I wish I could do without one. They think I am lazy, or put it down to my middle class decadence. It’s true that I like single malt whisky and I don’t like paid work. Is this a slap in the face to ‘society’, or to those who want jobs and don’t have them? Perhaps. Or perhaps I think I and everyone else would be better off without a fiction that was designed for the benefit of a few.

Share
Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What’s this liberal doing in my head? And why does it think I owe something to society?

  1. Tim says:

    Do a lot of people think you /should/ work? I know a lot of people who think you /have/ to work… but there are some practical reason for that maybe?

    Seems to me that the propaganda is that if some people don’t work then others will have to work harder. So, the reason one person has to work 48 hours a week and hardly see their children is because of all the scroungers etc. But how many people that don’t write for a national newspaper or work for the government actually believe that? Is this another case of the richest few having by far the loudest voices?

    It seems to me that the benefit, tax and housing systems are a massive form of social engineering designed to force most people between 18-65 to have to work. And in many cases, focused on forcing both parents of non-rich families to have to work.

    Shell Oil makes about £20billion in profit per year, which I think is roughly equivalent to the total government expenditure on housing benefit. About 5 million people in the UK claim housing benefit. There are about 21 million households in the UK. And about 2.2 million people count as unemployed.

    So, the “tax credit” system is even more structured around this way of thinking. Firstly, to claim it you /have/ to be working or have children. You get extra money (although less now) if you pay someone else to look after your kids. If you have kids and work, you can get tax credits up to £41k (joint). If you are single, no kids, and earn £10000 per year, work more than 30hours a week you can get £1,240. If you are a couple, no kids, and earn a joint income of £20000pa you get nothing at all. It seems to me it mostly functions as a subsidy for employers so they can pay less to have both parents of families working.

    From the point of view of, generally, women this joint income view can be a real serious issue too. If your partner is earning a reasonable amount of money (by which I mean anything other than an extremely low income) you will not qualify for most benefits. So for many people that means that unless you want to be completely financially dependent on your partner you effectively have to work.

    The recent council housing proposals, where council houses are only for people on low incomes, and “entitlement” is reassessed combined with the move to “market rates” for “social” housing all seem engineered to force people to work regardless of the actual costs of their existence. I think around 20% of UK housing is “social housing”, although I guess a proportion of the private rented accommodation is benefit subsidised.

    I think roughly 70% of houses are privately owned, but the average asking price of a house is £230,000 (10x median full time wage). 11.3m houses (50% of houses) have a mortgage outstanding, with an average mortgage of £109,643. Average private debt per adult in the UK is £29,532. At the moment I think repossession rates are about 100 houses per day.

  2. Tim says:

    Oh, and 80% of UK houses are more than 30 years old. So, even if you take into account the costs of building the houses, there is no sensible explanation for the amount of money that is spent on housing – except for the constant withdrawal of value by interest and rent payments. My belief is that the single main mechanism employed to manufacture “work” in the population in the UK is the withdrawal of wealth from the general population by rent and housing interest. Although, I think VAT probably plays a big role too, I can’t really quantify that to the same extent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>