My re-posting of Church Action on Poverty's poster on inequality on Friday gave rise to comment. Seemingly talking about inequality and the need to end it offends some, and discussion of the politics of envy arose.
I always find this extraordinary. I have worked on tax justice and related issues for coming on for a decade now and not once, not ever, have I been motivated by envy. I have no reason to be. Nor have I seen any sign that others working on the issue and related themes concerning poverty have done so either. But I have witnessed enormous courage in the face of adversity from them and I have certainly met the most extraordinarily empathic people. And I encounter genuine concern for others daily.
These characteristics are of course alien to that ultimate straw man - that rational, self interested, self indulgent person whose desire to profit at the expense of all others and without concern for their well being drives capitalism in the wholly mistaken view of those who failed to read Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. The characteristics possessed by those I know and work with are condemned by those who are true believers in that straw man. It is my believe that they describe compassion for others as the 'politics of envy'.
I think this says much about them, and remarkably little about the left, or campaigns for economic justice. The envy is I think all theirs: envy of the freedom concern for others brings from pure self interest; envy of being freed from the need to beat others on all occasion; envy of the freedom to act on the basis of true human interest in well being brings.
But let me re-post a comment from Andrew Dickie on this issue that does, I think deal with it rather well, and with some considerable insight, made in response to someone using the avatar Mactheknife (telling in itself):
I suggest Macthekinfe has a look at this video on the “class warfare” and “I made it alone” topic. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-viral-video-of-elizabeth-warren-going-after-gop-on-class-warfare-2011-9
Then he should take a look at this Paul Krugman piecehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/krugman-the-social-contract.html?_r=2&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB
Most (all?) of the class war in the last 30 years has been waged by the rich (the “new Barons”) against everyone else (the new serfs”) in what I, and several other posts on this blog have characterised as the “Neo-feudal” or New Feudal state.
The exact title doesn't matter; what DOES matter is that the powerful are not only bringing in policies to protect their privileges, they are also stitching up the constitution on both sides of the Atlantic to ensure a permanent Tory hegemony in the UK
* reducing the number of MP's
* gerrymandering the constituencies
* making it near impossible for the government to lose a “No Confidence vote, as a 66% vote is now necessary to dissolve Parliament, instead of a mere loss of a No Confidence vote by 1, as in the case of Jim Callaghan
* bringing electoral registration changes that may drive as many as 10 million voters — mainly Labour — off the Register, and
* packing the House of Lords with 147 new Lords in just over 12 months, 75% of them ConDem)and a permanent Republican hegemony in the US, by
*bringing in new versions of “Jim Crow” voter registration, designed to drive the blacks, young, students, dissidents, and mobile workers — all of whom will probably vote Democrat (see http://www.thenorthstarnews.com/issue.aspx?id=2011-09-15#African-Americans-Face-Challenges-Voting-In-Wisconsin-Because-Of-Restrictive-Photo-ID-Law for an example)
* seeking the manipulate the scandal of the ludicrous Electoral College system, by aiming to give Republicans a majority of Electoral College votes (seehttp://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012 for this)I really DO advise Mactheknife to stop sitting on his complacent rear-end and get out there campaigning against the most malevolent (a word I use advisedly) administration since that of Lord Liverpool in the early 19th century — a sort of “Thatcherism on smack” administration. Lord Liverpool's administration was content to see a loaf of bread go up to 1/-, when a labourer was lucky to earn that in a month, and to turn guns and cavalry on protesters with lethal effect at Peterloo.
This Con-Dem administration is not so blatant (though look at the astonishingly savage response to the rioters, and even to the UK Uncut people at Fortnum's), but if we're not vigilant, we will wake up to find our schools, hospitals, universities and probably our art galleries and libraries all sold off to philistine “Gradgrinds” and modern day Rachmans, interested only in profit, with everything costing. As Abraham Lincoln said — for evil to triumph, it is enough that good people do nothing. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I really DO fear the corrosive impact of this government on our social choesion, well-being and everything that constitutes real civilsation, by which I mean “the good life” of compassion, concern for one another and also true respect and consideration. We are on a bumpy slope into the beginnings of a “Blade Runner” society.
Quite so.
That's the politics of envy if there is one.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I missed your first blog on this topic, Richard, so have only just read Andrew’s comment. What a superb contribution as it concisely but powerfully expresses how far we’ve already gone down the road to neo-fuedalism, and how much faster – and closer – the return to serfdom is for many citizens of the UK, US and world in general (not that some people ever managed to remove themselves from serfdom, of course).
Reading Macthenife’s comment reminded me of the level of ignorance that exists about exactly how many historically wealthy people actually got their money – not through innovation and working hard but through exploitation (usually of labour), and force (e.g. land enclosures), or as happened for many years by manipulating government – at local and national level – to pass legislation in their favour.
In reality not much has ever changed, of course. Many of the new rich make their money on the back of some form of exploitation – though often well hidden. But anyone who disputes that we are, as Andrew argues, on the path to neo-fuedalism should read Marina Hyde’s article in Saturday 24th’s Guardian (Buddyl hotline? More like an excuse for the rich to moan) Sorry no link.
Here we have a story of one of the first policies from Lord Green (the Reverend), often mentioned by Richard because he’s the former head of HSBC, and not a million miles removed from dodgy banking, in his new role as trade minister. On his advice Britain’s top 50 companies are to be given direct telephone access to ministers who will act as their “buddies”. To quote a quote from the announcement: “Vince Cable, the business secretary, will act as what officials are calling ‘an account director’ to Britain’s oil and gas giants Shell, BP and BG.”
So, not content with the existance of lobby groups such as the Institute of Directors and CBI, and numerous PR groups masquerading as think tanks that push their cause, the Rev Green, obviously supported by members of the government, now wish to make elected politicians blatantly subservient to so called captains of industry and have no issue with that!
Democracy! Pah! This IS the face of new-feudalism.
This is the corporate state in the making
And I think we all know what that is
My own experiences with these people have led me to a similar conclusion. It’s a pathological mindset. Their lives are defined by envy: greed, spite and the constant mercenary competition for wealth and prestige. It’s all they understand — and as a result they cannot understand why anyone else would have a different perspective. Envy is the only motivation they recognise, hence any opposition to their worldview must be motivated by envy.
The idea of a more equal distribution of wealth and therefore opportunity predates the ‘left’ and ‘right’ terms that come from the French revolution – the idea comes, as Johnathan Israel has written about so well in the last decade, from the radical enlightenment of Spinoza, Bayle, Diderot, d’Holbach, Priestley and others. This is the contest for reason, the contest for rationality, and it predates the invention of capitalism and socialism.
Glad to see I’m not the only one who has realised that we are to become a nation of ‘serfs’.
I am chronically disabled and in the process of coming to terms with the fact that year on year my benefits will reduce due to up rating and as a consequence I face homelessness. This is because that within a few years, due to my housing association telling me my rent will rise by 10% each year until 2025 and not being given full housing benefit, I will have to provide the difference. Within 10 years that difference amounts to 70%. This applies to all other benefits too. So long term, all benefits become worthless, and it is entirely planned matter, not an ‘unintended consequence’ as some have said.
In the Telegraph a few weeks ago, the columnist, Janet Daley, said that capitalism would no longer support welfare systems. Their minds are made up. We are surplus to requirements: if we can’t contribute financially by being slave workers for £67.50 on JSA then so be it. Those in social housing claiming JSA will have to sleep rough and continue to work for less than a pittance. If they have children they may get one stinking room to live in, or perhaps their children will be taken away (see Christopher Booker’s columns in the Telegraph concerning how the state are removing children from families without good cause). Those who own their own homes and claim JSA will find that they can no longer afford to pay the bills (which they are barely doing now) and may similarly become homeless.
This is not an exaggeration. This is what is happening to families in America: tent cities; children removed by the state because they are not allowed to live in tent cities; even professionals (who have had to accept 40% pay cuts) forced to sleep rough and queuing for food parcels; street after street of boarded up apartments and houses that no one can afford to rent or buy, whilst their previous owners live in the woods surviving on church handouts (watch Channel 4 documentary tent cities).
Ironically, all of those who are cheering the coalition on with regard to the cuts and welfare reform don’t realise that these things will eventually affect them; this is the thin end of the wedge and they’re somewhere along it, because when the economy does not grow and the treasury’s coffers receive ever decreasing tax receipts, the government will need to cut again. Public sector wages will drop similar to the US (they are already dropping since they have been frozen), and private sector wages, hit by falling consumerism, will follow suit. All good economists know that governments need to spend their way out of disasters, similar to what they had to do following the world wars, but they are doing the opposite, and everyone will suffer as a result, not just benefit claimants.
Welfare is to be scrapped first along with social housing with no provision as to what happens to people next; the rest will follow. This is the reality. I’ve given up any hope of being saved. And, I won’t live long if I’m forced onto the streets: perhaps that’s for the best. I’m just living each day now as best I can, because I refuse to live in fear any more.
This site is a brilliant find.
This morning at Mass I was contemplating a CAFOD poster with the line
“No-one should take more than he needs when others have less than enough”.
Obviously, you can’t legislate that sort of sentiment, It would be communism. The press would become hysterical!
Equally, it does no harm to point out politely but insistently to the Rev Green & others like him that their position is fundamentally hypocritical. You can be a financier, you can be a Christian, but you can;t be both !
The proposal that is being put forward for the Greek crisis seems mass serfdom to me if I’m reading it right.
In a 2 step process that hides what is really going on, the banks take a loss, are remibursed at a central fund point and then EU citizens repay this for generations to come.
Isn’t this people refunding the banks again, presented in an obscure way?
For ‘investor security’ it.matches international trade agreements. For banks getting public funding it matches the ‘too big to fail’ previous bank bailout syndrome, and for long term tax payer money syphoned off to priate shareholders it is like PFI.
They certainly are sewing up serfdom for the masses.
I agree with you
This is an attempt at creating serfdom
It is wealth
Re: the last sentence! Ah,but we all know that is why the Catholic monarchs and church in medieval times,lets Jewish people run finance!.
Yes,I know-we`ve moved on,and that was not an anti religious statement ,but conversely,talking to a Hungarian lady recently,I was surprised to learn she found the quality of life better under the Communist government of the 1980s.
Communism with a human face? Maybe not so silly after all? Oh well,back to “Democracy” again.
I seem to have rattled a few cages with my comments on the politics of envy. I expected as much.
Over the weekend I drafted out a point by point response to Richard, Stevo and Andrew Dickie, regarding the rash and spurious assumptions about me and my motives. But re-reading some of the language and interpreting the ideology behind their comments I knew it was pointless to even engage. When phrases are used such as “class war” you know you are dealing with deep rooted Marxist philosophy.
But for those interested I’m a long time Labour voter, who lives in what is officially classified as a socially deprived area. Fairness and equality were one of my motives for voting this way. That was until three years ago when I noticed that my meagre salary was dwindling each month and my council tax rising each year. In contrast I noticed through several events and situations, that those on benefits in my area were very comfortable sitting on their ample backsides with many openly ‘playing the system’ for their own personal gain. I see much comment on this blog about the wealthy having a duty and responsibility to society, but I see no comment about those who have abdicated their responsibility to society and are prepared to do nothing to help themselves or the wider community. When an old school friend and long term benefit claimant told me how much the state provided for him and his family and what he was allowed to claim for it was an epiphany for me. I realised then that abusing the system from any end of the spectrum will never produce equality and if governments of any political persuasion were not prepared to tackle these issues head on then it was a lost cause.
The church talks about poverty, but do they really know what poverty is? I have been fortunate or perhaps unfortunate depending on your view, to travel to countries which have true poverty and deprivation and have worked with some of those trying to find a better life. I will argue with anyone who tells me there is poverty in the UK. The fact that the church raises the issue is an interesting one in itself as they are one of the largest property asset management organisations in the UK with estimates ranging from 4 to 6 Billion pounds in assets which historically have netted a very good annual return. Could do more to help perhaps?
I came to this blog by accident and was astounded by the myopic view of the wealthy and the vitriol and bile directed at them. There seems to be no recognition that most pay their way and make a positive contribution to society. Instead they are all labelled at tax cheats and dodgers. I’m fully in agreement with you however on issues such as the Hartnett and the Vodafone deal. The thing which irritates me the most is the dishonesty here. We see euphemistic phrases like ‘tax justice’, well let’s be honest it’s not about justice it’s about finding ways to attack the wealthy as part of some outdated notion of class war. By contrast I see no vilification of the benefit cheats and scammers I know and see every day, which cost us all a heavy price in taxation through false claims and illegal working for cash in hand wages.
If you are really interested in tax justice then it has to be justice for all. As an accountant you know that to balance the books you have to look at income and expenditure. Focusing on income from one particular small segment of society whilst ignoring the burgeoning expenditure and illegal practices in another seems disingenuous to me.
Call it the politics of envy, ignorance or whatever you want, but Richard your own approach to the issues is clearly not fair or equal.
Oh dear – you’ve really got it wrong haven’t you?
Sure some people abuse welfare – about a billion a year is stolen
And £95 billion of tax is evaded and avoided
Now which do you think more important ad worthy of our attention?
As for rich bashing – that just does not happen here – bu sure as heck cheat bashing does and when many (not all) of the rich get rich by cheating (as it was ever thus) sure I point it out and demand an equal chance for all – the so called level playing field
But Marxist? Get down off your high horse and open your eyes I suggest
And see this big picture which is denying you real opportunity
Because it is
You really dont get it do you?
For those of us on lower incomes the fraud by the benefits scammer is as bad as the tax cheat irrespective of the value.
The fraud is more real because we see it in plain sight everday.
I do get it
I want to make you better off so it doesn’t offend you
And I’d also like to shut the fraud
But I suspect it’s not even fraud that offends you
It’s beenfits
And there we part company
Because that is the politics of envy
“For those of us on lower incomes the fraud by the benefits scammer is as bad as the tax cheat irrespective of the value.”
Cost of benefit fraud (we are told) = £1.5 billion per year
Amount of benefits unclaimed every year = £17.5 billion
Amount estimated (top end) to be lost through tax avoidance and evading every year = £120 billion
The figures above tell you all you need to know. Incidently, how can the DWP possibly know how many are cheating the system to arbitrarilly put a figure on it ? I suppect it may well be a figure they’ve plucked out of the air!