Thank you, Ainley Patrick, for the excellent review. I will try to buy the
book because I fear that similar things are happening in Canada.
I would like to comment on a few of the points your review made:
>... a simple and total explanation for
>the human tragedy that he describes and for the ignorance of
>it in the everyday life and perceptions of the majority of the
>population. Simply, through ending progressive taxation and
>selling shares in public utilities, 'the new wealth of the
>rich was paid for entirely by the new poverty of the poor'.
I don't understand this. In particular, I rather doubt that taxation is no
longer progressive in Britain, though it may be far less progressive than it
once was, given the impact of taxation measures such as the VAT. And I'm
not sure how selling shares in public utilities would necessarily impoverish
the poor. But perhaps I'm missing some information essential to
understanding what has gone on. I should read the book.
>.....this spiritual damage and it is
>symbolised by the closure of so many churches - 'as if the
>church weren't interested in the people any more'. For this is
>'a two-way relationship. A mainstream society that is losing
>its humanity is willing to create a poor country.. as
>deliberately as the great penal colony of Australia was
>planned and created by politicians in London nearly two
>centuries ago.. but the destruction which sweeps through this
>undiscovered country then causes a new cycle of damage to the
>affluent.'
I find this very interesting. I spent a month at ground level in Brazil
recently. Brazil is undergoing a wholesale abandonment of the established
church by the poor (or perhaps it is the other way around, as in Britain).
When I was there, I speculated on why this might be the case. The following
is excerpted from my journal:
"I can see why the Brazilian poor are fundamentalist Christians. Because
their lives are poor and often meaningless, they clutch at anything that
gives them hope. Fundamentalism teaches them that the present, difficult
world is transitory, and that their real home is in heaven, a much better
place. There is a small, shack-like church in a very slummy area not far
from here which, if I read the sign right, promises instant salvation. You
get eternal life just by walking through that door. What a deal!"
And, from my journal a few days later:
"More on why evangelical Christianity is gaining so much strength here, but
this is wild speculation. The Catholic church is the church of the powerful
in Brazil. It is the church that came over with the conquerors - the land
and slave owners. It was a means by which the elite could control the
masses. In adopting evangelical Christianity, the one-time slaves and
dispossessed may be saying no to the establishment. It is certain that the
Catholic Church is concerned about its loss of membership. The spread of
evangelical religions in Brazil is one of the hot topics which Catholic
leaders from South and North America will be discussing at the Vatican at a
special meeting which the Pope has called to assess the position of the
Catholic Church as the millennium turns.
But more likely, the evangelical's success has more to do with the
simplicity and directness of the message than with any longstanding
grievances. The solution presented by the evangelicals is simple. Convert
and you will have eternal life. You do not have to confess your sins to a
priest. Simply accept that Jesus died for your sins and they will be washed
away. This is powerful stuff to the uncritical mind. Once you are
evangelized, you are of course expected to live a very different life than
you did before. You should not, for example, have anything to do with
Carnival. What is interesting is that many Baptists not only have nothing
to do with Carnival, they actually "go to camp" while it is on - that is,
they get right out of town. Poor Howard, one of the British boys, would
like to see Carnival and regrets that he will not be allowed to."
>The new middle-working class lives in disdain and fear of the
>new poor 'underclass' into which accident or illness,
>redundancy or the lack of sufficient qualifications and
>connections can so easily pitch them. Thus human values are
>replaced by economic ones, commercialising human relations and
>reducing individuals to objectified commodities. So in
>brothels and other torture chambers which are the 'perfect
>symbol of exploitation', the rich directly and physically
>exploit the poor, 'encapsulating the truth about their
>relationship'.
Sao Paulo, a huge city of 18 to 20 million, resembles a multitude of armed
camps. Buildings and walls are smothered in graffiti which likely defines
territory in a manner not intended by the authorities. Those who have
possessions live in dread of losing them to those who have none. Anyone
who can afford it has built a wall around himself and his family. Again
from my journal:
"Houses are very close together - in fact, continuous - and are right out on
the street. They have little carports in front of them. Everything is
barred in. Bars in front of the carport, bars on all of the windows and, in
the Chevy's house, even bars at the top of the stairs to isolate the top
floor from the bottom while they are asleep. And the bars are vicious
little things with sharp, spear- pointed tops. Walls between adjoining
properties are about seven or eight feet high, and many have broken glass
embedded along the top of them to discourage intruders."
>Consequently, as Davies concludes, 'There is no crusade
>against poverty in Britain. No leading politician demands full
>employment.. or insists that the wealth which was taken from
>the poor should now be returned. There is only the immense
>jabber of the powerful who are surrounded by the victims of
>their affluence and who yet continue to know nothing of the
>undiscovered country of the poor.'
A couple of points here. One is how things have changed. Many years ago,
when I was in graduate school, one of the things we studied was a report by
Lord Beveridge (I believe) which defined full employment as a state in which
no more than three percent of the labor force would be unemployed. However,
at the time, this was considered as much more than a definition. It had the
character of an ideal to which governments should commit and toward which
they should strive. We can rest assured that it is no longer an ideal.
The other is that the Marxian view of history has been turned on its head.
The class struggle continues, but one sees little chance of the proletariat
winning. The power is with those who own or possess things that are
important in the economy, including jobs. The game has become one of
protecting your position and keeping others out of it, and of ensuring that
those on the outside remain there.
But a caveat needs to be added. One should never discount human ingenuity
irrepressibility. The rich and powerful may rig things to suit themselves
and not the dispossessed. But not all of the latter will march into the
dustbin quietly. In Brazil, "drug lords" are known to have considerable
power (perhaps "antipower" would be a better term?). They provide a
considerable volume of employment in the slums. Who do they sell drugs to?
Why to people who have money, of course, including the children of the rich
and powerful.
Ed Weick
