Before the younger-son upper-middle-class graduates of Oxford and Cambridge
Universities (hitherto employed by the Church of England or the Army)
started to enter the Administrative Class of the English Civil Service in
numbers from about 1870 onwards and started to institute a top-down
London-controlled welfare system throughout the length and breadth of the
country, there was, in fact, a genuine sense of community among ordinary
people -- with self-help friendly societies, housing associations and so
forth.

This is what the Manchester Unity Friendly Society, one of the many
associations of (fee-paying) workers in the cities of those days, said to
their members:

<<<<
. . . . those who unworthily seek assistance are not to be neglected if
really in distress . . . However, after relieving the actual wants of these
unhappy persons, we should endeavour to raise them from the degradation
into which they have fallen, and make them richer in their own esteem . . .
 it is better that ten undeserving persons be assisted than that one worthy
be neglected.
>>>>

Thus the Friendly Societies were also aware there there were free-loaders.
They were not afraid to judge: 

<<<<
On extending our charity we must endeavour to distinguish the really
deserving . . . [from] those who . . . professionally seek the charity of
others . . . [and] forfeit self-respect . . . [and] sacrifice personal
dignity.
>>>>

In much the same way as joining freindly societies, 95% of the workers of
those times also sent their children to fee-paying schools, and paid fees
to their local doctors' and hospitals' panels.

The fees were moderate, and the workers could afford them because, during
the course of the Industrial Revolution -- never mind the highly selective
views of  Dickens, Engels or Marx at that time -- their standard of living
was rising four or five-fold.

But, since the State takeover of charity, the 5% "unworthy" element (my
inference) of the population has now grown to something like 25% (my
present-day estimate) making unjustified claims in one way or another.

Fact: there is no longer enough money to pay for the continuation of the
Welfare State. Claims will always rise above tax income.

It's been a failed experiment that has lasted a century and a quarter. This
is why even a Labour Government is now privatising State pensions,
education, health and much else besides. It is pretending not to, and
disguising the process in all sorts of clever verbal formulae, but it is
still doing so, nevertheless.  

Perhaps in due course, when dependency is reduced, self-help is restored,
and government is de-centralised more than somewhat, communities will also
return.

Keith Hudson


At 20:17 26/12/01 -0800, you wrote:
>   Keith Hudson wrote,   > It is community that is so sadly lacking in
>modern developed society .  . .   
(TW)
Later today I was reading a review
>article on  "La monnaie souveraine" and came across the  following gem:  
>"It is still the relation to the community as a whole which is expressed by
> money. But, instead of being displayed in broad daylight, like the bead
>curtains  [of the Melanesians] . . . this relation is henceforth hidden as
>by a veil. The  monetary veil is interposed between exchangers and allows
>them to act as  isolated individuals, outside any traditional social ties.
>Nevertheless, it is  only by virtue of this very particular relation to the
>community as a totality  that individuals can behave as though the relation
>to the totality did not  exist."    The review article, "Money as
>Sovereignity: The economics of Michel Aglietta" by John  Grahl, and a host
>of other interesting stuff can be found on the  website of the "Thematic
>Network: Full Employment for Europe."  
>http://www.barkhof.uni-bremen.de/kua/memo/europe/tser/Publicat.htm      
>Tom Walker 
__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England;  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________

Reply via email to