Mick Philpott – Indictment of Capitalism or Lumpenproletariat in action?
- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How do the readers of this forum see the Mick Philpott case?
It has all too predictably been used to call for a cut in benefits by the Tories, but are benefits actually the problem?
The Philpott case seems to encapsulate the degredation of the working class, forced to subsist with "benefits", graciously handed down by the capitalist system, which do no more than subsidise the unemployment and poverty which the capitalist system relies on to survive. It shows, in a nutshell, the dehumanising and corrupting effects of a system which denies the dignity of labour for the sake of profit; in a socialist system "benefits", as they are so graciously called, would not be needed. The very system which creates the need to survive on benefits dehumanises, condemns and ultimately destroys those who are forced to live on them.
On the other hand, Mick Philpott seems to encapsulate the concept of the incorrigible parasite, who has no intention whatsoever of engaging in productive labour. Marx, Engels and others were well aware that parasitism is not restricted to the wealthy capitalists. How do people like Mick Philpott fit into a Socialist society?
Any thoughts? :o)
Miracle Child wrote:On the other hand, Mick Philpott seems to encapsulate the concept of the incorrigible parasite, who has no intention whatsoever of engaging in productive labour.Yes I have a few thoughts. The fact that he is on benefit has fuck all to do with anything. If he was black or gay would you make the same comments? Or if he had ginger hair or if he was a capitalist? Or if he was disabled? Or a Tory? Or a Labourite? Or a member of the parasitic capitalist class or a royal fucking layabout?It seems that the capitalist class has decided to demonise workers on benefits. Wonder why? Doh
Assuming he'd done the same things, yes I would make the same point.I agree that his being on benefit has fuck all to do with anything; but, like it or not, he is being used to make a much wider political point about the nature of the poor. He will become an icon for all those who see the poor as responsible for their own condition; we could simply dismiss him as a dangerous lunatic, which of course he is, but that is not how he will be used against us…
Yes, the Tories are pushing that line,
In which case, how do socialists respond? The battle in the media is being fought between Tories, who argue that Philpott confirms every prejudice they've ever had about poor people, and New Labour, who cling to the idea that "benefits", rather than the socialist position of full employment, are the answer.Both positions are bullshit, but the argument always thrown at socialists is that they would just encourage the Philpotts of this world. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Marx would have had in mind, but shouldn't we be saying so?
Let us be quite clear, if one of Philpotts remaining kids and by what we are told, there are a few, comes up with a, for instance, cure for cancer! would they be seen as the child of Philpott, or an intro to vast profits for the pharmacutical industry? Best guesses on the back of a first class stamp.Moreover, if some parasitical Capitalist scumbag were to be given his/her health back from such a hypothetical discovery, would they refuse it because it was created by the issue of Philpott, or by extension, the issue of some other, of what the rich like to call "parasites"? Answers on the back of an even smaller first class stamp.Steve.
Steve,You know that, and I know that, but that is not how the Philpott kids will be used by the media. Philpott will be used as an argument against the claims of the working class and socialism, because he confirms every prejudice the establishment already possesses against both of those concepts.Philpott himself, however, would have been as much of a disgrace to a socialist society as he was to a capitalist one. In my humble opinion, he provides a perfect example of the way in which the "welfare state" and benefits culture, as the servant of a capitalist society, corrupts and deatroys the working people it is supposed to help. The system of unemployment benefits is just a subsidy for the people alienated by capitalism.
Philpott is merely a miniscule example, used by the Capitalist media, to tar ALL benefit claimants with the brush of scrounger and skiver. It is no more, nor less true, than saying all blacks are not white, nor all immigrants are health tourists.In a Socialist society, as I see it, if someone does not want to contribute to the "common good", then they will not be allowed to partake of the common store of wealth that we all, produce. Make no bones about it, Socialism will, and can only be set up. when the "majority" of us, understand and want it and moreover strive to bring it about. It will be a world that will, "belong to 'us all' and therefore" it will be in ALL our interests to run it in and contribute to and for, All our interests! Given that and with the knowledge that, as class consciousness increases, on the path to a sane society, the idea that some seem to have, possibly you, that there will still be some who merely want to take but not contribute, will, in my humble opinion, be miniscule.If that view persists and if there are, indeed, a minority who wish to "take" but not "contribute", much like the wealthy, the Capitalists today do, then it will still be a far better world than we have today, Capitalism. Because in Capitalism, unless you are extremely lucky, or are born with a silver spoon up your backside, you are fubar'ed, regardless of how much, "STRIVING" you do. Steve.
Miracle Child wrote:The battle in the media is being fought between Tories, who argue that Philpott confirms every prejudice they've ever had about poor people, and New Labour, who cling to the idea that "benefits", rather than the socialist position of full employment, are the answer.Both positions are bullshit, but the argument always thrown at socialists is that they would just encourage the Philpotts of this world. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Marx would have had in mind, but shouldn't we be saying so? .Actually, the socialist answer is not "full employment", i.e paid employment for all (which isn't possible under capitalism anyway). It's what might even be called "full unemployment", i.e where nobody would have to sell their working skills to an employer for a wage or a salary to get the money to buy the things they need to live. It's what Marx had in mind when he talked of "the abolition of thr wages system".People would still have to work of course in a socialist society to produce things otherwise society couldn't survive but not for an employer and not for wages. Productive work would not take the form of "employment". It would be a question of co-operating with other members of society to produce what was needed and then having free access to it. The application of the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".Under capitalism you can only survive if you can get hold of money and, apart from being born with it, there are only three ways of getting it: working for an employer., stealing or begging (charity). The so-called "benefits system" is a system of state charity, handouts for the poor. i.e. those who for one reason or another can't find an employer. It doesn't surprise me that some people try to get the most out of this, even by so-called "abusing" it. It's a risk some think worth taking and, personally, I don't blame them. Like everyone else they've got to survive under capitalism.I certainly don't buy the argument that they are parasites on "hard-working families" (as both the Tories and Labour claim — it was Gordon Brown who coined this term). The real parasites are the idle rich, not the idle poor.
Essentially the Tories are using every trick they can come up with to dismantle the welfare system as quickly as possible. The case of the Philpott's are an extreme case, yet are being rolled out as an example of what the benefits system leads to. The Tories would like to see a return to Victorian, workhouse values. They are in essence social Darwinists. If you are at the bottom of the shitpile, you are there because you are of inferior stock and are therefore worthless.The irony of the Tory attack on the benefit system is that what we have today is a result of Thatchers capitalist love affair from the 1980s. She systematically destroyed UK industry, (the trade union movement with it) and set the UK up as a "service economy". With most of the wealth concentrated in the south east of England.In areas of high unemployment, people were encouraged to sign off the dole and on to the "sick", helping keep the the unemployment figures under control.Whole regions in the UK were left to rot. Once thriving communities, decimated by continual high unemployment. New generations born into poverty and low expectations with little chance of improvement.The truth is, the Philpott's are an indictment of capitalism.So given the fact the Tories helped create families like this, it is the Tories that should be held accountable. Yet they are playing the moral high ground, using these people to attack the welfare system and the working class of this country are slurping it up.The Tories, must be laughing all the way to the bank, knowing how easy it is to fool the average worker.I feel sick to my stomach!
The worst thing about this is that, although the government is obliged by economic circumstances, to cut back its spending, including on welfare, to protect profits, what they have chosen to cut (benefits to those below retirement age) is motivated by vote-catching considerations. In other words, some of the specific cuts are not strictly necessary and are vindictive.Polls and focus groups have revealed to the politicians that spending on welfare is now unpopular. Philip Collins, who was Blair's speechwriter, in an article in today's Times notes:
Quote:In 1987, according to Ipsos MORI, 55 per cent of people thought that more should be spent on the poor even if it meant higher taxes. Now only 27 per cent agree. Seven out of ten people agree that the country needs to spend less on welfare.In other words, there's votes in them there cuts. Collins's article was in fact urging Labour to jump on this bandwagon too if they want to win the next election.Collins makes the point that the government could have chosen not to protect pensioners, including well off ones, from the cuts. But the politicians know this would be a vote-loser. So they target other groups, in particular the newly-baptised "precariat" who are less likely to vote than pensioners.I agree with SP, it's sickening.
Meanwhile, from today corporation tax (formerly profits tax) goes down from 24% to 23% and the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%.
Indictment of Capitalist Class behaviourTthe idle Parasitical Capitalist Class – 9th July 2012 – at the £5 million five-storey townhouse in Cadogan Place, Belgravia, the body of 48 year old Eva Rausing was found by Police. A later inquest estimated her death to have taken place on 7th May (2 months earlier) due to drug dependency issues (crack cocaine, heroin, cocaine). She was the wife of Hans Kristian Rausing who was living there with the body . He is the heir to the £5.4 billion 'Tetra Pak' drinks carton empire. In 2008 Mrs Rausing was caught in possession of crack cocaine, heroin and diethlypropion (a banned stimulant and appetite supressant – 'speed' then) in the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square. The Rausing house was then searched and crack cocaine, cocaine and heroin found – he was charged with possession, but after his lawyers got onto the case he got a conditional police caution ! (no custodial sentence then) After his wife's body was found Rausing was charged with delaying the burial of her body – an offence under English Common Law – he pleaded guilty on 1st August 2012 and sentenced to 10 months in prison which the Judge suspended for 2 years (no custodial sentence then). He was ordered to attend a 2 year drug rehabilitation programme instead.
Good point. I don't recall the gutter press and gutter politicians denouncing this as an effect of total dependency on an unearned income.
What they want us to do is get into heated debates about the redistribution of poverty, rather than questioning whether "The poor will be always with us", the bottom line for the Government is that the Tories don't want to give benefits to the undeserving poor, while the Liberals want to give benefits to the deserving poor. Labour has just given up openly espousing giving according to need. What this whole argument opens up, though, is the incompatability of the wages system providing for our needs, when they compare benefits according to need as being unfair compared to the fruits of wages, they are saying, in effect, that the wages system can't provide those things. Perhaps this is where we can point our propaganda.Also, no-one asks the question, what would have happened to this guy's seventeen children if the welfare state hadn't been there to look after them: not in a happy condition, I'd imagine. Let's not forget, that what he did was intimidate and brutalise women to have them serve him, so he pocketed their benefits. If they'd had to work, he'd have still managed to live off them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.