THE NEW TOTALITARIANISM PART ONE



I dislike hyperbole, I particularly dislike the puerile habit by many on the left, acquired in the 1960’s and never dropped, of calling anyone with whom they disagree a ‘fascist.’ Photoshop pictures of Iain Duncan Smith[1] dressed as Himmler are not only in incredible bad taste, they also, and this for me is far more important, damage the argument. Put another way when people see the argument framed in this way they think it over the top, they switch off, and they stop listening. So it was with some caution that I began to think about writing this article, though it in fact follows on from the piece I wrote early in March on the Tories War against the Poor and Voiceless, (see Politics Of Dancing 8/03/13).
Language, particularly in the case of English, is an evolving and dynamic element, new words constantly springing up to describe new phenomenon. I thought of this as I tried to think of a term to describe the developments currently taking place with respect to state welfare provision. The best I could come up with, and I am of course aware that this brings with it the risk of the accusation of hyperbole with which I started this piece, is the New Totalitarianism. Stick with me though and I believe I can make a cogent case.

The state is shrinking. George Osborne openly boasts now of the direction of travel. We are now approaching the size of state similar to that in the US, moving further and further away from the social democratic model of Western Europe. What this means in practice is the disappearance of libraries, sports provision, youth clubs, free art galleries, subsidized theatre, centres for the disabled or those with learning disabilities, community and advice centres. Some of these losses can have an impact on the middle classes and the more affluent working class, but there impact upon the poor is devastating. This however is not the worst of it; the greatest consequence of the policy of the shrinking state is to found in welfare provision, in the support provided for the unemployed, the disabled and the homeless.[2]
Not satisfied with pushing you into further poverty, with the benefit cap, the restrictions on increases in welfare to 1%, (which remember is already calculated at subsistence levels) and reductions in Housing and Council Tax Benefit, the government now seeks to intrude into areas hitherto thought sacrosanct. The Bedroom Tax introduces a wholly new development, the state dictating the exactly how much space a person can be allowed before receiving financial penalties.[3] The state involving itself in this way has hitherto been an element restricted to totalitarian states like the Soviet Union, though at least in that case the restrictions applied to all, not just the poor and vulnerable.
This sense at entering into the power and control of a faceless machine is now the experience of anyone falling into the welfare net. Not only do you find yourself plunged into poverty but you experience a steady stripping away of your dignity, you suddenly experience the sense of being a second class citizen stripped of rights, living in a parallel state in which all elements of your existence can be controlled; what little money you have can be taken away from you on a whim by some junior dogsbody under pressure to meet ‘targets.’ I believe that Iain Duncan Smith thinks the term ‘welfare rights’ to be an oxymoron. Those in receipt of welfare sign away their rights to be treated as free and equal citizens. The idea that a young jobless woman could take him to court so enraged Mr Smith  he threw a tantrum and resolved to change the law, retrospectively.
But it is wrong to single out the execrable IDS, he is merely one individual engaged in a wider ideological crusade, under the cover of the recession, to redraw the boundaries of the state and subject those who require welfare to ever greater restrictions and controls. It is this that I chose to describe as the New Totalitarianism, it’s an imperfect term, if you can think of anything better let me know.

Of course if you have money, are a taxpayer[4] and not one of the working poor who require tax credits, the state will increasingly leave you alone. You will loose libraries and theatres and some local public sport provision; you will live in what JK Galbraith called private affluence and public squalor but the government is gambling that the majority will ultimately settle for this. That the selfishness of consumerism will prevail and that what happens to the poor will be of little concern to the great mass of the electorate. They may be right. If you are reading this and are not in receipt of welfare support you had better make up your mind whose side you are on.
One word of warning however, next time you pass a Jobcentre Plus, a food bank or Salvation Army hostel do not imagine that such a fate could never happen to you.


[1] As it happens Iain Duncan Smith is just the sort of person who did rally to the British Union of Fascists in the 1930’s. More could and should be said about the kind of thinking pouring out of Smith’s Centre for Social Justice, (a misnomer if ever there was one), and ideas about the poor disseminated by the far right in The Devils Decade.’
[2] Of course if you fall into one of these categories you are much more likely to fall into the other two.
[3] Of course the homeless marginalized have always been bullied, pushed around and denied their rights, but this move represents a real departure.
[4] Or indeed if you are sufficiently wealthy to evade paying your share of tax.


Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.

Popular posts from this blog

NESRINE MALIK AND THE UNSUNG VIRTUES OF HYPOCRISY

Image
As I write this a 27 year old woman, Mariam Ibrahim, has just had a baby in a Sudanese prison, ‘the condition of the mother and baby is not known as Ibrahim's lawyer and her husband, a US citizen, had been denied access to her. Omdurman women's prison has a basic clinic, where the child is thought to have been born. Ibrahim has been shackled since being imprisoned.’ [1]   Mariam also has an 18 month old child who is also being held in prison with her. The ‘crime’ for which she is imprisoned is apostasy, for which she has received the death sentence. She has also been sentenced to 100 lashes, for the additional crime of having sex with her Christian husband. Although she has been a lifelong Christian her father was a Muslim, Sudanese sharia law forbids women to marry outside the Muslim faith, men needless to say can do as they please in these matters. Mariam Ibrahim and her husband.  Nineteen countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 12 of those countries...
Read more

INTERVIEW WITH TOM VAGUE

Image
Tom Vague At the top end of All Saints Road there is a refuge, an enclave in which a local Bohemian culture retains a foothold, this is the Book & kitchen , a café/bookshop with adjoining terrace. Here the bustle of the nearby market gives way to conversation, conversation in the presence of images of the recent, and not so recent, past. The past of an area that has contributed so much to the life and culture of the city. I was there to meet local historian Mr Tom Vague a man intimately familiar with so much of this history. What Tom doesn’t know about the recent history of the area probably is not worth knowing. With Tom’s energy and effort Colville Community Forum, supported by City Living Local Life, recently held a gathering at The Book and Kitchen to celebrate this rich history. February 16 6-9 Pm, with Film Screening and Readings Exhibition February 16-26 2016. Featuring 30 Classic Westway Photographs and Posters. This represents one of a number of initiatives of t...
Read more

VOLINE AND TROTSKY

Волин и Троцкого A Footnote in Russian History In April 1917 the Russian anarchist revolutionary Voline* and Leon Trotsky were both stranded in New York as the Russian revolution broke out in Petrograd , inevitably coming into contact with one another. Voline stated that he felt that the Bolsheviks, given their ruthlessness and single minded determination, would ultimately come to power. They would then begin eliminating their opponents, amongst whom of course were the anarchists; this persecution would end with the Bolsheviks shooting the anarchists “like partridges.” Trotsky was dismissive, they might have their differences but they were comrades in arms, they had different interpretations of the revolutionary process but shared the same goals. It was nonsense to speak of Bolsheviks shooting revolutionary comrades, “we are socialists, comrade Voline! So we are not your enemies….” [1] In December of 1919, whilst gravely wounded Voline was captured by the Bolshe...
Read more