This maxim articulated by Marx is extremely relevant; not only as a description of ensuring the subsistence of the population after socialism is established. It is relevant as it forms an excellent counter-point to arguments advanced by liberals such as Jeremy Bentham with respect to a discussion of the rights of the poor even in the context of the capitalist economic system. This becomes especially poignant in the discussion concerning the attack on recipients of disability and sickness benefit in the UK under the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition (ConDems) government.
In the US, we are already witnessing the attack on social security which is a system that is based on individual contributions; it is not an entitlement programme such as disability/incapacity benefit based on the right of the poor to assistance. In the UK, the rights of the poor and disabled are under severe ideological and political attack. In the US, the attack on disability/incapacity benefits has not yet been accelerated as it has been in the UK and it is essential that an understanding of what is happening in the UK is clarified as this is certainly going to be the next stage of attack in the US.
Some History on Poor Relief in the UK
In essence what is under attack is the role of the state in the provision of assistance for the poor and the disabled. In many senses, government assistance to the poor has existed since ancient times where the quantity and quality of bread available to the poor has been protected. While the church took on a lot of assistance work and distribution of assistance, in the UK this was altered when Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and made himself the head of the Anglican Church. The shift away from church provision to actual government intervention begins with Elizabeth I poor laws where Parishes were essentially put in charge of raising money for assistance and its distribution. This series of laws lead to the establishment of workhouses and apprenticeships for the children of the poor. At the end of the 18th century, given rising problems in provision of assistance, a series of atrocious harvests, a series of food riots, and changes in the economic system (leading to the concentration of workers in cities), the government under Pitt (the younger) passed a series of reforms to the Poor Law which recognised the right of the poor to receive assistance; this reform attempted to deal with seasonal unemployment, attempted to redistribute wealth (in the form of the cow clause), enabled relief to be obtained outside of the workhouses, changed the laws of Bastardy (making the father as well as the mother responsible for financial care of the child), and pegged the amount of relief to the size of the family and the price of bread/wheat. The age of entitlement and the role in government in provision essentially shifts the discussion over to the secular and state provision of assistance for the poor.
Immediately, this came under attack from Jeremy Bentham who accepted the idea that the state bears responsibility for covering its most disadvantaged and desperate members. However, he argued that the basis of provision of assistance should be demonstration of eligibility for it. Bentham's arguments (combined with Malthusianism) provided the basis for the overthrow of the old poor law in 1834 which established lesser eligibility as the criterion for benefit receipt and forbade outdoor relief essentially forcing the poor into workhouses. This was not overturned until the early 20th century when pensions were established and finally in the post-war period, the social welfare state was created following the creation of the Labour party, widespread unrest (including a general strike in 1926) and the horrific impact on the working class due to the great depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/...>and Great_Depression_in_the_United_Kingdom). In the UK, the basis of benefit relief was the entitlement of the poor to a certain minimum standard of life.
Why are these arguments relevant today?
Why would Bentham's arguments be relevant in this day and age? Bentham's arguments certainly underpinned the new Poor Law system introduced in 1834 in the UK; but most people would argue that the relevance of Bentham's perspective was eliminated with the introduction of the social welfare state and benefits given to the poor, disabled and elderly in the advanced capitalist world. Certainly, the overt need to demonstrate eligibility for relief was rejected with the introduction of the social welfare state and the older idea of entitlement was substituted in its place. However, key points of Bentham's argument were retained. So, while the liberals moved the coverage for the poor outside of the work-house (in essence returning to the outdoor relief basis of the old poor law and to the notion of entitlement), the arguments concerning a public fund being created to cover the poor and that advanced by Bentham on lesser eligibility formed the basis for the assistance granted to the poor by the social welfare state.
What we have been seeing since the advent of neoliberalism is an increasing substitution of the notion of eligibility for that of entitlement (this is clear in both the argument of Workfare introduced by Clinton as well as Blair's attempt to begin the attack on those receiving disability) as the basis of receipt of assistance and the attack has now moved towards both further demonstration of eligibility and the attempt to undercut the idea of a public fund for the maintenance of the poor.
There are some differences between the US and UK. The US has never reached the level of the social welfare state that was attained in the UK under the Attlee government. As such, the clear unquestioned entitlement that exists in the UK does not exist in the US. While the word entitlement is often used in the states, every type of social benefit program has some element of eligibility. If the attack that is happening in the UK is extended to the same level in the US, it would completely undercut the social welfare state. Another addition point that Americans need to take on board is the following: Cameron is going further than Thatcher could only dream, but Cameron would not be not be able to even try this if the Labour party had not already introduced the assessment test for new claimants of disability.
The modern discussion advanced by the Tories under the name of the "Big Society" rejects Bentham's (and the liberals') solution of a public fund to cover the poor. Instead they are arguing that this should be covered under a voluntarist basis through charities and organisations dedicated to helping the poor. Furthermore, they accept the liberal assumption that those that are not working are voluntarily unemployed as work is seen as unpleasant and punishing. As such, a large part of their effort is dedicated to not only getting the poor off of more generous forms of benefit (e.g., disability or sickness benefit, the elimination of the dole and forcing people) but forcing people that are on benefit onto unemployment benefit (called job seeker's allowance in the UK which has a lower benefit level) and classifies them as voluntarily unemployed again, we see the ideological argument that it is not the system that creates unemployment (which is obvious enough to those that know anything about the system), but the fact that unemployed simply do not want to work (and shifting the blame for poverty onto the individual rather than being systemically created).
The big problem for their abandonment of the social welfare state and the legitimacy of this argument hits a major problem: those on incapacity/disability benefits. These are people that are unable to work arising from both physical and mental illness. So, the task becomes one of again redefining disability and once again demonstrating that these people are merely lazy slackers rather that truly unable to work (shifting the argument further towards demonstration of eligibility) and moreover that the private voluntarism and Charity sector is more appropriate to handle the situation rather than the state.
A quick Theoretical discussion on eligibility vs entitlement
Bentham and Liberalism
The earlier discussions on the rights of the poor were centred on the notion of the entitlement of the poor and the disabled to subsistence as members of the society. Bentham's analysis shifted the discussion away from entitlement towards eligibility of the poor; that is, they had to demonstrate that they were eligible for assistance, that they were willing to work, but were actually unable to do so (for a more detailed discussion of Bentham, eligibility and entitlement see: Classical-Economics:-Bentham-and-Eligibility-for-Poor-Relief; Classical-Economics:-Moral-Philosophy,-Poverty-and-Social-Policy,-Part-I, and Classical-Economics:-The-Right-of-Subsistence-and-Natural-Rights-Theories) .
Much of the contemporary discussion on the right of the poor to obtain relief is based upon Bentham's principle of lesser eligibility outlined below:
Position 16: If the condition of individuals, maintained without property of their own, by the labour of others, were rendered more eligible than that of persons maintained by their own labour, then, in proportion as the existence of this state of things were ascertained, individuals destitute of property would be continually withdrawing themselves from the class of persons maintained by their own labour, to the class of persons maintained by the labour of others; and the sort of idleness which at present is more or less confined to persons of independent fortunes, would thus extend itself, sooner or later, to every individual of the number of those on whose labour the perpetual reproduction of the perpetually consuming stock of subsistence depends: till at last there would be nobody left to labour at all, for any body (Bentham, 1796, p. 39).
This forms the basis of the arguments determining not only the amount of relief (less than that given to those that work, but enough to ensure that they are kept alive) such that their conditions in the workhouses are worse off than the conditions of those that are employed outside the poor house. More importantly, the assertion of Bentham is based upon the utilitarian argument that work is necessarily unpleasant and that people will not do it unless they actually get something more than bare minimum subsistence, so that the pleasure derived from more than bare survival outweighs the negatives of having to actually work. This is also known as the old "carrot and stick" approach.
This argument completely rejects the idea of the potential creative power of work, that people do want to productively create things and want to contribute both to supporting themselves and the community. Moreover, it completely ignores the fact that the nature of work in a capitalist society has been reduced to the lowest common denominator due to the principle of competition and the constant operation of the division of labour has reduced workers to merely being cogs in the wheel of the constant production of goods and services for profit for capitalists. So, it is not work that working people dislike doing, but the type of work available for them in the context of the capitalist economic system.
The Redefinition of Disability
One of my favourite comments from Bentham, the champion of the notion of eligibility for relief rather than the entitlement of the poor and disabled to relief is:
A person deprived of all his limbs, or the use of all his limbs may still possess ability sufficient to the purpose of serving as an inspector to most kinds of work, so long as his mental faculties, and sight for observing, and voice for questioning are possessed by him in sufficient rigour (Bentham, 1796, p. 46-7).
This seems to be the approach that is underlying the reform of incapacity benefit being undertaken in the UK.
On the 25th of January, the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) published figures on disability benefits that clearly demonstrate this trend of attacking the rights of those on disability benefit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...):
The Department for Work and Pensions has published figures showing the majority of people who apply for a key disability benefit are able to work. It has been monitoring people who apply for employment and support allowance, the benefit being bought in to replace incapacity benefit. According to today's report, of those people who applied from October 2008 to May 2010, 6% were deemed as unable to work and entitled to full benefit, 16% were assessed as able to work if they received help, 39% were judged as fit to work and 36% dropped their claims before the assessment was over. Of those people whose assessments were completed, 10% were deemed unfit to work, 25% were fit to work if they received help and 65% were fit to work. Chris Grayling, the employment minister, said in a statement that these figures justified the government's decision to roll out ESA across the country.
ESA refers to the Employment and Support Allowance (employment-and-support allowance). For Cameron's speech concerning his proposals for welfare reform, see (david cameron welfare reform bill).
Assessing disability:
In order to demonstrate eligibility for disability or incapacity benefit, new methods of determining whether a recipient is disabled have been introduced. The most important of these is the Work Capability Assessment Test.
As part of getting the disabled off of disability benefit, a new test to ascertain eligibility for disability was produced in 2008 under Labour. Essentially it is a computerised assessment test whose results are then examined is done in conjunction with a "team of disability analysts" (60% nurses, 40% doctors) to determine if those applying for disability are sufficiently fit to work. The test, termed the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is now set to begin being used to vet those that are already on disability or incapacity benefit to determine whether or not they are sufficient disabled to be classed as such.
According to Amelia Gentleman (23rd, February 2011, Guardian) ), the test was introduced preliminarily in 2008 for new applicants for disability and has lead to people with terminal cancer being ascertained as fit for work. This test is now being introduced nationwide with the aim of assessing those already on disability; with the possibility of 11,000 people's eligibility for incapacity benefit being assessed per week, there is no question that this will have a great impact on the lives of those on disability payment. The test lasts 45 minutes. For individuals to be deemed too unwell to work they need to score over 15 points on the 1:1 assessment.
Essentially, your disability is ranked on a score of 0-15 in terms of the extent of the disability. Only those scoring over 15 point will receive the full disability benefits allowance; those scoring below that are put on job seekers allowance. The impact is significant, those on incapacity benefits get £91/week, and those on job seekers allowance only get £65/week. This is not a small decrease in income (your income is reduced to 73% of what it was previously) for those that are already desperately poor.
Testing, testing ... the system is not in order
To add insult to injury, significant problems with the test have clearly emerged. For those suffering from mental as opposed to physical illnesses, the test will probably not pick up the extent of the impact of a person's disability as the test emphases physical impairment; whether or not you are capable of standing up or sitting down is irrelevant to understand the extent the impact of a mental illness on your life. Moreover, even for those with physical illnesses or disabilities, the test measures what you can do, but not how difficult it is for you to do so, or the amount of pain that these actions cause you.
"Because of the way the questionnaire has been set, it is much harder to be classified as unfit for work under the new test than previously and, as a result, the reform is expected to save the government £1bn over five years. In pilots of the test, 30% fewer people have been found unfit for work and 70% fewer people have been found eligible for the full-rate unconditional support benefit. Already people have been told they don't qualify for benefits in much greater numbers than anticipated in government projections." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...)
There was several stories highlighted in the piece by Gentleman including one suicide by a person with severe mental health problems in response to rejection of incapacity benefits, one death by heart attack (the person already had one heart attack, was assessed and only received 6 points, following appeal he was upgraded to full disability and then was called back after for a subsequent reassessment, his family claimed that the stress brought the fatal heart attack), examples of people with work-related disabilities declared unable to work by their doctors and yet being given insufficient points in the test to be able to receive disability benefit.
Two stories stand out in the offensiveness of the assessment tests:
A man who has been registered blind since 2000 due to a hereditary degenerative sight condition was surprised to read his report's conclusion that "the client's level of disability would be expected to improve with time and appropriate treatment". "I'm losing sight all the time. When I complained, I had a letter that told me 'the information contained in the report is medically reasonable and appropriately justified,'" he says (he asked not to be named, to avoid complications with further claims). "It's meaningless. I've had no apology."
And
Nearby, Paul Hadfield, 56, is appealing the decision of his WCA a second time, less than a year after his first appeal was successful. A former forklift truck driver, he became ill with kidney cancer in 2007 and had a kidney removed. "Until then, I'd never had a day off in my life," he says. After the operation he was diagnosed diabetic, developed heart disease and is still recovering. He has become so weak, his wife says, that he often has to climb upstairs on his hands and feet.
He was given only nine points in his first WCA, but he went to tribunal, where the judge found him eligible for the higher level of benefit. Shortly after the tribunal he was called for another assessment, and this time was awarded zero points. He is waiting to appeal a second time.
In spite of the fact that serious problems about the test have emerged and the fact that there is an assessment of the manner (being conducted by Prof. Malcolm Harrington a great believer of the importance of work for health according to Amelia Gentleman) of assessment of the test, the Tory employment minister (Chris Grayling) has indicated that the recommendations of Harrington with respect to the assessment test will be implemented and that any improvements will be done "gradually" (probably after they have deemed that they have sent enough people into dire poverty).
However, the assessment does not end there. Those that actually manage to get the 15 points are then set for further evaluation in order to determine whether they are completely unable to work or whether they can be "supported into employment" (see the link for the ESA above).
This brings us to an important point. That is, the need to separate the point between helping the disabled find jobs by offering support (and pressurising employers to hire them) from the idea of forcing those unable to work into the workforce. The first is laudable and has been the focus of effort for many charities and groups representing and advocating for the disabled.
However, the second point which seems to be the focus of the ConDem government and the DWP relies upon a delusion that those that are unemployed are so voluntarily and need to be forced to work. Moreover, there is the additional delusion that there are existent jobs to actually employ people. Given the inevitable increase in unemployment following the introduction of the ConDem budget and the decreased funds for Local Councils, people that have long been out of work (and that should be on disability payments) will now be supposed to be competing with those that have recently been in employment for the same extremely scarce number of jobs. Moreover, the fantasy of increased employment opportunities created by the private sector has not emerged from out of the castles in the sky.
There is an additional worry that enters the picture. That is the insistence on the part of the secretary of the DWP (Iain Duncan Smith) that those on job-seeker allowance be forced to do volunteer work (e.g., sweep the streets, thereby putting paid street-sweepers out of work) to justify their job-seeker allowance and get them back into "proper behavioural patterns conducive to work."
Will those on disability be forced into unpaid labour as part of the "assistance in getting them back into work?" This would be consistent with the calls for the volunteerism of David Cameron's "Big Society."
What we are witnessing is essentially the call for the revival of the old work houses under a modern guise for those on job-seekers allowance; essentially forced labour under the name of getting people prepared to re-enter the work-force. Their benefit will be contingent upon their acceptance of this unpaid labour. Will we return to the forced labour of those with physical and mental disabilities into work homes? This is not a step forward; this is a movement backwards into a form of exploitation that borders on slave labour.
References
Bentham, Jeremy, (1796) "Essays on the Subject of the Poor Laws, Essay I and II," in Writings on the Poor Laws, Volume I, pp. 3-65.