[Campaignforrealdemocracy] [civilisation] Democracy & Full Employment

[Mark Barrett]

Here is Mark Wehrly's reponse to Anne and others, initially sent to
only to Campaign for Real Democracy but, with his permission now
forwarded to others on this thread. Anne has also responded privately
to me, but I've asked her to make her reply public so hopefully that
should follow. Cheers, Mark

One small, but important quibble, Anne et al. I'm new to this list,
but perhaps can help. Although it is true the broad terms 'social
contract' and 'social responsibility' encompass the field, I think
they may be misleading for your purposes. The idea of civic
participation and virtue, coming out of the communitarian movement and
the work of Alasdair MacIntyre et al. was a rebellion against the
individualism that took hold from the enlightenment. Instead they
wished to return to the aristotelian idea that human life had a proper
end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural
end without preparation. By this view, programme should be about
invoking the people's responsibility owed to the commonwealth or vice
versa, but appealing to individuals' (and society's) self development
and their virtue, and the value to the commonwealth of their
participation for its own sake, quite apart from any material or
policy outcome. I think that is Sen's point also. By that view, any
programme around public benefits ought to have that as an explicit
motive. Mark Wehrly


2009/8/14 Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com>:
> Hi Anne
>
> Thanks for the message. First, I wasn't asking you to agree with the Times
> article, myself I am more interested in Amarta Sen and the need to develope
> a programme that tackles rising youth unemployment and the need for a
> community response knife crime, drug use, pornification etc, but anyway but
> point taken. Second, please do send links to Blanchflower or other articles
> you wish us to look at so everyone doesn't have to search individually for
> them - thanks. Third, I think we are talking at cross purposes, because you
> have only been party to one thread that has been going on the 2012 project.
> For the sake of clarity, the proposals we are developing are not aimed at
> righting the rickety machine as the Future Jobs programme appears to be -
> well though out though it may be. What we are aiming for is the design of a
> new, alternative democratic political economy, with a reweaving of the local
> community fabric and work to be about people doing what they love to do at
> its heart. National and 'local' authorities (which are anything but) are not
> going to sort out these problems, however good a programme may be. So, with
> that in mind :
>
>  >forget what people do in return for benefits, in relation to those who
> can't claim benefits anyway!
>
> First, it seems you've comprehensively ignored the point about Citizens
> Income in your whole response. CI would include everyone. Did you actually
> read what I wrote? Second, why should we forget what people do in return for
> their benefits when people - even the so-called lazy poor - already do a
> great deal in terms of to-ing and fro-ing to JCs,  form filling in of either
> the honest or fraudulent variety and stressful thought time over social
> mobility. Not to mention the expensive work done by the state. Seems like a
> great big waste of work to me, on both sides of the burearactic barricade.
> Why not improve the exchanges so they can do something transformative?
> Obviously this needs to be part of a wider programme, which is what we are
> developing..
>
>>Democratic determination of 'what needs to be done - what jobs do we need
>> to have created for the unemployed'  - good idea,
>
> glad you like it but it is really about them creating them for themselves,
> with a community in support.
>
>>but compulsory weekly meetings ??!! Sounds pretty authoritarian and
>> unrealistic to me.
>
> Yes, I am bossy. But as I said, if people don't go,   no need to threaten
> with removal of their CI (as that would be unfairt on the poorest,
> obviously) - if the assemblies have real power over local affairs people
> will be moved to go, or else get decisions they don't like shoved in their
> face. And anyway, you can contribute what you like, come along and bring
> your drum if you like. Be what you want, but just be there. I don;t think
> this is unrealistic, I think there is a desire for it, unconscious or
> otherwise.
>
> Comes down to faith in human nature in the end doesn't it?
>
> What do others think?
>
> Love
> Mark
>
> 2009/8/14 A GRAY <gray.201 at btinternet.com>
>>
>> Lots of points to disagree with in the Times article.
>>
>> Firstly the idea of balancing rights and responsibilities, in whatever
>> kind of terms/language one puts it, derives from a 'socal contract' notion
>> (I am deliberately putting poorly defined shorthand terms in commas here,
>> for lack of time/space). Even if one wanted to base 'treatment' of 'the
>> poor' on any kind of 'contract' (long debate here about role of altruism,
>> and whether fair terms for such a contract could ever be defined and
>> implemented) to apply it to benefits assumes that all other aspects of an
>> implied 'social contract' are fair and are kept. Which most 'poor' and
>> unemployed people would deny. For a start the financial crisis was never
>> their fault, even if generalised consumerism/greed/excessive credit card
>> debt and individual house-property speculation played some role.
>>
>> Secondly, see David Blanchflower in yesterday's G. The reason rising
>> unemployment is not, as in previous recessions, being paralleled by a fall
>> in 'activity rates' is because older people now have big holes in their
>> pensions and savings thanks to near-zero interest rates, falling pension
>> fund values, sudden withdrawal or delay of benefits from some occupational
>> schemes etc. So they are staying in the labour market and taking/keeping
>> some jobs that might have gone to youth at least by a trickle-through effect
>> from the most to least experienced.
>>
>> Blanchflower also makes it clear, as does other coverage in yesterday's G,
>> that a huge proportion of youth are not claiming and often can't claim
>> benefits. They haven't got the NI stamps behind them, they haven't been out
>> of work long enough to claim income-based JSA (aka income support to those
>> used to the pre-1996 terminology). And they often live with parents so can't
>> claim housing benefit. And the rate for the under 25s is pathetic anyway,
>> especially in relation to the obligations the job centres now lay on
>> claimants.
>>
>> So forget what people do in return for benefits, in relation to those who
>> can't claim benefits anyway!
>>
>> Democratic determination of 'what needs to be done - what jobs do we need
>> to have created for the unemployed'  - good idea, but compulsory weekly
>> meetings ??!! Sounds pretty authoritarian and unrealistic to me.
>>
>> More realistic; a jobs plan for London, or bits of it, based on sensible,
>> resident supported, NGO backed  proposals for what local authorities should
>> put forward under the 'Future jobs fund' programme also explained in y'day's
>> G - £6.5k per job offered to local authorities or businesses provided job
>> lasts one year and pays at least the min wage.  BTW there is a govt
>> sponsored blog site where you can give comments on that and see the full
>> docs at http://www.hmg.gov.uk/buildingbritainsfuture/jobs-skills.aspx
>>
>> salaam
>>
>> Anne
>>
>> --- On Thu, 13/8/09, Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [civilisation] Democracy & Full Employment
>> To: "A GRAY" <gray.201 at btinternet.com>
>> Cc: project2012 at googlegroups.com, civilisation at lists.riseup.net,
>> campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org, allgendergroup at lists.riseup.net
>> Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 5:56 PM
>>
>> Thanks for this Anne, good points and I look forward to reading your
>> publication.Originally I was going to take some time to think through the
>> detail of what you've said before replying but by chance saw article and
>> report today (see below) and (along with your reponse) it got me thinking
>> about how it might be possible to link up community development, youth work,
>> real democracy and a sensible approach to benefits provision.
>>
>> One  in six young Britons jobless as unemployment hits 14-year high
>>
>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/iarticle6794065.ece
>>
>> Just Rewards. It is hard to see any connection between merit and pain in
>> this recession. We need to do a lot better by the young unemployed.
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6793974.ece
>> which includes reference to Amarta Sen's The Ideal of Justice.
>>
>> As it happens, I'd already begun to modify the proposal, as I've posted
>> elsewhere this week, to include the citizen's income idea.
>>
>> But after thinking (admittedly briefly, so shoot me down if this makes no
>> sense) a further developed set of proposals in the light of that (CI angle)
>> and today's revelations about youth unemployment could amount to:
>>
>> (1) everyone, regardless of means, gets a citizen's income of (whatever it
>> is). In exchange for this, all citizens are expected to take part in a
>> weekly meeting in their neighbourhood governing assembly / public space
>> (every neighbour hood will have one, as of right). People who do not wish to
>> may find they change their minds when paving stones start getting pulled up
>> on their street with fruit trees getting planted and they didn't have a say
>> in what type of fruit is chosen (or, more grumpily, they'd have wanted to
>> block it altogether) or when a street stall presence starts up round the
>> corner without his or her input on its character. No such interest to get
>> people together than self - interest, the exercising of power.
>>
>> (2) Benefit recipients would take this concept further, so that they would
>> be expected to take part in a certain number of hours, to do the work they
>> want, but with some provisos:
>>
>> A Unlike the citizen's income component, the benefits work does not
>> necessarily need to be in the community in which they live
>> B what work they do, would be decided by them in collaboration with the
>> community in question
>> C the work would have to involve direct mentorship or collaboration ie
>> shared projects with unemployed young people. Again, decided democratically
>> according to the person, young people and community in question. Wouldn't
>> that (the reality of working with the young, unemployed) be a wee bit of a
>> disincentive? I'd suggest that each community along with other functions
>> identified so far (parliamentary, banking, beneifits
>> distribution/employment, creche and, ideally food share and grow, would be
>> an attached qualified youth work/teacher/mentor person. This part might
>> easily link to the creche function, and we are beginning to create a
>> community school :-)
>>
>> And therefore, linked to this
>> (3) Unemployed young people will likewise be expected to do a job of their
>> choice, and thereby would be mentored. The length of time that young people
>> stay in this state would be fairly open but my guess is that being young
>> they would WANT to get off the benefits/community work system, either by
>> getting a free market job or growing their own business. The local bank
>> function mentioned elsewhere would help with this, as it could (especially
>> micro) lend to young, talented people who they've seen mentored and who are
>> helping to develop the new local democratic economy.
>>
>> New proposals a step in the right direction?
>>
>> Full Times article + comments from the public set out below.
>>
>> Salam
>> Mark
>>
>> In his book The Idea of Justice Amartya Sen points out that seeing a
>> connection between effort and reward is how people understand a process to
>> be fair... " This must seem a bewildering recession to most people. A
>> serious crisis of credit began with irresponsible lending from banks that
>> then had to demand balance sheet reparations from the taxpayer. After a
>> shapeless debate about whom to blame, the recession, deepened by the
>> drying-up of credit, is duly measured out in the job losses of the
>> blameless.
>>
>> One in twelve people in Britain is now out of work. Most of these people
>> are suffering the consequences of mistakes made elsewhere. Bonus payments
>> have returned to the City of London while manufacturing in the city of
>> Birmingham is in trouble. The equity market is booming and, with the cost of
>> money low, this is a good time to be an investment banker — and a bad time,
>> starved of credit, to be running a small business.
>>
>> There is very little merit in any of this. But, most conspicuously of all,
>> this recession is being especially cruel to the young. Nearly one million
>> people between the ages of 16 and 24 are now out of work. Unemployment among
>> people under 25 is a third higher than it was when Labour came to power.
>>
>> One of the early boasts of the Labour Government was its claim,
>> attributed, rather dubiously, to the New Deal, to have abolished long-term
>> youth unemployment. Now, precisely to respond to the possibility of losing a
>> generation to unemployment, the Government has issued a guarantee of a job
>> or a place in education or training for anyone under 25 who has been
>> unemployed for at least a year. Ministers have set aside £1 billion for this
>> scheme and appealed to businesses, social entrepreneurs and councils to
>> create jobs to ensure that the guarantee can be met.
>>
>> The heritage of such job schemes is far from auspicious. Most of them
>> provide cheap, temporary and disgruntled labour. It would be wonderful if
>> jobs of enduring value were the result and it is hard to fault the good
>> intentions that lie behind the idea. The Government is at least posing the
>> right question.
>>
>> But even if the job guarantee does place a floor under the prospects of
>> some young people, the rise in youth employment points to a bigger problem.
>> Why, when the labour market tightens, has the employment rate among older,
>> more costly, workers risen while the young have lost out? It is because, in
>> a recession, the premium on skill is more marked than ever and we are not
>> offering adequate training to young people.
>>
>> It is still necessary to walk down the academic path and stumble before a
>> practical course is tendered. The quality of training, subject to an
>> alphabet soup of qualifications, is mixed. Too much of it is too general and
>> there is too little emphasis on the indispensably transferable skills of
>> literacy and numeracy. But, more than anything else, the conversation
>> between government and the private sector is fractured. Employers regularly
>> complain that the supply of young people from the further education colleges
>> is inadequate. There is a big difference between learning the recipe book
>> and knowing how to cook. The solution is more learning by doing, which
>> requires the private sector to take on more responsibility to train — and
>> requires government, in turn, to provide relevant incentives for the young
>> to do so.
>>
>> Professor Sen has also pointed out that the value of work is by no means
>> entirely found in the income it provides. The nobility of labour is
>> contained in the sense of agency and self-respect that comes through work
>> and which is missing even in a system with generous income replacement. It
>> is better to protect people than jobs and the best protection is to make
>> young people more capable workers.
>> -------------
>>
>> Comments
>>
>> Although school ends at 18 and masses do a degree until 21, so many of
>> these still don't have skills that are useful for skilled jobs, and don't
>> want the unskilled ones as exchanging 40 hours of work for the difference in
>> pay and unemployment benefit is so low.
>> August 13, 2009 11:23 AM BST on UK-TimesOnline
>> Recommend?
>> Report Abuse
>> Permalink
>> Adam Darowski wrote:
>> Because the immigrants do jobs the natives refuse to do.
>> August 13, 2009 8:03 AM BST on UK-TimesOnline
>> Recommend? (5)
>> Report Abuse
>> Permalink
>> Boudicca Icenii wrote:
>> Time to resurrect that old poster - "Labour isn't working" and hope that
>> this time the numpties who vote for them really get the message that
>> socialism doesn't create jobs.
>> August 13, 2009 8:00 AM BST on UK-TimesOnline
>> Recommend? (2)
>> Report Abuse
>> Permalink
>> john bonny wrote:
>> With millions of young people out of work, can anyone explain to me why we
>> need so many immigrants?
>>
>>
>> 2009/8/12 A GRAY <gray.201 at btinternet.com>
>> >
>> > Trouble is if you offer people a good wage for doing a few hours' work
>> > per week to replace their pathetic level of benefit, two problems will still
>> > remain.  Firstly, anyone who is content with that amount of work/income will
>> > do precisely that for as long as they are allowed, rather than take 'open
>> > market' jobs for less money per hours. The employers will complain that the
>> > scheme takes away potential recruits to low paid jobs and the neo-liberal
>> > economists will say that the scheme keeps wages up so prevents people going
>> > into the jobs that employers can 'afford' to pay for. Secondly, if you limit
>> > the no. of months someone can spend in the 4-hours-at-good pay system what
>> > happens to them after that ?  Are you suggesting no benefits ?  or an even
>> > lower level than at present ?  or what ?
>> >
>> > There is a VAST literature on different ways of dealing with
>> > unemployment and benefits  which I have touched on in my own writing - see
>> > Unsocial Europe (Pluto 2004) and an article in the International Social
>> > Security Review in 1993.
>> >
>> > best
>> >
>> > Anne Gray
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com>
>> > Subject: [civilisation] Democracy & Full Employment
>> > To: project2012 at googlegroups.com, civilisation at lists.riseup.net,
>> > campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org, allgendergroup at lists.riseup.net
>> > Date: Tuesday, 4 August, 2009, 10:32 AM
>> >
>> > Hi everyone
>> >
>> > As it's been reported in the press this week that a quarter of the UK
>> > budget is now being spent on benefits, could we please have some list
>> > discussions about how this money might be harnessed to create a really
>> > democratic society, or to use the phrase previously embraced, greater local
>> > sovereignty (LS)?
>> >
>> > I've sent this message to the three lists above as I've found them to be
>> > the most fruitful in terms of discussions on the topic of building a just
>> > society. If anyone has any other lists they can recommend for this end, pls
>> > let me know. On this subject please can people hit reply to all so that all
>> > three lists can take part in any debate that ensues?
>> >
>> > Benefits & Productivity
>> >
>> > For me this is the next stage of productivity in the industrial economy,
>> > the pursuit of a really democratic culture with full employment, freely
>> > chosen. So I had this idea that people could do a few hours work each week -
>> > what one colleague has dubbed a 'mini-job' - in return for payments. Say,
>> > an hour for every £10-15 they receive. Key thing is that this work should be
>> > chosen BY the recipient, in collaboration with a local community of their
>> > choice, so that the work allows the individual to do what they would rea;y
>> > like to do rather than have the state force something on them as is the case
>> > with neo-liberal workfare programmes now being experimented with. Obviously
>> > these kinds of decisions would need different, decentralised benefits
>> > 'purse-string' structures - essentially a breakdown of the currently
>> > unwieldy and wasteful nationalised benefits programme into a really
>> > democratic, ie each local community owned, public service. Of course there
>> > will be lots of questions about how this will work in practice, which is why
>> > I am posting about it now, but for me the huge benefit (sic) in this is that
>> > it will allow state expenditure to be directed towards the development of
>> > locally based creativity, community fabric building, green jobs, real
>> > democracy, individual and collective entrepreneurialship, and a re-embrace
>> > of the dignity of work. It will also allow people to wean themselves
>> > off benefits as they develop new skills, improved CVs, greater self
>> > assertion and confidence, not to mention the huge health benefits in terms
>> > of tackling isolation, depression, social breakdown at the root. It will get
>> > people off their backsides but not Tebbit "On Yer Bike" style, rather Rumi
>> > "Let the beauty that we love be what we do"..
>> >
>> > The way I see it, alongside the present economy, communities should be
>> > able to compete with one another for labour, by simply embracing a cultural
>> > stance. A mixed economy, two parallel economies inteplaying with one
>> > another rather than this monoculture of labour everywhere competing for
>> > capital, or else the indignity of the dole.
>> >
>> > Here's the story about 186 billion benefits.
>> >
>> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5962510/Unsustainable-social-security-spending-equal-to-a-quarter-of-goverments-budget.html
>> >
>> > Thoughts anyone?
>> >
>> > Love
>> > Mark
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> "We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no
>> man speaketh as we speak in the street.”
>>
>
>
> --
> "We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no
> man speaketh as we speak in the street.”
>



-- 
"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is
there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.”