|The survey suggests people are less willing to blame the state for poverty|
Britons 'less willing to pay for taxes to help others'The National Centre for Social Research's 28th annual British Social Attitudes report also found increasing numbers blaming poverty on "laziness".
Britons are less willing than ever to pay higher taxes to support the National Health Service, schools or the environment, a new survey suggests.
The BBC's Home Editor Mark Easton said it was a move towards "more emphasis on individual responsibility" - bbc.
It’s not surprising that a survey has indicated that the Brits are more inclined to blaming the victim, than the state, for poverty. As V has said quite a few times, ‘this country is becoming more like America....in time, it is going to be just like singapore’.
Yes. No doubt about that. The Brits are certainly becoming dumber, more apathetic, and mutually antagonistic. But not to as bad a degree as singapore, but they are edging toward becoming more like their cousins across the straits of the Atlantic.
What do strikes and ‘occupy’ movements achieve in this sort of climate. Well, besides their more transparent and obvious intent, their function is essentially an effort to keep alive the notion that if ‘shit happens’, the arse responsible is usually perched atop the lower and middle classes. The state, after all, and according2 Marx is nothing but "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." [the communist manifesto, chapter 1]
That said, why would people incline toward ‘blaming the victim’ as opposed to the government/corporation/celebs/royalty? Quite a few reasons.
1. Well, people would rather believe that if they made it, it’s because of their hard work, and not because of luck, the boss taking a shine to your arse, or people around you being so incompetent that you being in possession of an-inch-above-mediocre intelligence would certainly stand out. People wouldn’t want to think that the inbuilt quota system within the capitalist system that requires the existence of 3 classes, just means that the quota for whatever relative upper class that you qualify for hasn’t been filled yet. So in order to pat themselves of the back for a job well done, they’d have to believe that it is purely their ‘hard work’, ‘exceptional intelligence’, etc, that got them where they are. It makes them feel good about themselves. So, just as they would like to attribute their relative ‘success’ to their own efforts and ‘talents’, they would immediately assume that if others don’t ‘make it’, its because they aren’t as good as oneself. Condemning others is part and parcel of congratulating oneself. One cannot do the latter without the former being implied.
So long as the people can be led to pay attention to ‘other causes’, and they are given 'control' over their own plight via the purchase of lottery tickets, taking part in game shows, ‘reality’ shows, the cause of their plight is going to be increasingly located within the auspices of their control, and lead to them blaming their impoverished peers for not availing themselves of it.2. Looking at the degree to which gambling is being promoted nationwide it is one of surest methods of giving collective empathy a kick in the netherregions. It basically reinforces the implied notion that luck counts. Well, it does. You see people walking away with millions. So that’s a fact. But the implied fact is, there are other causes to poverty, besides the greed of the government/corporation/celebs/royalty. So long as the people can be led to pay attention to ‘other causes’, and they are given 'control' over their own plight via the purchase of lottery tickets, taking part in game shows, ‘reality’ shows like The Apprentice, etc, etc, the cause of their plight is going to be increasingly located within the auspices of their control, and lead them to blame their peers for not availing themselves of it. So if they don’t ‘make it’, its their own fault for not buying enough lottery tickets, taking part in game/reality shows, being unlucky, etc, etc, and not because of the injustices that naturally come from the system.
3. I knew a British (northern)Indian bloke once, more than 10 years ago. He was one of those who had no problem blaming the victim. But, he was one of the underclass himself once. Well, when he finally ‘made it’, or rather, when his father ‘made it’, and thereafter, himself, through education, he spoke proudly about ‘his’ achievements and how he received no help from people or the upper classes. Well, it isn’t surprising is it. Receiving no significant help, and yet ‘making it’, he would quite naturally think that if his other peers in the underclass didn’t, it must be their fault right. That’s the thing. Many amongst the underclasses themselves are corrupted by the apathy of the upper classes. So to expect them to be empathetic when some of them move from barrow boy to Eton boy is quite unlikely.
That which the government finds fit to suggest also indicates the degree to which the perspectival state of the people is ready to receive it.4. Given the taxation system in the UK, it is to be expected that those whom would have had to struggle to get themselves into the relatively upper classes wouldn’t look kindly upon the call to fund the National Health Service and take a big pay cut via taxes. They have had to make greater effort that those ‘royal’ gits to get where they are, and just as they can smell the milk and honey from Marks and Spencers, they are told that since they’re earning more, they have to give up enough of their income to keep them in a position not significantly different from their previously underclass one. Sometimes, i think this ‘progressive taxation’ system was purposely implemented to keep the people self-centred. Without it, those whom are climbing up out of the ghettos of the underclass might be able to spare a thought for those they left behind. But with the financial burdens that they are greeted with even before they’ve had time to get rid of the grit from under their nails, it just encourages them to turn the apathetic cheek in the face of their underclass peers.
5. If the government is unrelenting enough in its ignoring egalitarian groups and demonstrations, and asking them to ‘move on’ after they’ve made their point, people are going to be left with their unresolved frustrations aren’t they. That’s when they’ll have to be ‘practical’ enough to stop ‘whinging’ and ‘just shut up and work hard’. The same thing happened with the Chinese from about 221 b.c. onwards - the brits should really take the time to study the histories of others, instead of just focusing on which stupid monarch rested her or his butt on the throne in which godforsaken year...for goodness sakes. Their opposition was put down harshly, and in ways probably unparalleled in human history (i.e. one emperor, in suspecting an official of plotting against him, had him, his relatives, friends of his relatives, etc, etc, killed....totaling about 100, 000 in number), and hence, the idea of ‘practicality’ was defined by taking the overarching status quo as the norm, and working hard to screw each other so that they could continue to afford being screwed by the government - that, in essence, is the core of the ‘chinese’ ‘culture’ that evolved as a result of popular impotence in the face of the powers-that-thus-were.
So the same thing is happening here in the UK. The government, and all parties, have been systematically, and inch by inch, making slash-and-burn incursions into the empathetic propensities of the people for quite a few decades now. And thanks to the efforts of all parties since the 1st European Instigated World War, (just calling it a ‘world war’ distracts us from the true causes of both ‘World Wars’....both wars were instigated by Europeans attempting to clean up their own shit.) UK’s very own, and First Confucian Emperor, Cameron, has finally found it fit to introduce the idea of a ‘Big Society’ where everyone accepts that evils are not caused by the government/capitalist system/celebs/royals but by their failure to help each other whilst the elite help themselves to the contents of their respective cookie jars. Do you think that the Brits would have taken kindly to such nonsense back when Sidney Webb drafted Clause IV. It takes a particular kind of perspectival climate for a particular kind of idea to not lead to the masses baulking reflexively in its face. That which the government finds fit to suggest also indicates the degree to which the perspectival state of the people is ready to receive it.