Underclass revolt?

I'm supposed to be sorting out my old life and packing up my house, but here I am, compelled to blog. For four days I have been separate from radio, TV, and (until now) Internet. It has been a blissful separation, allowing me to connect fully with other aspects of life. But my dear husband has emailed me something that demands my return to this blog -- dedicated to creating better thought-worlds -- and to the outer world.

[Here is my footnote, where you can see the Boston.com piece that set Roy and me off: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/08/16/povertys_boiling_point/ ]


It's tempting to republish Simon Waxman's whole article, but then where would I put my own thoughts? Here's a squib, combining two definitions -- short but explosive:

   The root of this uprising [in England] is in economic structures that maintain the distinctions between tony Kensington and burning Tottenham.

   The bottom isn’t in flames because it lacks morals. It is crying out because of persistent poverty. The explicit effects of economic inequality have struck again. Faced with a debt crisis born of the boom-bust cycle inherent in capitalism, the British government has a choice about how to distribute the pain. Should it tax the rich and restrain the greedy, the very people who produced the financial crisis whose fallout has withered government coffers? Or should it threaten and impose austerity measures that primarily affect the poor?

     It should come as no surprise that the British government has opted to distribute the pain downward, much as the US federal and state governments now are. The rich have influence, and the poor do not. That is why economic inequality, not moral failing, is the illness in need of remedy.

Can't seem to help returning to Waxman who
says this so well:  

[T]he ethos of capitalism enforces the notion that we deserve what we have, and what we give to others reflects private virtue. The rabble, in other words, should feel thankful for what they get.

     But they are not always thankful, especially when the equilibrium is disturbed, and their meager slice of the pie is threatened. Without influence in government and media, the only voice left to the poor is either large-scale violent or nonviolent protest, but the latter is much harder to organize and demands committed leadership that does not just emerge overnight. One hopes that aggression gives way to a more Gandhian approach, but, as the more straightforward of two alternatives, violence was foreseeable.

     As predictable as the violence is the response. When the poor lash out, the comfortable condemn their moral decay and decry their criminality.

Charles Dickens would recognize to his horror the current state of affairs. We heeded his 19th C. cry for decency and dignity for awhile, made some heroic or back-to-the-wall changes, but then slipped back into the rich/poor near-paralysis.

I'm staying for a few days in Waldoboro, Maine, and am suddenly struck with the memory of participating in the town food pantry, held in the basement of the Methodist church. What strikes me now, is the good humor and generosity of spirit with which that charity is run. One cannot with assurance tell who are the poor and who are the providers, as they first eat a simple meal together, then all pitch in to be sure the groceries are well shared. It can be done, and surely is being done in other places, with other participants. May this generosity of spirit spread.