The perverse state that gives welfare only to the rich: Better to have a paternal state than a maternal state

Post Victorian Britain was a time of great social change. The ruling elite could no longer ignore the public's outrage at the double standards in society. To promote a lifestyle of thrift and moderation is all very well, but the rules of the new capitalist game were not fairly set. The working classes knew that those who were advocating restraint, were living lives of decadent luxury. They knew they were being humiliated and insulted, when rich businessmen rejected giving financial aid (welfare) to the poor, saying 'I worked for it, so I deserve it.'

"It is probably a misfortune that... popular writers like Samuel Smiles... have defended free enterprise on the ground that it regularly rewards the deserving. It bodes ill for the future of the market order that this seems to have become the only defence of it which is understood by the general public. That it has largely become the basis of the self-esteem of the businessman often gives him an air of self-righteousness which does not make him more popular."

F. A. Hayek. Law, Legislation & Liberty. Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice (London: Routledge, 1982. p74

We come to the worrying realisation, that without proper state intervention, capitalism left alone, makes the rich more powerful, and the poor more vulnerable. Nineteenth century American sociologist Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913) believed that the paternalism, which irritated businessmen who advocated laissez-faire economics, was a necessary regulation imposed upon a form of capitalism that was leaving the poor vulnerable and the rich irresponsible:

"The charge of paternalism is chiefly made by the class that enjoys the largest share of government protection. Those who denounce it are those who most frequently and successfully invoke it. Nothing is more obvious today than the signal inability of capital and private enterprise to take care of themselves unaided by the state. And while they are incessantly denouncing "paternalism", by which they mean the claim of the defenseless laborer or artisan to a share in this lavish state protection, they are all the while besieging legislatures for relief from their own incompetency, and "pleading the baby act" through a trained body of lawyers and lobbyists. The dispensing of national pap to this class should rather be called "maternalism", to which a square, open and dignified paternalism would be infinitely preferable."

L. F. Ward. The American Mind: An Interpretation. Yale, 1950. p210

Society today is still structured top to bottom. The labels may have been rewritten, but essentially we have those who feel entitled, and those who feel imprisoned, with those who feel torn between the two, sandwiched in the middle. The American Dream, or the 'Self-Help' initiative coined by Samuel Smiles, pretends that the shackles of classism, snobbery and bourgeois culture, have been removed, giving all who work hard enough, the opportunity to achieve a better life. There are many problems with this point of view. It is a naive wish. It is ambiguous and politically elitist. Smiles displays the kind of partisan rhetoric typically used by capitalists wanting to undermine the genuine argument for a social welfare system that protects the oppressed masses working long hours for little rewards:

"Labour is toilsome and its gains are slow. Some people determine to live by the labour of others, and from the moment they arrive at that decision, become the enemies of society. It is not often that distress drives men to crime. In nine cases out of ten, it is a choice not necessity. Moral cowardice is exhibited as much in public as in private life. Snobbism is not confined to toadying of the rich, but is quite as often displayed in the toadying of the poor... Now that the "masses" exercise political power, there is a growing tendency to fawn upon them, flatter them, speak nothing but smooth words to them. They are credited with virtues they themselves know they do not possess. To win their favour, sympathy is often pretended for their views, the carrying out of which is known to be hopeless."

S.Smiles. Thrift. London, 1885. p.154

It seems incredible that Smiles feels comfortable to pass off so many of his political opinions as if they were objective, absolute truths that could not be disputed. Where is the evidence for this political power that 'the masses now exercise'? Where does he pluck the '9 out of 10 crimes are committed out of choice not necessity' statement from? As soon as the social order begins to even hint at trying to bring about better equality, those at the top become defensive for fear of having to contemplate reconnecting with the plebs. His contempt palpable in his comment "... there is a growing tendency to fawn upon them, flatter them..." Smiles speaks about working people as if they were an unintelligent race, who do not know what is best for them.

The only people urging us to knuckle down and work to get rich, are those who never have to. By definition, to be rich, is to be better off than the masses. To be equally well off is not written into the American Dream, or Smiles' work-ethic mantra. It's a hoax that is designed to keep the working people toiling on, with the false dream, designed to disguise the fact that they are being exploited by a parasitic ruling elite who are living a life of luxury and leisure because of them. As Frank Ward says, "Those who denounce [state paternalism] are those who most frequently and successfully invoke it." What a perverse situation, that a democratic government should implement a welfare scheme that works to look after those who need no protection, only to further exploit those who are already made vulnerable through economic exploitation.

In the final insult of this barrage of abuse aimed at the working classes, Smiles states with profound sincerity: "The capitalist is merely a man who does not spend all that is earned by work." [London. 1885:154] Either he is the most naive man alive, or he is a devious politician. What he says may be true, but he neglects to mention capitalism's social responsibility to its people. If it is possible, in capitalist society, to 'earn' disproportionate incomes, leaving others to toil for scraps, then hoarding this money, literally starves a large percentage of the population. I would suggest that the capitalist is merely a man who understands that he holds power over the lives of others, but feels a sense of superiority over those who cannot fight back, and feels no personal responsibility to address the arbitrary imbalance of fortunes amongst men.