I have been thinking of the notion of solidarity recently ...
Perhaps this is simply me, I’ve never quite understood the hostility towards offering support and assistance to those that need it; whether this is in the context of workers fighting for better wages, benefits, working conditions and their protection, whether this is in the context of people fighting for their self determination and right to choose their political and economic futures or whether this relates to covering the needs of people in society that are the victims of economic, social and political injustice.
For those that prefer facts and stats, a friend forwarded this link to me; this gives an idea of the depth of the situation in terms of the number of Americans living in poverty: http://www.commondreams.org/...
I’ve been thinking that if we try and shift the discussion away from viewing government assistance as deriving from recipient’s failures and looking at this discussion in terms of both solidarity and the failure of the economic system to provide for all, that we may be able to create a manner of effectively fighting the up-coming attack on the social welfare state on the pretext that the government deficit is too large.
Definition and etymology:
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/...) defines solidarity as
Solidarity is the integration, and degree and type of integration, shown by a society or group with people and their neighbours. It refers to the ties in a society - social relations - that bind people to one another.
There are several dictionary definitions of solidarity (http://dictionary.reference.com/...), but this expresses the idea clearly enough:
union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.: to promote solidarity among union members.
2.
community of feelings, purposes, etc.
3.
community of responsibilities and interests.
Etymology
solidarity
1841, from Fr. solidarité "mutual responsibility," a coinage of the "Encyclopédie" (1765), from solidaire "interdependent, complete, entire," from solide."
In terms of its etymology, we can see it is a reasonably recent (in the context of history) word coined only in 1841 if the dictionary is correct, although I am certain that I have seen in working class discussions in the early 19th century UK in support of the Spitalfield’s Silk Weavers whose wages were being threatened and whom had attempted to organise to protect them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Some musings:
It is not surprising to me that this word appears during the industrial revolution for the first time. The conditions of life for the poor and working poor not only prompted the creation of movements fighting for their amelioration, but also political movements fighting for the extension of the franchise. The expression of solidarity is not confined only to a sense of support between people of the same class in the same country; this was extended to those overseas in similar circumstances. Moreover, a lot of these movements were cross-class movements.
Having solidarity is not simply a slogan or an abstract idea; rather, it is a meaningful concept that is extremely relevant not only in discussions of support for workers fighting for better wages, benefits and working conditions. It is an expression of the interdependence of human beings, in other words, how the conditions of life of one person affects us all.
One of the things that opponents of the social welfare state have been effective at doing is making it seem as those that are receiving government assistance are dragging us all down. Moreover, one of the major attacks is based upon the argument that the poor are lazy, dissolute, and immoral. Unfortunately, these are rather old attacks; we find them early in the discussions of the rights of the poor in the late 18th and 19th centuries in the discussions of the Poor Laws. The argument that government assisting the poor will drag us all down to poverty was articulated by TR Malthus, the idea that the poor are lazy (implying that all unemployment is voluntary) is articulated by Jeremy Bentham, the idea that they are dissolute and immoral is found throughout the discussions of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment in the attempts to stop provision of outdoor relief, transfers of wealth, and wage supplements that were part and parcel of the 1795-7 Poor Law Reform.
It was not until the formation of the social welfare state that generalised government assistance to the poor and working poor was re-established. Happily, there are sufficient economic justifications deriving from Keynesian economics that can be used to justify government assistance to those in need. From the need to create effective demand for goods and services due to spending patterns, assistance to the poor will have a far greater positive impact on our economy than cutting taxes on the highest earners and those with the greatest wealth. But, while these arguments are useful, I would like to try a different one; you cover those of us in need because we are a part of your community, we are your family, your neighbours and your friends. Instead of the cynical and obviously fallacious use of "we are all in this together" by David Cameron (UK Prime Minister), we need to be using this expression as one of solidarity between the middle class, the working class, the working poor, and the poor. We can work together to protect each other, we built this country, we made it great and we need to support each other.
What I think is that we need a good dose of solidarity to underlie our fight. I understand that many people do not respond to this notion in any sense, for these people we can resort to arguments relating to altruism and self-interest. Justifications based on altruism and self-interest for the maintenance and extension of the social welfare state abound and we can use them. But I think that maybe, just maybe, we can try the notion of solidarity ...