Many of us – the readers of Countercurrents – are eating plastic although we do not buy the plastic for eating.
There are incidents of recalling of several food items, because there were traces of plastic in those foods items. Almost 60,000 pounds of Pilgrim’s Pride chicken nuggets were recalled back in June because they may contain plastic.
Now, scientists have found plastic in food items that have not been recalled. These include protein powder, even organic brands! The research suggests microplastics have invaded the food chain largely than previously documented.
The scientists found microplastics in every sample of commercial seafood they tested.
A brand new study has uncovered seafood plastic in some supermarket staples.
The new study from scientists at the QUEX Institute, a research partnership between the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom and the University of Queensland in Australia, analyzed seafood from an Australian market for microplastics.
Published in the journal Environmental Science&Technology, the QUEX Institute scientists discovered microplastic in wild blue crabs, oysters, prawns, wild squid, and sardines picked up in Australian markets. This type of plastic is less than 5 millimeters, or similar in size to a sesame seed, according to Medical News Today (MNT).
The MNT said:
The study describes how species differently consume food as a possible explanation of the varying amount of plastic they contain. It also suggests other potential sources.
The researchers say plastic may make its way from an animal’s gastrointestinal tract to its edible parts during processing, which includes gutting if performed incorrectly, and general handling. Plastics may also attach themselves to seafood via “airborne particles, machinery, equipment and textiles, handling, and from fish transport.”
Regarding the high concentration of plastic in sardines, the authors note the fish were purchased in bags made of low-density polyethylene.
Citing recent research that shows opening such a bag can result in the shedding of microplastics, they predict these types of packaging may be an additional and significant polluting mechanism for seafood.
The edible parts of the seafood were tested by heating it in an incubator to around 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Also inside was a solvent that “digested” the edible parts.
The scientists then looked for plastics using a method called the “pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry.” Five types of plastic that come from packaging, synthetic materials, and marine debris were found, according to the publication.
“Considering an average serving, a seafood eater could be exposed to approximately 0.7 milligrams (mg) of plastic when ingesting an average serving of oysters or squid, and up to 30 mg of plastic when eating sardines,” the lead author of the study, Francisca Ribeiro, says.
She also notes that the scientists were most surprised by the amount of plastic in sardines. Eat 14 servings of the small fish and you will have eaten around the same weight as one plastic straw. The study concludes that seafood plastic packaging needs to be looked at further since simply opening them can create microplastic.
This study is not the only one to find toxic materials in popular everyday foods in recent months. One study discovered that fast food wrappers contain high levels of a chemical called PFAS. The man-made substance makes things grease- and water-resistant.
The study – “Quantitative Analysis of Selected Plastics in High-Commercial-Value Australian Seafood by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry” – by Francisca Ribeiro, Elvis D. Okoffo, Jake W. O’Brien, Sarah Fraissinet-Tachet, Stacey O’Brien, Michael Gallen, Saer Samanipour, Sarit Kaserzon, Jochen F. Mueller, Tamara Galloway, and Kevin V. Thomas said in its report (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 9408-9417):
Microplastic contamination of the marine environment is widespread, but the extent to which the marine food web is contaminated is not yet known. The aims of this study were to go beyond visual identification techniques and develop and apply a simple seafood sample cleanup, extraction, and quantitative analysis method using pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry to improve the detection of plastic contamination. This method allows the identification and quantification of polystyrene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, and poly (methyl methacrylate) in the edible portion of five different seafood organisms: oysters, prawns, squid, crabs, and sardines. Polyvinyl chloride was detected in all samples and polyethylene at the highest total concentration of between 0.04 and 2.4 mg g−1 of tissue. Sardines contained the highest total plastic mass concentration (0.3 mg g−1 tissue) and squid the lowest (0.04 mg g−1 tissue). Our findings show that the total concentration of plastics is highly variable among species and that microplastic concentration differs between organisms of the same species. The sources of microplastic exposure, such as packaging and handling with consequent transference and adherence to the tissues, are discussed. This method is a major development in the standardization of plastic quantification techniques used in seafood.
Millions of metric tons of plastic enter the oceans every year. Some of it is highly visible in the Pacific trash vortex, also known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which lies between North America and Japan.
However, the most prevalent type of debris found in our oceans — microplastics — are less visible.
Microplastics are tiny bits of plastic less than 5 millimeters in length, which is about the size of a sesame seed. Nanoplastics, which are less than 100 nanometers in size, are also present in the marine environment.
The authors recently published their study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Analysis of the seafood samples
The scientists purchased five varieties of seafood: five wild blue crabs, 10 oysters, 10 farmed tiger prawns, 10 wild squid, and 10 wild sardines.
Before dissection, each sample was weighed and washed to remove any residue of plastic packaging. Only the edible part of each species was tested.
To extract any plastic present, the scientists placed each sample into a flask with an alkaline solvent and agitated it at 60 degrees Celsius in a shaker incubator. Once the solvent had completely digested the sample, the solution was analyzed for plastic.
The researchers then used a technique called pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry to identify the presence of five types of plastics: polystyrene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, and poly(methyl methacrylate).
The authors of the study report explain:
“Each of the analyzed seafood species of this study has different biological, physiological, and anatomic features and lives in different compartments of the marine environment, which influences the uptake and potential accumulation of microplastics.”
The study found:
- 0.04 mg of plastic per gram of tissue in squid
- 0.07 mg in prawns
- 0.1 mg in oysters
- 0.3 mg in crabs
- 2.9 mg in sardines.
All the samples contained polyvinyl chloride. The largest concentrations of plastic were composed of polyethylene.
“From the seafood species tested, sardines had the highest plastic content, which was a surprising result,” says Ribeiro. A grain of rice weighs about 30 mg, roughly the amount of plastic found in a sardine.
Co-author Tamara Galloway, from Exeter University, said, “We do not fully understand the risks to human health of ingesting plastic, but this new method will make it easier for us to find out.”
Roughly 17% of the protein humans consume worldwide is seafood. The findings, therefore, suggest people who regularly eat seafood are also regularly eating plastic.
Scientists have previously found microplastics and nanoplastics in sea salt, beer, honey, and bottled water. They can also deposit on food as dust particles.
SIGN UP FOR COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
Why the 2020 election is so important
Why did Prof. Noam Chomsky call the US Republican Party “The most dangerous organization in the history of the world”? He did so because the party is characterized by climate change denial and by support for giant fossil fuel corporations. According to the 2018 IPCC Report, the world has only a very short time left in which to stop the extraction and use of fossil fuels. If we collectively fail to do this within a decade or so, feedback loops may be initiated which will make human efforts to avoid catastrophic climate change useless. Much of the world could become uninhabitable, and a very large-scale mass extinction could be initiated. Although the worst effects of global warming lie in the long-term future, children alive today are at risk. We give our children loving care, but it makes no sense to do so unless we also do everything in our power to ensure that they, and all future generations, will inherit a world in which they can survive.
The world is on fire
Although the worst threats from catastrophic climate change lie in the long-term future, we are starting to see the effects of climate change today. California is burning! As of August 28, 2020, 7175 fires have burned 1,660,332 acres, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
The Arctic is burning! A northeastern Siberian town, north of the Arctic Circle, is likely to have set a record for the highest temperature documented in the Arctic Circle, with a reading of 100.4 degrees (38 Celsius) recorded in June, 2020. The dangerous greenhouse gas methane is bubbling up from melting permafrost in the Arctic and from the shallow seas north of Siberia. Furthermore, wildfires in the Arctic are emitting an unprecedented amount of CO2. Around 600 active fires have been observed in the region in late July, 2020, compared with 400 in 2019 and about 100 on average between 2003-2018.
The 2020 hurricane season has started early, notably with Laura, and it is predicted to be unusually severe. Greenland’s ice sheet is melting. Ice shelves are collapsing in the Antarctic. But despite these obvious signs of danger, the climate emergency is hardly mentioned in the 2020 political campaigns, or in U.S. mass media. It ought to be a central issue. As Bernie Sanders recently remarked: “When politicians say that climate change is not real, it’s not just that they’re lying. It’s not just that they’re rejecting science. They’re turning their backs on the people of Louisiana, who are experiencing the effects of climate change today,”
We see what is near to us. It is the present threats of climate change that seem to concern us. However, we have a responsibility to all future generations of humans. We have a responsibility to all other living things on earth, which are threatened with extinction if catastrophic climate change becomes a reality. As an example of what is threatened, we can think of the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses, in which 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct.
The 2020 election is critical
The U.S. election in November is critical, not just because of Donald Trump’s neo-fascisinm, but primarily because if the climate-change-denying and fossil-fuel.supporting Republican Party retains power, all hope of saving the world from life-destroying global warming may be lost. Those of us who have the ability to influence the election, or to vote, must work with dedication for a Democratic victory.
John Scales Avery is a theoretical chemist at the University of Copenhagen. He is noted for his books and research publications in quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, evolution, and history of science. His 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution set forth the view that the phenomenon of life, including its origin, evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its background situated in the fields of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. Since 1990 he has been the Chairman of the Danish National Group of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Between 2004 and 2015 he also served as Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy. He founded the Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes, and was for many years its Managing Editor. He also served as Technical Advisor to the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (19881997).
http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/aord/a220.htm. He can be reached at avery.john.s@gmail.com. To know more about his works visit this link. http://eacpe.org/about-john-scales-avery/
In my new book I examine an area of our thought process that is the primary cause of our extinction possibility today; the dark neurotic psychotic side of the human brain.
XXXX
That “dark side” is driven by a self-serving dynamic. We allow it to enrapture us. It can turn us against each other. We have been and continue to be witness to it in our interactions interpersonally and internationally.
We brought it with us when we moved out of Africa into this Anthropocene Age.
It was acknowledged early on in Judaism at the time of Moses by the Yon Kippur Day of Atonement. (and remains so)
Years later in the 6th/5th century BCE Jeremiah wrote:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?
17:9
It became a foundation of Christianity with the belief that the crucifixion of Jesus was expiation for our sins and with his return after the Apocalypse there will be a world of eternal perfection. (Belief in this sudden apocalyptic GOD intervention began with early Judaism)
The ancient Greeks recognized this “dark side”. Here is an 8th century BCE quote from Homer’s Illiad:
Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another.
In a more recent period of history this “dark side” was identified by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679 in his Leviathan.
Moral philosophy is nothing else but the science of what is good and evil….
There continues to be clear evidence of our having this “dark side”. It has become most dangerous in the form of wars between opposing groups of humans. (Between 1900 and 1990, 43 million soldiers died in wars. During the same period, 62 million civilians were killed)
Now in the 21st century it may be about to bring on our end.
An issue continues to be war, with Atomic the most frightening, but now there is a dangerously intractable other. It is the result of our separation from the power of Nature. With our move out of Africa six thousand years ago; more than three million years of evolutionary codependence was no more.
We refused to recognize that all forms of life on Planet Earth including our own need to be symbiotically at one with Nature. Even in our philosophical/religious thought the earth was now ours to be used and abused. (The original Hebraic mandate did call for Earth’s care but was soon cast aside)
So with our new found powers we began not only to alienate ourselves from each other but from the Biosphere of our Planet, without recognizing that like any other organism within its Biosphere that does not live in cohesive harmony with its Biosphere the end result is rejection.
This leaves us today with an existential problem. If we continue to think the way we think and live the way we live, Nature will drive us to extinction.
Yet Humanity refuses to acknowledge this or the need for change. Yes, a few enlightened individuals here and there, and certainly most of the scientific community, but all with limited influence. The general population lives in a cloud of optimism bias. (Brought with us from our later evolutionary period) It had been one of our hominid strengths. It had allowed us to move forward without fear of harm.
It has now become our enemy. Because of this optimism bias, we are not able to grasp the fact that we humans have only limited control over Nature. And for all our technological powers, we are not able to comprehend that ultimately we are subject to planetary forces over which we have no control.
One reality we refuse to face is that Capital markets have grown to a size where they are energizing ecologically destructive forces that are destroying our planet.
Another reality we refuse to face is that we must reduce our population size. (now more than double what it was when I was in High School) Earth’s supplies of habitable land, fresh water, arable soil and mineral resources are not able to satisfy our needs.
Another reality we refuse to face is the possibility of a Methane Hydrate Feedback Loop in the Arctic like the one that initiated the Permian-Triassic extinction 252 million years ago. ( confirmed by the World Bank in 2012 ) We were warned that without quick action to curb CO2 emissions, temperatures are likely to increase there by 4 degrees Centigrade and that is dangerously close to the 7 degree Centigrade temperature rise that initiated the vast amounts of Methane release that caused the extinction.
Another reality we refuse to face is that the South Pole is rapidly warming. Surface air temperatures there have been rising since the 1990s at a rate that is three times faster than the global average. The result: Parts of coastal Antarctica are losing ice. As that ice melts and oceans rise, there are disastrous implications for the population living in coastal areas.
Another reality we refuse to face is that ocean acidification is threatening much of the marine food web. Rising carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution have caused the oceans to become 30 percent more acidic. The estimate is 150 percent more by 2100.
And there are many others.
Where then do we begin? How much time do we have? Many scientists are telling us that far reaching changes must take place over the next 25/50 years. And they need to be of the magnitude that came with the beginning of our Anthropocene Age. All of human society has to change the way it thinks and the way it lives.
There have been changes in our past but they have always been regional and each has taken much time; Egyptian changes, early and late Hebraic changes, Asian changes, Greco Roman Hellenistic changes, Post Roman Christian changes, European Enlightenment changes. The question for our New Age is this: Can we make the needed far reaching ecological changes globally in just 25/50 years?
And if there are no changes, what then? The suffering of future generations will be extreme. First, those billions of humans living on the edge of survival will perish. We are already seeing this die off in many parts of the world. (124 F. in Baghdad as of this writing) Then, the pain will move onto the rest of society.
Planet Earth is saying to Homo sapiens, using its unforgiving evolutionary language of rejection; you must change the way you think and the way you live and you must do it now.
So here is the question for our Age: Is there a way for us to break out of this downward spiral? The answer: Yes, there is. But first we must examine many of those existing Anthropocene patterns of thought and behavior believed today to contain “inherent truths” that have become our enemy.
The task will be daunting. It will require us to reinvent much of what we have believed to be true and justified. We will have to rethink who and what we are and put in place new structures encompassing our lifestyles, our economics, our political systems, our laws, our social and religious systems. We will have to reexamine our Raison d’etre. (reason for being)
The biosphere is finite. We must find a way to live in a congruent state within that finitude. Today’s patchwork of repairs and technological fixes will not suffice. A totally new societal design is called for; one leading to an entirely new societal structure, a structure whereby humans can live in concert with Nature itself. Our continuation rests on that premise.
A new design cannot be implemented without first examining the core of our Anthropocene Age weakness; the release of our dark neurotic psychotic side. It will require a metamorphosis of the twenty-first century human mind.
It will also require a return to the horizontal transcendental symbiotic relationship with Nature that had successfully guided our evolutionary development.
At this point two quotes from the lost Gospel of Thomas (discussed in my new book) discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945 are in order:
(3) The Kingdom is in inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize who you are.
(77) I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.
Can there emerge a higher level of human consciousness, redefining the cosmic and planetary purpose of our human species by way of a new form of insight?
Can we come to this realization fast enough? Will our “dark neurotic psychotic side” be the obstacle? There is a measure of hope. Again I quote from the lost Gospel of Thomas:
(7) Jesus said; blessed is the lion which when consumed by man becomes man, and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes….
The Gospel of Thomas metaphor is for this Age problematic. Yes there are those in our society who are in control of the lion within but they are a minority.
According to a French Annales School theory called L’histoire événementielle, human civilization moves in one direction or another at its own speed regardless of enlightened intellectual discovery. So according to that theory, at our present pace we are not and in all probability will not move fast enough to save ourselves from extinction.
Let me end with a quote from Albert Einstein
“The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them.”
XXXXX
David Anderson brings together a wide range of interests in his writings, namely; theology, history, evolutionary anthropology, philosophy, geopolitics, and economics. He has written four books. The fourth (Below) is about a necessary geo political, social, religious, economic paradigm shift for human survival.
OVERCOMING the THREAT to Our FUTURE
http://inquiryabraham.com/new-book.html
When ‘mainstream’ politicians and media pundits talk about the structure of American society, they focus mainly on a vaguely defined group called ‘the middle class.’ The middle class is considered the mainstay of society, a bulwark of social stability and cohesion. Indeed, the middle class is the symbolic representative of the whole society. The ‘typical Americans’ of TV sitcoms are almost always members of the middle class. (A rare exception was the Rosie Show, which featured a ‘working class’ family; low ratings soon led to its cancelation.) It is the aspirations of the middle class – home and car ownership, a complete set of household and electronic appliances, college education for the kids – that define the ‘American dream.’
Logically the middle class must be in the middle, but between what and what? Occasional reference is made to ‘the poor’ on one side and ‘the rich’ on the other. But these are minorities, atypical or marginal groups. The middle class is the majority. As for ‘the working class,’ even mentioning it is taboo in respectable company. Only dangerous radicals and extremists talk about ‘the working class.’
In fact, the middle class is the only class in our society, because ‘the poor’ and ‘the rich’ are not referred to as classes. Thus, American society is not divided into classes. It consists of one class plus a couple of outlying groups.
Such is the picture of America drawn by ‘mainstream’ propagandists.
The relentless emphasis on the middle class has its impact on public perceptions. When asked to which class they belong, about 60% of Americans claim to be middle class. However, a substantial minority – about 30% — do still call themselves ‘working class’ – a sign of resistance to the dominant ‘mainstream’ discourse.
Distortion of reality
The mainstream discourse distorts reality. It exaggerates divisions of secondary importance and obscures the division that is most fundamental.
One dividing line that is overdrawn is that between ‘the poor’ and the next category up, sometimes called ‘the near poor.’ Although it may be useful for certain purposes to identify a minority of especially poor people, there is a rapid turnover into and out of this group. Researchers into the dynamics of poverty have shown that well over one half of Americans are ‘poor’ at some time in their lives.[1] This is not to deny the existence of urban and rural pockets of persistent ‘inter-generational poverty.’ On the whole, however, it is more accurate to regard poverty not as the attribute of a separate group but as a phase in the life of the non-rich majority.
For most Americans, including most of those said to be in the middle class, it takes only one major life mishap – loss of a well-paying job with benefits, a serious accident or illness in the family, a divorce – to plunge them into deep poverty. This is certainly true of the nearly 70% with less than $1,000 in savings (45% have no savings at all). Cases of personal bankruptcy filed in the United States in 2019 numbered 752,000; there are currently 276,000 homes in foreclosure. The title of one of Barbara Ehrenreich’s books sums it up: Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class (1989).
A dividing line that the mainstream discourse takes care not to highlight is that between ‘the rich’ and everyone else. In the terms popularized by Occupy Wall Street, between the 1% and the 99%. Or, in Marxian terms, between the capitalist class and the working class (broadly understood). Capitalists own and control the means of production, distribution, and communication, including the corporate media. Politicians are either capitalists themselves or serve them. Workers, lacking access to the means of life, have to sell their labor power to capitalists for a wage or salary.
This picture is admittedly somewhat simplified. The dividing line between the capitalist class and the working class is a little fuzzy and some groups fall outside the two basic classes (for instance, small farmers). Nevertheless, the two-class picture is at least a rough approximation of reality. The picture drawn by corporate media and Establishment politicians is not.
The mainstream discourse arbitrarily divides what socialists call ‘the working class’ into two sharply contrasting categories. ‘Respectable’ workers are incorporated into ‘the middle class’ together with professionals and small businesspeople. Workers who do not qualify as ‘middle class’ are dumped in with ‘the poor.’
Consider what happened to a task force created by President Obama to consider ‘ways to halt the decline in the standard of living of working Americans.’ It was headed, incidentally, by Joe Biden, then vice president. Originally dubbed the White House Task Force on Working Families, at some point it became the White House Task Force on the Middle Class. Presumably it was decided that even if the word ‘working’ was not followed by ‘class’ it was best avoided. After all, it might remind people that there was such a thing as the working class. The change also implied that families who do not qualify as ‘middle class’ are undeserving of public concern.
How the myth emerged and developed
The myth of the middle class has not always existed. There was a time, not so very long ago, when the no one disputed the truth of the picture nowadays drawn only by ‘radical extremists.’ The basic division of society into capitalists and workers was held to be necessary, but its existence was obvious. No one thought of denying it.
The new picture with ‘the middle class’ in central place emerged in the 1950s and has developed over time. The myth has taken three forms – the original ‘simple’ form, a ‘humanitarian’ form that prevailed in the 1960s, and a ‘toxic’ form that gradually took shape from the 1970s onward.
The 1950s: ‘end of ideology’
After World War Two, the American economy entered a long boom. Many workers also benefited from their membership in trade unions, finally legitimized by the New Deal policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This enabled them to achieve a standard of consumption previously beyond the reach of the working class. Workers’ families were now for the first time able to buy a home (with the aid of a mortgage), a car, a fridge and other household appliances.
This really was an important new development. However, academic social theorists of the 1950s exaggerated its scope, overlooking the fact that many workers had still not been admitted to the paradise of ‘middle-class’ life. They also wrongly assumed that the expansion of the ‘middle class’ was irreversible. They concluded that class divisions and class-based ideologies were things of the past: the United States was now ‘the affluent society,’ ‘a middle-class society,’ i.e., essentially a one-class or classless society. Harold DeRienzo recalls:
‘Growing up in the 1950s, I was conditioned to believe that we lived in a classless society. This conditioning took place at home, in school, at church, and was constantly reinforced by the media’ (https://www.bkcianyc.org/the-classless-society/#.Xz0vPC-z3Sw).
The economic basis of this ‘classless society’ was a supposedly new type of ‘people’s capitalism’ marked by a much wider ownership of shares. In reality, even though it was no longer unheard of for a worker to own a few shares, share ownership remained highly concentrated.
The new outlook was embodied in a collection of essays by sociologist Daniel Bell, first published in 1960 and entitled The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties.
The end of (class-based) ideology was to be proclaimed again by another academic at the start of the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union — Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992). And once again the darned creature would refuse to lie down and die!
Early 1960s: poverty rediscovered
The complacency of ‘end of ideology’ sociology was punctured by the publication in 1962 of a book entitled The Other America: Poverty in the United States. Despite the fact that the politics of the author, Michael Harrington, were somewhat to the left of the Establishment – he was a ‘democratic socialist’ of the reformist variety, one of the founders of the Democratic Socialists of America – his expose of urban and rural poverty had a major impact on public perceptions.
The myth of the middle class did not disappear: it merely assumed a somewhat more realistic form. The United States was still regarded as essentially a prosperous ‘middle-class’ society, but it was acknowledged that not everyone enjoyed the prosperity. Poverty was viewed as an anomaly within a basically sound system. It affected only a minority, albeit a large one – about one fifth of the population. ‘The poor’ were not one end of a spectrum but a group separate from the rest of society – a ‘second America,’ as the title of Harrington’s book indicated.
Thus there emerged a picture of American society as comprising two classes – a middle-class majority and a poor minority. The position of the rich minority in this picture is hard to define. Its existence is not denied: the very term ‘middle class’ implies the presence of not one but two other groups, one on each side. However, it remains in the shadows; the attention of the viewer is not drawn to it.
Mid-1960s: Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’
If poverty was an anomaly within a basically sound system, might it not be eliminated by a well-designed program of reforms? And this was indeed the aim set by President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 when he declared his ‘War on Poverty’ to create ‘the Great Society’:
Our aim is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it (President Johnson, State of the Union Address, 1/8/64).
The results of the ‘War on Poverty’ were significant but rather modest by comparison with its aim. Over the first five years the poverty rate declined by five percentage points to 14%. It has hovered around that level ever since. A common explanation of the limited success of the Great Society program is that its implementation came to a premature halt as funding was diverted to America’s burgeoning war in Vietnam. There is good reason to think, however, that the results would not have been very much better even if the program had been fully implemented.
The anti-poverty measures adopted in the mid-1960s were of various kinds. Some – food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid – provided direct material aid to poor people. Small loans were offered to poor farmers. But the main emphasis was placed on measures that aimed to reduce unemployment by ‘removing impediments to employment’ – in particular, support for schools in poor areas, Head Start, and schemes to give job training and work experience to young people from poor families.
Those who believed that poverty could actually be ‘cured’ and ‘prevented’ by such means apparently made two curious assumptions. First, that ‘impediments to employment’ lie solely in the inadequate qualifications of job seekers; hiring practices and the demand for labor, for instance, have nothing to do with it. Second, that once people have jobs, however low their wages, they are no longer ‘poor.’
‘The poor’ are often identified with the unemployed and/or welfare recipients, even though the ‘working poor’ – people who work, in many cases at two jobs, but for low pay and usually without benefits – have usually (prior to Covid-19) made up 70% or so of those below the poverty line. Why do politicians and the media pay so little attention to the working poor? I think it is because their plight can be substantially improved only by intervening in the employment relationship, which politicians dependent on capitalist donors are unwilling to do. True, there are minimum wage laws, but the minimum wages are set at very low levels and, above all, these laws are hardly ever enforced.[2] In general, workers in the lower reaches of the wage spectrum – below, at, or a little above the minimum wage – are worse off than those who rely on welfare. That is why people will go to such lengths to remain on welfare.
1970s—1990s: the backlash against welfare
Much to the surprise and consternation of believers in ‘the affluent society,’ the postwar boom did not last forever. By the late 1970s it had come to an end. The generous mood that had inspired the ‘war on poverty’ dissipated. Establishment attitudes toward ‘the poor’ became mean and resentful. Politicians started to portray them as parasites who could get jobs if they really tried but preferred to enjoy a good life at the expense of the hardworking middle-class taxpayer.
The new trend started with Richard Nixon, who in a speech in 1969 popularized the idea of ‘workfare’ – making welfare recipients work for their money. Ronald Reagan followed up, complaining in a 1976 campaign speech about ‘welfare queens’ and ‘strapping young bucks’ eating T-bone steaks at public expense. Here we find ‘the poor’ identified not only with welfare recipients but also with black people, despite the fact that the majority both of welfare recipients and of the working poor have always been white. Reagan curtailed many ‘Great Society’ programs; in 1981 he abolished Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity.
Scapegoating of the poor did not long remain a monopoly of Republican politicians. Bill Clinton took up the theme, promising in his 1992 presidential campaign to ‘end welfare as we know it.’ He greatly constricted access to welfare and transferred much of the responsibility to the states, which were henceforth free to spend federal ‘block grants’ as they wished.
The toxic version of the middle-class myth
In the course of the backlash against welfare there emerged a toxic version of the middle-class myth. American society is still pictured as comprising two classes and they are still called by the same names – ‘the middle class’ and ‘the poor.’ However, the relationship between these two classes is now conceived in a very different way. The middle class has lost its superior status as benefactor of the unfortunate. The constant emphasis on the phenomenon of welfare fraud turns the middle class into a victim of ‘the poor,’ now viewed as a horde of parasites unjustly privileged by their undeserved welfare benefits. In fact, although by force of inertia these parasites are still referred to as ‘the poor,’ they are now perceived as being better off than the middle class. They are better off because they get what they need without working, while the middle class have to work hard for their living. The poor exploit the middle class.
Part of the animus against welfare recipients, I suspect, has its origin in the belief that only the rich have the right to live without selling their labor power. After all, it is the rich who are ‘the leisure class,’ as the sociologist Thorstein Veblen called them.[3] They must surely experience the mere presence in society of another group of people enabled to live – albeit at a much lower standard – without selling their labor power as an insufferable challenge to their status. Perhaps this is why such efforts are made to find or create jobs even for people with severe physical or mental disabilities, despite the fact that they have to be accompanied by aides who in practice do most of the work.
Note that the mythical picture drawn by the toxic version of the myth of the middle class bears a striking structural similarity to reality. The real picture also features a privileged parasitic minority exploiting a hardworking majority. The real parasites are the capitalist class, whose mansions, yachts, and planes weigh much more heavily on the backs of the working class than the welfare benefits of the poor. The toxic version of the middle-class myth channels the anger of members of the working class – those who still qualify for middle-class status – into a phony ‘class struggle’ designed to substitute for the real class struggle against the capitalist class.
It is remarkable that this audacious diversionary strategy on the part of the capitalist class should have proven so effective for so long. But then the most convincing lies are those that are modeled closely on the truth.
Attacks on welfare will continue, but I do not expect it to be abolished altogether. The elimination of welfare would eliminate the target of the substitute ‘class struggle,’ preventing any further use of the diversionary strategy. Welfare must be preserved so that it can continue to be attacked.
Notes
[1] A study conducted in 1999 estimated that 51.4% of Americans experience poverty by age 65. The figure must be somewhat higher when poverty in old age is taken into account. For an overview of the research, see: Stephanie Riegg Cellini, Signe-Mary McKernan, and Caroline Ratcliffe, ‘The Dynamics of Poverty in the United States: A Review of Data, Methods, and Findings,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 27, Issue 3, Summer 2008, pp. 577-605. Preprint accessible at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/30656/411960-The-Dynamics-of-Poverty-in-the-United-States-A-Review-of-Data-Methods-and-Findings.PDF.
[2] A Politico investigation in 2018 found a sweeping failure to enforce minimum wage laws. Over half of the states have just a handful of investigators to handle violations; several states have none at all. Most cases go unreported. Even when a court orders payment of back wages owed there is no way to collect if the employer refuses to pay. Over 40% of court-ordered payments are never made.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/18/minimum-wage-not-enforced-investigation-409644
[3] Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, first published in 1899. For a recent republication see here.
Originally published in www.wspus.org
Stephen Shenfield (World Socialist Party of the United States)
I was driving on Highway 90, just outside of Bellevue, WA, where I live- in the first week of September, 2020. The drive East from Bellevue on I-90 is for the most part absolutely incredible. The physical beauty of the land, the sylvan cover, the density of the vegetation- all of these remind one that the Earth has beautiful parts, even those parts touched by humankind. I’ve done this drive hundreds of times. This time, however, the drive was unique. And it was not the beauty that made it remarkable.
About ten minutes into my drive, a car pulled up next to time. The driver gesticulated to me, but I couldn’t decipher the meaning of his performance. He then moved a bit ahead of me and put his hand outside the window and flashed the “okay” sign, a talisman of White Supremacy. He did so not once but three or four times then transformed the same hand into a “gun” and fired a faux bullet. Much, much worse things have happened to people but irrespective, it was unsettling to say the least.
Such incidents are grounds for reflection, but certainly not by the victims-in this case me. I don’t reflect even for a moment about myself here or what I did wrong. But while I want to say my only reaction was “fuck him!” I will admit that such acts scare me- for my safety and for the safety of my family- especially my old parents and my children.
I know and have always known, that equality in actuality is a chimera. Thousands of years of struggle and sacrifice- replete with death, destruction, heartache, pain, and savagery—got us to the point where many societies adopted de jure rules of conduct that made it appear possible to have equality. But anyone who has lived a real day in the real world knows of the thousands of indignities- small and big- that are visited upon people daily, because of their race, gender, relative status, class, religion, sexuality, and a thousand other variables. Most of these indignities don’t kill. But some do. In the US, that “okay” sign often comes as a package deal- sign+gun+thuggish asshole who likes to use the gun. It’s like getting a hot dog, nachos, and a large Coke- any one of them is bad but all three together will kill you.
As the Covid-crisis continues unabated and most of us are grounded, my family and I had a discussion about holiday plans and who we’d see and where we’d see them. The conversation had two branches. Branch one- can we fly? If so, we’d do X. Branch two- flying is proscribed. If so, we’d do Y. Y did not include seeing my family, all of whom live at least 2000 miles away. Looking for a hybrid, I thought to myself, “Maybe I’ll brave a long drive to see my parents or my new nephew or my brother.” Then I remembered that I’d have to drive through parts of the country that I’d be terrified to traverse. So I abandoned that plan and with it, any hope of seeing loved ones for the foreseeable future. Such indeed are the – somewhat minor—demerits visited upon anyone of color in the US today. Even a short drive just a few miles from my house produced such an unsettling event, how could I possible consider a 2000 mile drive through Trump country?
Such a calculus is virtually impossible for the majority community to understand but it’s as easy as basic arithmetic to many of us.
It’s disgusting, pathetic, and laughable. To be reduced to a blob of brown ectoplasm in the eyes of a brute. But then you realize- the brute can’t colonize your mind but he can your body.
If only, one could follow the directions of the old ballad by Slade- “run, run away.” But where would one go?
Romi Mahajan is an Author, Marketer, Investor, and Activist
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.