Benefits are a right, not a gift from the Westminster criminals

I have been discussing the hatred generated by the Westminster criminals for people who are dependent on social security and the benefits system with friends, and continue to be alarmed by the success of the Westminster elite in their demonization of the least fortunate in society, particularly as such people are mostly victims of Westminster policy. This debate is equally applicable to people living in the United States who despise people living on what they call welfare. I refuse to call it welfare because the word 'welfare' has been deliberately stigmatised with negative connotations with the purpose of creating social disapprobation for such people. Although the following argument is alluding to Britain, and I admit I am not particularly familiar with the US, I feel that the same argument applies in any modern industrial society whether capitalist or not. I will argue that benefits are rights, they are not gifts or handouts.

Modern Britain is the result of a historical process that began with the Norman Conquest. Through this process we have reached an empirical reality whereby one per cent of the UK population own seventy per cent of the land. This development is also the reason for the class structure of the UK whereby much of that land is owned by the monarchy, the church and an aristocratic elite. If the system of ownership and control denies people access to land that can sustain them and provide for their food, and a legal system upholds the heredity basis of what is in reality legalised theft, creating a modern economy entirely dependent on money where the vast majority rely on an employer for a money wage, and then significant sections of the population can’t find work and don’t have enough money to live on as determined by the norm for that society, which also progressively denies them a sufficient level of benefits that are the only other method whereby they can enjoy a basic standard of living, then significant numbers of people will acquire the money necessary to them by other means. That normally means that they will acquire it by methods that the dominant value system labels as criminal. Such people would be quite right to do so!

Why? Because, in a modern society like the UK, operating under a capitalist economic system that entrenches politically, legally, and socially, the rights of private property but refuses to admit that people have a right to employment, then the state must provide the unemployed with alternative funds to sustain a reasonable standard of living. The system of ownership has its genesis in military conquest and has been sustained by legalised theft and systematic fraud, which has evolved into so-called property rights. However, with rights come obligations, and, if your rights have been gained by denying your fellow human beings the fundamental means to sustain their life, then you are obliged to provide an alternative. As a result, if the capitalist class of property owners and employers cannot, or will not, provide sufficient means of employment and money wages to the population, then the state must do so, as it is this state that is upholding and supporting that economic system. Should both the employer class and the state fail to do so, then people have the right to take from that class and the state whatever they require to sustain their lives and their welfare, as long as by doing so they do not endanger anyone else’s life, and, if the ruling class and the state seek to prevent them by force, then they are perfectly entitled to reciprocate. In such a circumstance, government and the state are exceeding their authority, which is the protection and welfare of the people, and, if they proceed to wage war against the populace on behalf of a minority interest that is refusing people their fundamental rights, then they no longer have any authority and the people have the right to overthrow them, along with the elite class directing such war against the mass of the population, and before you damn me as a Marxist or a socialist revolutionary, that is exactly what the Americans did from 1775 to 1783. So, if I am a Marxist revolutionary then so was George Washington. The dominant neoliberal political and economic narrative is not incorrect, it is wrong and must be challenged. You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat