Imagine receiving a letter and being told that you
must leave your home and relocate to another location
which could be hundreds of miles away, or simply being
told that you must leave your home. There is no option to
stay, not without paying large amounts of money, money
that you possibly do not have and have no possibility of
This is social cleansing. This is what is happening to people up and down the country.
Comparison of two states.
Here we illustrate the principles of our Social Theory and cause and effect, specifically between stimulus and austerity, by giving examples of two situations in two countries.
Irrespective of the political system or predominant political belief system at the time, resorting to the strategy of austerity during a period of cultural decline only exacerbates that cultural decline and leads to either civil unrest or social collapse. The video below illustrates this principle using the example of austerity applied in Poland.
The period of austerity led to social division, civil unrest and eventually social and political collapse. This led to a change of Polish government and a new leader, Edward Gierek.
Edward Gierek adopted a completely different strategy of stimulus politics, investing in Polish society and local communities. There were new housing programmes which resulted in the building of new housing through housing associations, investment in workers and wages, supply of consumer goods, and provision of public services and healthcare.
Due to their history of conflict and occupation, and their geographic location between two larger more powerful countries, Germany and Russia, Poland as a nation has always been fiercely protective of its culture, language and heritage. Gierek paid Polish couples a lump sum to have children, and he also mandated a national network of free community spaces managed by the housing associations in every community which allowed for widespread cultural development among people.
These two policies had effects on Polish society. The provision of free community spaces led to the relatively high levels of cultural awareness among Poles and much greater social cohesion (which was to stand them in good stead during the further periods of austerity in the 1980's and martial law under General Jaruszelski). The effect of encouraging families to have children resulted in young Poles aged 18-28 accounting for 40% of the total workforce in that age group in the European Union at the time of Poland's accession to the EU in 2004.
Poland has had for some time a tradition of exporting people (and workers) to other countries, namely migrant workers. The tradition of cultural development has enabled Poles to learn many things, not just about their own culture but about other cultures too, and also languages.
These cultural centres which were managed by housing associations gave access to free or cheap tuition and opportunities to share ideas and take part in various creative activities in such areas as art, music, theatre, acting, photography, languages, and other extra curricular activties. They were also meeting points for residents and other associations, provided venues for small concerts and exhibitions, talks, discussions,
Britain has no infrastructure for cultural development and does not have any policy for free cultural spaces. Britain has a much more feudal system based on land ownership and a system of property ownership with a widespread belief in a perpetual rise in property values, known commonly as the property market. There is a widespread belief that all space whether it be land or property is to be used to generate income or is there for private ownership. Not only is this not sustainable, leading to such issues as homelessness, access to any cultural development for people is effectively blocked through all community spaces being made accessible only through excessively high rents and hire charges. This means that cultural development is only made possible through funding and patronage by the wealthy and is not an issue of necessity, but a matter of good will.
Austerity politics and predatory capitalism
Culturally for decades Britain has fostered a widespread belief in globalization and free market politics which has been compatible with its history and culture of colonization, empire building and systems of government based on divide and rule. This was a system developed out of the genocide of indigenous people, slavery, foreign wars and foreign occupation as a basis for trade and exploitation.
Within this is a widespread belief that banks and large corporations are 'wealth creators' and the ones who create jobs and opportunities, when jobs, like businesses are created out of cultural development and individual people sharing ideas with other people and creating opportunities. Consumer demand creates markets so in actual fact economic prosperity is actually created out of cultural development because this is where opportunities are created for businesses and jobs, and these businesses and jobs are sustained by consumer demand and people being in a position to purchase goods and services. Cultural development is therefore a motivating force for industry and trade. Where these principles are not followed culture goes into decline and so too does society, the economy and everything else.
Austerity politics is the replacement of rule of law and social justice with predatory capitalism in a system where those who have the most money win. This is the current system which is predominant in Britain, where jobs, services and everything is either cut or privatized for corporate profit and economic growth and wealth is transferred by force from the population to the corporations. Social cleansing is part of this culture and is essentially the taking of land and property by force, dispossessing people and destroying local communities, for the sake of corporate profit.
He who has the most money and assets wins
Social cleansing has only one rule - those who have the most money and assets win and have unrestricted access to land and property in a community. Everything else is available to them. Irrespective of whether the land or property is used for residential purposes, community purposes or for business, that property and land can be taken, local amenities can be cut or stripped and taken away from local people and relocated to more wealthy, gated communities.
Restructuring communities according to economic value.
Social cleansing appears to be based on some sort of system of placing a current economic value on both property and people and attempting to create new communities where both property and people have similar economic value. This current economic value is based on someone's current earnings and income level, it does not take into account any humanitarian value, nor does it take into account anyone's previous income or earnings or their previous lifestyle.
The provision of local amenities, public services and shops appear to be based on this perceived current economic value for a community.
Affordable housing is housing designated to people of lesser economic value which is generally considered cheaper, where cheaper building materials are used with less health and safety regulations being observed, less access to public services and local amenities, and in communities with people who have higher current economic value, restricted access to facilities and even separate entrances to blocks of flats.
Some communities allow for higher percentages of affordable housing than other communities - these figures are managed between local authorities and property developers.
Social cleansing is the forced relocation of people to communities appropriate to their current economic value and appears to be something developed as part of sustainability and Agenda 21 objectives.
Social cleansing is an abdication of social responsibility and rather than enforce social order and structure further exacerbates cultural decline and social division.