Anyone who has read Frederick Engelsâ The Condition of the Working Class in England will long remember much of what it says. Page after page describes the lives of workers in the big cities in 1844. Two boys in London, for instance, were arrested for stealing a half-cooked calfâs foot from a shop: the magistrate discovered that their mother had sold or pawned all the familyâs possessions in order to buy food. Many others had little or no furniture and slept on the ïŹoor, covered in rags.
The accounts of slum dwellings are sometimes hard to believe. Perhaps the worst was the Little Ireland area of Manchester, where four thousand people lived in overcrowded, unsanitary, decrepit cottages and the ïŹlth and stench were all but intolerable. Similar conditions were found in Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Glasgow, and so on. It is difïŹcult to disagree with Engelsâ statement that working people were enduring âa condition unworthy of human beingsâ.
In 1971 Robert Roberts published The Classic Slum, an account of his upbringing in Salford in the early twentieth century. In 1910, he records, his mother cajoled their landlord into installing a cast-iron bath (which meant an extra shilling a week in rent). Several neighbours came to look at the bath, its taps and so on: they had never used or even seen a bath before. Workers scrimped and saved to afford a rag rug and a couple of framed pictures, let alone âluxuriesâ such as a watch or a bike. Getting by from week to week often relied on pawning their Sunday best clothes. In looking back at his childhood and the lives of his neighbours, Roberts refers to âthe spoiled complexions, the mouths full of rotten teeth, the varicose veins, the ignorance of simple hygiene, the intelligence stiïŹed and the endless battle merely to keep cleanâ. Such were the good old days amid the ïŹourishing of the British Empire.
And is it all just in the Victorian and Edwardian past? While homelessness and bad housing still exist, can it be said that slums â crowded, ïŹlthy, nasty â are no longer the lot of most? Mike Davisâ book Planet of Slums describes a world where one in three of the urban population, mainly in the âThird Worldâ, live in slums. It goes without saying that slum life is bad for your health and life expectancy. Landslides, ïŹoods and earthquakes threaten those who live in shoddy housing in marginal areas. Fires, whether accidental or deliberately set by property developers, can spread so fast that nobody can escape.
Sanitation is another disaster area, with the situation having changed little since Engelsâ day. Sewage systems are virtually non-existent in many cities: Davis cites one slum area in Nairobi which had just ten working toilets for forty thousand people. But there is hope for the future, as in some places pay toilets have become a hugely proïŹtable growth industry â though of course theyâre not so convenient for the millions who cannot afford to use them.
ProïŹting from poverty is widespread. Such is the population density in slums that landlords make plenty of money from even the poorest neighbourhoods. Many cities in Asia and Africa are effectively owned by small numbers of landlords, and those who rent from them are the most powerless of all. Squatting becomes increasingly difïŹcult as vacant land is developed and forcible evictions increase: over three-quarters of a million evicted in Harare in 2005, for instance. Slum-dwellers often have little choice but to ïŹght back by building their own homes or resorting to food riots.
Cities like Manchester in Engelsâ time were essentially the result of the Industrial Revolution. But in contrast, Davis argues, the growth of megacities and hence of megaslums over the last twenty years or so has been marked by deindustrialisation, as factories have closed in places such as Mumbai, Johannesburg and Sao Paulo. Like Mexico City and Jakarta, these have enormous populations but far smaller economies. The new slums are also mostly on the peripheries of the cities rather than in inner-city areas, and so usually lack any half-way decent transport infrastructure.
The ïŹnancial institutions of global capitalism have played a major role in maintaining the regime of slum living. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have helped ïŹnance slum âimprovementâ programmes in city after city, via privatisation of housing supply and the ending of food subsidies. The result has not been to eradicate slums, of course, but to spread âinformalâ employment which lacks contracts and bargaining power. Along with this has come an expansion of child labour along the lines recorded by Engels and Dickens.
The development of capitalism, then, has not done away with the horrors of slums. Inadequate housing continues to exist in âadvancedâ countries, with an estimated 100,000 homeless people in Los Angeles and one child in seven growing up in bad housing in the UK. Perhaps two million American families will lose their homes over the next couple of years, as the sub-prime crisis bites. Worldwide, as many as one billion people live â or do their best to create some kind of life â in slums. While the rich reside in their gated communities, the poor dwell in conditions of scarcely-imaginable squalor, marginalised in terms of work and family life. A Socialist society would face a tremendous task in replacing slums with decent housing, but that is a problem that capitalism can never tackle let alone solve.
PAUL BENNETT
Related posts:
