Jeremy Corbyn's time is up
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
Thats not true and its irrelevant anyway because it doesn't mean that what I said about the Labour Party maintaining the dominance of capital is untrue. Plus the NHS has never been socialist anyway.
The NHS was all based on the wartime Beveridge Report. This was partly aimed at keeping workers quiet in the hope of avoiding upheaval after the war. It was also partly aimed at ensuring a healthier and more compliant workforce that would produce more profits for the bosses. In any case Beveridge, the great architect of the NHS, was a member of the Liberal party and his report had the broad agreement of all the main political parties. Any argument was over points of policy, not the policy itself.
What was Labour's record on the NHS in this government? They passed a law in 1949 allowing for prescription charges and in 1951 introduced charges on glasses and false teeth.
Last edited:
teqniq
DisMembered
I think you'll find that was down to Aneurin Bevan who served in the Atlee government actually:
en.wikipedia.org
Aneurin Bevan - Wikipedia
I disagree and it doesn't really matter anyway because Bevan was not a socialist but a state capitalist and the NHS was created and run for the interests and benefit of capitalism and not the working class and I have just explained that.i think you'll find that was down to Aneurin Bevan actually:
Aneurin Bevan - Wikipedia
teqniq
DisMembered
Citing absolutely no sources in your explaining. Would you care to provide some?
Labouring in Vain: A Critical History of the Labour Party, published by the Subversion group in the early 1990's. I know my history and I'm not the only one..
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
1 blog post on libcom.org is not the end of the story.
I'm sure Serge Forwad can confirm its not just a blog post on Libcom but there you go.
teqniq
DisMembered
Oh my.
Usually it's good form to quote your sources
Here it is anyway:
Labouring in vain: a critical history of the Labour Party
An excellent of the foundation and development of the Labour Party and how it has acted in power and in opposition, effectively countering many of the claims for Labour having once been a working class, socialist party. First published in the early 1990s.
E2a this is just one version of history. I quite freely admit that the Labour party has been found wanting on more than one occasion but it is particularly to be found wanting right now.
Last edited:
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Also a reddit thread and a youtube video I see!
It was originally a pamphlet.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
The Beveridge report recommended an insurance based system. A conservative or liberal government would have followed those recommendations. Like it or not the reason we ended up with the NHS and welfare state in their solidaristic form is a direct result of there being a Labour government. That's completely uncontroversial and if you're going to disagree I want to see your workings. You should probably read some history first, it's actually really interesting.
And I generally agree with you about the limitations of electoral politics and labours role in managing and sustaining capitalist class relations. I just don't preach about it like some breathless student who's just read the anarchist FAQ.
For fucks sake, you're talking to a bunch of cynical middle aged activists, you're not in the 6th form common room now. We know the arguments, some of us agree and some don't. Stop trying to fucking educate us and educate yourself.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I disagree
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep, we'd have had something like what most of the rest of Europe has. We'd have had universal coverage but not free at the point of access - that was down to Labour. The specific nature of the welfare state that they established, with a fair bit of universalism, was also down to them and differed from what the rest of Europe came up with in important ways.
Attlee's govt was awful in many ways, including the way it handled the empire and foreign policy generally, and yes, the way it extended austerity. But its achievements are not something that you can just explain away as something that Churchill would have done if he'd won in 45. He wouldn't have.
Also, you have to remember the limits on power that existed then. The House of Commons voted to end capital punishment during the Attlee govt. The Lords mobilised to block it. You can disagree with the idea of working within the system and accepting that there will be these kinds of limitations, but the idea that Attleeism served capital is quite a stretch.
Attlee's govt was awful in many ways, including the way it handled the empire and foreign policy generally, and yes, the way it extended austerity. But its achievements are not something that you can just explain away as something that Churchill would have done if he'd won in 45. He wouldn't have.
Also, you have to remember the limits on power that existed then. The House of Commons voted to end capital punishment during the Attlee govt. The Lords mobilised to block it. You can disagree with the idea of working within the system and accepting that there will be these kinds of limitations, but the idea that Attleeism served capital is quite a stretch.
Leighsw2
strictly off the record
There are no second preference votes. The Tories abolished them for mayoral and PCC elections. I reckon he'd stand a good chance as a consequence!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's appalling stamping over democracy. Vandalism. I hadn't even realised they'd done it.
I'm not so sure about how that would be good for Corbyn, though. I think the old system of second preference was better for him. Fucking tory could sneak in with a third of the vote.
wtaf switching stuff to FPTP?? It's only there where it is currently out of inertia. It is the very worst system possible.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It means people will have to vote tactically. IE it is undemocratic. IE it benefits the fucking tories.
Thats OK coz I already explained above why it doesn't matter
Maybe not absolutely everything in that pamphlet has stood the test of time (though its main message definitely and clearly has in my view) and maybe we know a bit more now, but I'd say that any honest person could see how the Atlee government clearly did serve capital, its blatant really and some of it you admitted it yourself - without realising it by the look of it. I find it ridiculous to claim otherwise frankly, as sacreligious as that is to some people.
Last edited:
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
You've not explained anything but that's fine we can move onThats OK coz I already explained above why it doesn't matter
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Any government under capitalism serves capital. It's what it's there for.
The Atlee government played a vital role in maintaining and revitalising British capitalism post war. The nationalisations, NHS and broader welfare state provided the institutional framework for 'embedded liberalism' which in turn provided the necessary conditions for the long post war boom, arguably the high point of capitalism.
None of this means that the reforms didn't benefit the working class because they did. That's one of the ways it served capitalism - it offered it legitimacy in the eyes of working people.
The Atlee government played a vital role in maintaining and revitalising British capitalism post war. The nationalisations, NHS and broader welfare state provided the institutional framework for 'embedded liberalism' which in turn provided the necessary conditions for the long post war boom, arguably the high point of capitalism.
None of this means that the reforms didn't benefit the working class because they did. That's one of the ways it served capitalism - it offered it legitimacy in the eyes of working people.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Because tories.
Of course it could cost them in London if an independent gammon candidate stands. Particularly if they run an organ bank like Shaun Bailey again.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
All reads like a copy of Socialist Standard from year dot. Not saying there isn't an element of truth to it but dismissing one of the positive benefits of labour rule as being merely in the bosses interest does raise the question as to why every other country in the world didn't adopt universal healthcare, and why whenever a right wing coup occurs somewhere in the world some form of the NHS isn't imposed?
The NHS was only allowed because it was good for capitalism, for the bourgeoisie. It was only 'good' for the working class for the reasons I posted above (and I believe that its probably not the optimum type of healthcare system, as contraversial as that is - there have always been deep seated problems with the NHS - not that any kind of privatised system is preferable). But thngs were still generally shit for the working class under the Atlee govt (30% rise in the cost of living, having to show restraint etc), which is among the many reaons the working classw voted Tory in 1951 for a Tory rule of 13 years and booted out the Atlee govt.
After Atlee the next Labour govt was the Wilson govt - who also attacked working class living standards and came with other serious problems. Life was still shit for the working class.
Last edited:
I think certain people on here are just too blinkered by their 'socialist' beliefs to seriously engage, to be honest about things and understand whats being said, so it appears theres really little point in continuing this.
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
I think this is the important discussion to be had here. Imo, the meme template is highly adaptable, so yer man in the middle may well be cast in the role of a sfw in some versions, but can equally well be presented in an entirely neutral or indeed positive light in others.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
No, I think it's well worth discussing the post-war concessions made by capital and the reasons for them; it's a fascinating period of economic-social history and is very obviously contested territory. No need to pack up just because there's a diversity of views.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
What are you trying to say here? Who are you even arguing with now? Just have a rest and leave the internet alone for a while, you're stinking up just about every decent thread with this shit and it's fucking tedious.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Similar threads
