I think that pretty much all of the immediate post-war concessions relating to the foundation of the welfare state had been wrung from the political wing of capital during the conflict itself. Churchill's coalition administration was essentially cemented on the basis of commitments to welfare; the need to retain consent and participation from the working class/left was essential to the war effort. Added to which the establishment was always well aware of a global picture in which really existing system competition existed as an existential threat.
Problem with characterising this simply as acting in the interests of capital in the way suggested, though, is that it minimises the way in which it was bottom-up demands that produced the changes. Sure, the established order was also acting to preserve itself by making those concessions, but the concessions weren't handed down from on high out of benevolence. And the idea that eg Bevan was somehow a stooge of capital, doing its bidding, is just way off the mark. The nationalisation of the health service was resisted from many quarters. It was an achievement to get it through. The Tories voted against it.
Working class voters never voted Tory in great numbers. When the Tories got back in initially they still got less votes than Labour. You're forgetting that the middle classes vote as well.
This simply isn't true. See my link above.
I'm reluctant to say so but I think he's right on this one. Nothing at the state level is allowed under capitalism unless it's good for capitalism (or at least a decent section of capital believes it so)
It was good for capitalism to establish some kind of universal health care system, but not necessarily in the form of a fully nationalised system paid for out of general taxation and free at the point of use. And such a system was resisted.
I think that's a fair point, but important to remember that the Beveridge report was published as early in the war as 1942. This undeniably helped Churchill to maintain the coalition throughout the war years and, although his 1943 "After the War" speech came with the usual Tory caveats of 'no magic money tree' he did commit to implementing the pillars of Beveridge.
He called the NHS a victory for fascism. He got the tories to vote against its creation thirty odd times. The tories were committed to a health service that covered the nation, but that’s not the NHS. They wanted localised boards and care (this benefitting their wealthier voters more) and wanted a financial contribution from users.
Yes, but I would still suggest that the right party of capital knew that the broad concessions of the promise of a welfare state were integral to maintaining consent for the war effort and resisting revolutionary pressures in its aftermath.
Of course it did. But that doesn't mean things would have gone just the same if Churchill had won in 1945, and an NHS free at the point of use is one of many examples of that.
That doesn't sound right, think Labour needed the war to get bulk of wc vote, will have to check figures but thought Tories got substantial wc vote right back from when it was them vs liberals. Hence 45 as a notable watershed.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (as if you need telling) but the Tories have always got in because of middle class votes. Even if a good section of the wc vote Tory, most don't. They either vote Labour or some other party or don't vote at all.
Oh yeah, wasn't disputing mc component, just have dim memory of a graph showing someone like disraeli getting sixty percent of wc votes after they extended the male franchise. Different game back then of course.
That extension of the wc vote still didn't encompass most wc men, let alone women.
Either way, the original contention was that Attlee was kicked out in 51 as some kind of expression of widespread dissatisfaction with his government and what it had done. Reality is a bit different. They were reelected in 1950 with a small majority then called an election a year later (stupidly and unnecessarily from what I can tell), which they lost despite winning more votes than the tories. In terms of vote share, Labour got nearly 49% of the vote in 51, its highest vote share in the three elections of 45, 50 and 51. But the liberal vote collapsed, going over to the tories, and because of our electoral system, the tories won a majority with 250,000 fewer votes than Labour.
True, but then again I don't really think that claim was being made, was it?
I think it was partly pressure from below (or the threat thereof) but also a need to compete with the likes of Russia and other emergent economies. Pressures within the empire meant that was no longer an easy source of superprofits so enduring workers were fit and well educated became essential.
I can't speak for AmateurAgitator, but a claim along those lines appeared to be being made. But if things were clearly different under an Attlee govt as opposed to a hypothetical Churchill one, which they were, as the tory votes against the NHS show, then the claim evaporates.
Yes, and I sometimes think that the problem we have is attempting to imagine the simplicity of capital's view of the world - every single decision made on the basis of what will ensure the continuing return to capital and defend the wealth already extracted. Have already been discussing elsewhere (somewhere) this week about the fascinating period when nascent neoliberal capital realised that globalised coprorations' capacity to de-couple their returns from national conditions led to the rise of the consolidator state.
That's where you've lost me; comparing actuality with an hypothetical.
It's not really a hypothetical, though, or at least it isn't a hugely speculative one. It's comparing what Labour did with what the Tories proposed at the same time. We don't have to guess what the tories wanted to do. It's there in the historical record.
Fair point, but it's obviously hypothetical to the specific conditions and context. Who knows what forces and pressures might have come to bear upon the post-war Tory administration of your parallel universe?
After all, not many governments get to enact their manifesto promises unaltered by circumstances.
Ok, ignore the parallel universe. Look at the votes in the House of Commons and the legal challenges to the NHS that the Tories tried to mount. They opposed the NHS. They didn't oppose all forms of health coverage, but they did very firmly oppose this particular form.Fair point, but it's obviously hypothetical to the specific conditions and context. Who knows what forces and pressures might have come to bear upon the post-war Tory administration of your parallel universe?
Surely it's something of a truism that any of capital's post-war concessions would, by definition, benefit our class? It's not "counter-revolutionary" to believe that those changes in the political-economy were altruistic, just somewhat naive.
What definition of mc are you using for this argument?
I think it's also a mistake to talk of capital in the singular, as if it were a unified thing. Sure there's probably a brainy Marx quote about the relationship of the state to capital here that I can't think of right now.
